U.S. Must Move to Full Missile Defense

Human Events Online ^ | October 9, 2006 | Frank Gaffney, Jr.

[Paul Ross]

U.S. Must Move to Full Missile Defense

by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Posted Oct 09, 2006

This week, HUMAN EVENTS begins an occasional series of exclusive articles in which leading conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration explain how they believe the principles of Reagan conservatism ought to be applied today and in the coming years. This week, Frank Gaffney, who served in Reagan’s Defense Department, addresses the issue of missile defense.

---

Ronald Reagan is now esteemed around the world for having the vision and the leadership skills to bring about the demise of the Soviet Union. He is less widely appreciated for his understanding of the sorts of threats likely to eventuate in a post-Soviet era—and his efforts to defend America against them.

Certainly, few, if any, of those who heard him launch his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) on March 13, 1983, realized that he saw the need to develop and deploy a new family of weapon systems not just to redress a strategically ill-advised and morally reprehensible situation—the posture adopted 11 years before, allowing absolute American vulnerability to attack by the USSR’s vast arsenal of ballistic missiles. President Reagan intuitively understood that, in the future, our vulnerability to such missile attacks could be exploited by others, as well—whether to blackmail or to inflict horrific devastation on this country.

At the time, it took no small amount of courage to gainsay the conventional wisdom that deemed the so-called U.S.-Soviet suicide pact known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as the ideal state of affairs. Recall that the left at home and abroad was already in a fever pitch over what they pilloried as Reagan’s pell-mell rush to Armageddon. They were demonstrating in the streets by the millions in opposition to his conventional force build-up, his strategic modernization program and his strong support for the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe.

In fact, today it is little remembered that the lengthy, prime-time Oval Office speech that launched the SDI program was almost entirely devoted—apart from the last paragraph or two that addressed the need for defenses to render “ballistic missiles impotent and obsolete”—to explaining the requirement for us to field just such a new intercontinental missile, the MX.

To Reagan’s many critics, it was bad enough that the Strangelovian “cowboy” in the White House was determined to field a new generation of nuclear arms. By so doing, according to the self-appointed arbiters of such things, such as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, he had moved the hands of the “Doomsday Clock” perilously close to midnight.

The thought that the President might try to supplant the sacrosanct MAD doctrine with a posture in which strategic missile defenses contributed to stability sent the left into paroxysms of vitriolic contempt and fervid opposition. Once the Soviets’ determined effort to derail the INF deployments came to naught, Moscow loosed its vast disinformation, propaganda and political influence resources full bore in support of the domestic and international campaign to thwart SDI.

President Reagan’s determination to defend America against then-present and future missile-wielding enemies was as firm as his conviction that technology could be brought to bear to achieve that objective. With the steadfast support of key members of his administration—notably, National Security Advisor William Clark, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, Counselor Edwin Meese, CIA Director William Casey and UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick—Reagan was undeterred by efforts to: caricature SDI as a loopy and infeasible “Star Wars” fantasy; eviscerate its funding; and compel him to give up the program in U.S.-Soviet negotiations.

Unfortunately, the Reagan years in office passed without the promise of missile defense’s being realized. No new strategic anti-missile systems were deployed. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty—which purported to codify Mutual Assured Destruction by banning effective missile defenses—remained “the supreme law of the land.”

Path-Breaking Work

Still, the massive research and development program launched in March 1983 made it possible, albeit years later, for America to begin to be defended against ballistic missiles. In fact, virtually every anti-missile technology and system that was pursued by subsequent U.S. administrations was made possible by the path-breaking work undertaken under President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.

It took the better part of two additional decades, many billions of dollars and another act of considerable presidential courage to translate the Reagan SDI legacy into actual deployed missile defenses. When Ronald Reagan’s strategy for “rolling back” and ultimately destroying the Soviet Union—in which the Strategic Defense Initiative played a featured part by threatening to end-run and invalidate the huge investment the Kremlin had made in its missile arsenal—bore fruit during George H.W. Bush’s time in office, the missile defense program was substantially redesigned and scaled back.

Under Bush 41, the threat of a massive, devastating Soviet attack potentially involving the nearly simultaneous “lay-down” of thousands of warheads gave way to concerns about accidental and smaller-scale threats. As a result, Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) became the objective, with attendant reductions in the number and complexity of defensive systems required. While the stage was set for a relatively rapid layered deployment of space-, ground- and sea-based anti-missile capabilities, none were actually put into place before Bush left office.

Unfortunately, the eight years of the Clinton presidency were even more frustrating for advocates of the Reagan vision of a defended America. Not only did Bill Clinton and his subordinates adamantly oppose any U.S. departure from the ABM Treaty, so as to deploy effective anti-missile systems, they actually strove to strengthen the treaty’s impediments to such defenses by negotiating further prohibitions with the Russians. GPALS was terminated. The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization was downgraded to a less-aggressive Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin crowed he was “taking the stars out of ‘Star Wars’” by virtually eliminating any missile defenses in space or other activities that would be inconsistent with the ABM Treaty.

During these years, though, Republicans in Congress worked assiduously to keep the Reagan missile-defense legacy alive. In 1994, they incorporated into the Contract with America a commitment “to develop for deployment at the earliest possible date a cost-effective, operational anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect the U.S. against ballistic missile threats (e.g., accidental or unauthorized launches or Third World attacks).” When that contract resulted in GOP control of the House of Representatives, leading congressional figures such as Representatives Bob Livingston (R.-La.) and Curt Weldon (R.-Pa.) worked to translate this commitment into reality by adding money for programs starved for funds and pushing legislation such as the 1999 Missile Defense Act that made it U.S. policy to deploy a national missile defense.

It fell, however, to President George W. Bush to implement that policy. To his great credit, in December 2001, Bush lived up to his campaign promise to withdraw from the obsolete Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and set in train the deployment of layered missile defenses, starting with a limited number of ground-based interceptors in Alaska linked to an array of sensors and command-and-control systems.

Time to Fulfill the Vision

Thanks to this deployment, the United States no longer is in the position of utter vulnerability to missile attack that Ronald Reagan recognized was unacceptable during the Cold War and would be intolerable in the post-Soviet era. Still, as an outstanding new report by the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the 21st Century makes clear, we continue to lack the defenses necessitated by the current proliferation of missile threats and enemies who may wish to use them against us.

The time has come to fulfill President Reagan’s vision by accelerating and greatly increasing the number and capabilities of missile defenses deployed aboard Navy vessels equipped with the Aegis fleet air defense system. These offer our best near-term hope for being able to defeat seaborne ballistic missile attacks. Then at the earliest possible moment, as Reagan anticipated, missile defenses must be fielded in space, where they can provide truly global protection for this country and for its forces, friends and allies overseas.

[Paul Ross]

It's a Time to Choose....yet again!

[gotribe]

Why spend trillions on a missile defense when a missile or two properly place could solve all the problems.

[TheCrusader]

"Why spend trillions on a missile defense when a missile or two properly place could solve all the problems."

Honestly, I was just thinking the same thing while reading this article. My feeling though, is that there exists no man in America today who would ever use a nuke in a 'first strike' situation. I say this because there are so very few men left. Political correctness has neutered them all.

[Carry_Okie]

What good does missile defense do against a nuke in a container, on a bulk loader, in a speedboat, or on a truck crossing from the Arizona desert?

It's easier to take out the source of fissile material.

[familyop]

gotribe wrote:
"Why spend trillions on a missile defense when a missile or two properly place could solve all the problems."

It would take many thousands of missiles with nuclear warheads to exterminate all potential enemies who will have nukes now or in the near future. One or two won't do as much damage as Lefty claims.

You're welcome to lobby our Congress to put that money saving idea to work, though.

Carry_Okie wrote:
"What good does missile defense do against a nuke in a container, on a bulk loader, in a speedboat, or on a truck crossing from the Arizona desert?
It's easier to take out the source of fissile material."

Ah..."the source of fissile material"--our earth! That would be the whole planet: the Marvin-the-Martian method. Call your congressmen, and go for it.

I'm beginning to derive a little sardonic enjoyment from thinking about the probable, near-future outcome of often stated preferences for anti-defense policies, though. Some of us survive better in regimented/seclusive lifestyles than others (we who appreciate freedom enough to have given up much of our time and freedom). Rustic individuals with their shootin' irons won't do so well against disciplined enemy units.

[Carry_Okie]

Ah..."the source of fissile material"--our earth!

No, that would be two reactors in North Korea.

[Carry_Okie]

fis-sile /f'səl/ –adjective

1. capable of being split or divided; cleavable.
2. Physics. a. fissionable.
b. (of a nuclide) capable of undergoing fission induced by low-energy neutrons, as uranium 233 and 235.

[OPS4]

What you call a U.S. Missile taking out the main militray HQ in North Korea?

A good start.
ops4

[Carry_Okie]

What you call a U.S. Missile taking out the main militray HQ in North Korea?

Militarily, yes, politically, no. NK was allowed to build those reactors on the stipulation that they were to be used for peaceful purposes. That agreement has been violated. We now have justification to remove them.

[Bernard]

My feeling though, is that there exists no man in America today who would ever use a nuke in a 'first strike' situation

Say hello to President Hillary Clinton. Raises the stakes in 2008, doesn't it?

[Paul Ross]

No, that would be two reactors in North Korea.

Wrong.

You're forgetting, not just Iran, Venezuela (Chavez has extreme Communist Empire ambitions as well and wishes to nuclearize just as Iran is), Pakistan (constantly teetering on becoming Jihadistan with one well-placed bullet) etc...and the primary puppet-masters behind all this: The neo-soviet Russian Federation of Putin and the Chi-Comms.

The problem is far vaster and more treacherous than you are surmising. The Russian leadership and Chinese leadership truly intend, not just wish for, the destruction of the U.S. as a power of any kind. They truly are working extremely hard towards that end. And they will use their entire arsenals when they feel they can get away with it.

Notice that during all this...W is racing to unilaterally disarm our strategic forces. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

Meanwhile, the Russians aren't doing squat to disarm. Instead they are busily beavering away at a whole slew of new strategic weapons...from ICBMs, SLBMs, Naval technology, Air Superiority aircraft and missiles...as are the Chi-Comms. All awaiting the day when the tables have finally turned because of the smug hubris of the West's ongoing Defense Holiday.

[Paul Ross]

Why spend trillions on a missile defense when a missile or two properly place could solve all the problems.

First, it isn't trillions. That's STANDARD LEFT-WING PROPAGANDA. Stop repeating it if you purport to be conservative. Thousands of Brilliant Pebble launchers could have been orbitally deployed and operated for around $20 billion more than 17 years ago. The existing Aegis cruisers could be converted over to carrying the SM-3s with an improved upper stage (SM-3 Flight IIa) for less than a couple billion. 22 additional dedicated Aegis NMD missile defense cruisers could be put on order for around 10 billion. A network of PAC-3s around all the major U.S. cities and coastal U.S. could be accomplished for around $15 billion...dealing with high (ship-fired intermediate ballistics) and low (cruise-missile) threats.

Second. China and Russia have mutual defense pacts to nuke whoever nukes them or their buddies. North Korea and Iran are definitely under their protections already. No ifs and no buts. Their UN campaign of political interference, with outright vetoes of sanctions makes it quite clear where the chips lay...

So what you are really up against is not just some pissant little crack-pot in Pyongang. We are looking at Moscow and Beijing. That's why nothing has been done by an Administration which won't openly admit what the problem...what reality... is. Under your approach, we are looking squarely at WW-III.

Haven't you wondered at all about W's failure to already have taken down the undeniable threats of Iran and North Korea?

[Victor]

"....Notice that during all this...W is racing to unilaterally disarm our strategic forces....."

Documents? Links to back this up....?

[Paul Ross]

What good does missile defense do against a nuke in a container, on a bulk loader, in a speedboat, or on a truck crossing from the Arizona desert?

Another long-standing left-wing shibboleth argued against doing the right thing... But at least you are apparently admitting we should be defending against them right?!??

That is not to say these "terrorist" tactics can't happen and aren't a real threat... But as a strategic threat, those approaches are clearly the lesser threat...but can be easily managed with the national will to do so. These particular threats are cureable with simple border enforcement: with beefed up border fence/guards and coast guard to deal with hostile entry issues. And as for commercial-entry subterfuge intermediate port screening of inbound traffic in offshore transhipment inspection facilities...loading all the imports onto U.S. ships (long proposed by the real security experts and logistics firms...but continuously stone-walled by the White House) ends your surmised low-tech threats. And it wouldn't cost the government any taxes on the populace as a whole. Just the import lobby.

Unfortunately...that is something this Administration has proven it doesn't want to do because of its illicit North American Union/Globalist Trade Bloc ambitions. In their perverse value system ...American national sovereignty is "outdated" and "passe".

[Paul Ross]

Documents? Links to back this up....?

Burden of proof is on you to dispute me. I have long proved these things.

[Victor]

"...Burden of proof is on you to dispute me. I have long proved these things...."

OK, Professor, start by offering up one of your "proofs"...and lay off the caffeine a little this morning, willya?

[Frapster]

I miss Mr. Reagan.

[Teacher317]

The amazing thing is that this is even a debate. How can anyone oppose a system that cannot target civilians, can only be used to destroy missiles that have already been fired as an act of aggression, and can do nothing other than increase the chances that such a missile will not kill thousands (or millions) of innocent souls?!?

[Paul Ross]

Links?

Perhaps you should like to read this:

The Dangerous Path of Nuclear Disarmament
Christopher Ruddy
Monday, Jan. 14, 2001

Incredibly, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. and the danger of an India-Pakistan nuclear war, the administration is continuing the Clinton strategic disaster of unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament.

In fact, the Bush administration is going far beyond plans by the Clinton administration to cut nuclear weapons.

While I strongly support President Bush and applaud the job he has done in the wake of 9-11, I most strongly disagree with the course he, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration are taking to unilaterally destroy our nuclear arsenal.

What are defense strategists in the Bush administration thinking?

Common sense and 40 years of Cold War experience make it clear that unilateral nuclear disarmament would put at risk every American, as well as the citizens of all democracies.

Yet unilateral nuclear disarmament is precisely the policy the U.S. government appears to be following.

During the 2000 campaign, then-Governor Bush promised unilateral nuclear arms cuts, but only in tandem with the deployment of ballistic missile defense shields. That may make sense.

But it's clear that after being elected, President Bush is seeking massive cuts of nuclear weapons.

Last year the administration called for the early destruction of America's MX "Peacekeeper" missiles.

These are the backbone of our land-based nuclear deterrent and the most modern ICBMs in our arsenal – ones built by President Reagan at great political and financial cost.

In recent proposals to Congress, the Bush administration is now calling for expediting the changeover of our ballistic missile-carrying Trident submarines into platforms only for conventional cruise missiles.

Like much else that is wrong with U.S. defense policy today, it all began under Clinton.

The idea was that with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the emergence of the U.S. as the world's sole remaining superpower, suddenly Russia and China were our friends and we no longer needed a massive nuclear arsenal, which at the height of the Cold War included over 25,000 tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

Based on that theory, Bill Clinton reduced our tactical nuclear arsenal by over 90 percent and banned the creation of any new nuclear weapons. Almost the entire tactical nuclear arsenal was destroyed during the Clinton years.

While unilateral nuclear disarmament might make sense in a truly peaceful world, it is extremely dangerous in the face of the multiple threats the U.S. now faces.

Russia, for instance, continues to build ICBMs, notably their state-of-the-art TOPOL-M, which is far superior to any weapon in our arsenal.

Despite the Soviet 'collapse', the Russians have maintained approximately 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads.

And there is no telling how many of the smaller, tactical nuclear weapons they have. During the Reagan years, it was believed Russia had stockpiled some 50,000 such weapons.

A few years ago, a Reuters report cited French intelligence as saying Russia still maintained 20,000 tactical nuclear weapons.

If true, this gives Russia today a tremendous advantage over us, and makes that country the greatest nuclear power on Earth.

Even if Russia was not a worry, there is China.

Communist China's nuclear arsenal will likely grow massively in the next few years, with more than 250 intercontinental nuclear missiles and new nuclear missile submarines – no doubt aimed at America.

China has already threatened to launch these weapons at the U.S. if we interfere with its plans to reassert control over Taiwan.

Additionally, there is the growing Muslim terrorist threat to America and the increasing likelihood that Arab terrorist states like Iraq, Iran and Syria will soon have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles if they don't have them already.

As America seeks unilateral reductions, at least a dozen nations now have nuclear weapons – including India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and Israel. Up to twenty other nations could have nuclear weapons in the next decade.

For 40 years – from the inception of the Cold War with Russia after World War II until the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1990 – U.S. nuclear deterrence has kept the peace.

Now our nuclear arsenal has been cut back to the point that if Russia launched a first strike at the U.S., most of our nuclear forces would be devastated, leaving just a handful of Trident submarines to retaliate with.

That's enough to give any concerned America nightmares, and reason enough to end the deconstruction of our nuclear arsenal.

A peaceful world in which all men are brothers is a wonderful dream, but it simply isn't reality no matter how much the liberal establishment says it is.

In the real world of multiple threats to our nation and nuclear superpowers like Russia, which have thousands of nuclear weapons targeting all of our cities, we need to maintain the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal and end the madness of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

[Paul Ross]

I miss Mr. Reagan.

Yes. And Caspar Weinberger too. They had a lot of solid, common sense apparently missing in the Capitol today...

[Paul Ross]

The amazing thing is that this is even a debate. How can anyone oppose a system that cannot target civilians, can only be used to destroy missiles that have already been fired as an act of aggression, and can do nothing other than increase the chances that such a missile will not kill thousands (or millions) of innocent souls?!?

BUMP! You hit the nail on the head. This should be already a done deal. Not open for debate.

And soon, due to the failure to deploy it may never get deployed with any numbers, the RATs may unfortunately regain Congress and then have their way with the Defense budget.

Guess what gets axed first....

[Paul Ross]

Ping.

[Victor]

Where to start.....

This article references the 9/11 attacks but was written in January of 2001?

That fact notwidthstanding...and I am a fan of Christopher Ruddy....the assertion that we have depleted most of our nuke arsenal deserves a little discussion. First of all, contrary to what this article states, the United States has not reduced our nuclear arsenal to a "handful" of Trident subs. The Ohio Class fleet is substantial; one sub alone carries 24 MIRV platform missiles that can all hit multiple targets. It's just a lot more efficient platform than, say, land-based ICBMs or heavy bomber delivery.

Ohio Class subs carry bettter than 50% of our nuclear arsenal. Plus, it's much harder to detect a sub than a bomber.

And there is no movement to convert the boomers into conventional cruise missile carriers. As I understand it, 14 of the subs carry nukes; the other few carry conventional weapons...if you consider 154 cruise missiles carrying high explosives "conventional".

So, I'm not so sure that our capability has been reduced. I think it's probably been re-directed into more efficient platforms that make more sense from a strategic and combat point of view. The United States Navy has more firepower than any other entity on Earth...and I'm sure glad they're on OUR side.

[Paul Ross]

OK, ...and lay off the caffeine a little this morning, willya?

Haven't even had my first cup when I apparently already got your goat...!

Actually I tend to get a bit more congenial after a cup or two of my favorite java...

But no amount of coffee can assauge my concerns that we are running out of time...and options... strategically while the Capitol dithers.

[Victor]

"...Haven't even had my first cup when I apparently already got your goat...!..."

Now I'm laughing...but you're right that these are perilous times we're living in. The next year or so are going to be milestones in human history.

[Carry_Okie]

Wrong.

Changing context doesn't cut it. I was talking about North Korea. Last time I checked, Hugo Chavez didn't have the capability of making enriched uranium in North Korea.

The problem is far vaster and more treacherous than you are surmising.

No, it's not. I was talking about North Korea, not Venezuela, or Brazil (which you don't mention and has also expressed nuclear ambition), or Mexico (which has closet deals with the Chinese), or Panama...

I not saying we don't need missile defense and never did. I am saying that relying upon missile defense to preclude nuclear attack is foolish. It won't be sufficient and we'd best do the easy stuff or we won't have time for it to become effective. Get a grip.

[Carry_Okie]

Another long-standing left-wing shibboleth argued against doing the right thing... But at least you are apparently admitting we should be defending against them right?!??

You have really blown it here. Smuggling a nuke into the country is a real threat, NOW. Nuclear armed missiles from rogue states is a threat SOON. Missile defense isn't completely effective NOW. They had better be SOON. In the mean time, we had best forcibly destroy North Korea's ability to produce fissile material NOW, because they will otherwise have more SOON. To talk about missile defense as the only way to deal with nuclear weapons while reactors are still easy targets (and they won't be for long) is stupid. Many other means of accurate delivery exist.

Got it?

Before you get so bloody jumpy and make a fool of yourself, try making sure you understand what the person means.

[Paul Ross]

written in January of 2001?

The typo (original to the source) of the post should have said 2002.

the assertion that we have depleted most of our nuke arsenal deserves a little discussion. First of all, contrary to what this article states, the United States has not reduced our nuclear arsenal to a "handful" of Trident subs.

It presupposes the quite possible eventuality of the preemption of the other two legs of the triad in an effective sneak attack...due to the failure to improve their survivability, in fact, as pointed out, we have gone the other way...eliminating altogether the potentially mobile Peacekeeper (MX= Mobile Experimental). The Russians have long developed and deployed reloadable silos for their missile force...inclusive of the SS-18s more than twice as "hard" as ours. They aren't retiring the SS-18s as we wished. And the Russians and Chinese new ICBMs are all mobile. The Topol M. The DF-31. The DF-41, and so on.

Meanwhile back at the ranch. That leaves the U.S. Trident as the sole "survivable" retaliatory element. As for the Trident...we are supposed to have a triad...not one leg alone. And the Trident has indeed seen a reduction of four subs, with W openly contemplating still more. The number at sea is drastically curtailed. The option of the sub commanders to launch on their own if the U.S. was nuked...and all the Command Centers and links were destroyed in a sneak attack...is still gone. [Meaning they could possibly NEVER be able to launch their missiles because all the the codes went up with the first attack. ]

Clinton ordered the removal of the launch codes from the Trident Sub commanders back in 1996. Bush has never countermanded that to my knowledge. Nor has he restored the remaining bomber force to alert status. Nor has he restored Operation Looking Glass to alert status.

Bush has de-nuclearized all the B-1Bs. Moved them all to one base. And decommissioned half of them.

And there is no movement to convert the boomers into conventional cruise missile carriers.

Wrong. Four down. From 18 to 14. And the Brookings Institute adviser who apparently has the ear of the President is openly urging:

Cut U.S. nuclear forces even more quickly and deeply than envisioned by the Moscow Treaty, allowing retirement of some Minuteman missiles and more conversions of Trident subs to conventional missions. In addition, the Pentagon should scale back the cost of missile defense programs to $6 billion a year rather than $10 billion.

This is what we are up against.

As for your final point, it needs to be explicitly questioned as to its relevance in a first-strike scenario:

The United States Navy has more firepower than any other entity on Earth...and I'm sure glad they're on OUR side.

We all should hope they are on our side. That is besides the point. The issue is their survivability. The Lower the numbers...the better the odds for the attackers success...or of our losing all of that wonderful "firepower" before we know enough to scramble them to avoid the Pearl Harbor scenario. And guess what the Brookings Institute is urging:

The Navy should increasingly "rotate crews, not ships." With this approach, already used on specialized vessels today, ships can remain overseas 18 to 24 months; crews are rotated in and out by plane, conserving the time that at present is usually wasted in transoceanic travel. As a result, the Navy could get by with 10 carriers and 10 percent to 20 percent fewer surface ships.

The White House and Rumsfeld have openly pushed in the direction of these recommendations. Bush's failure to deploy ships, while prematurely decommissioning relatively modern ships with half their useful lives left, are clearly policies alligned in that direction.

W inherited 344 ships when he took office. Now he is down to 281 ships. The White House track record on the naval budget has been frankly at odds with the realities of needs right along since it took office in 2001.

As Hermann Kahn taught us, we cannot indulge in wishful thinking. We must coldly calculate based on capabilities...and consider how the enemy thinks. Knowing what we know of the unreconstructed Soviet first-strike doctrines still adhered to in the Russian military, and their secret defense pacts with China, makes it clear that we need to circular file the strategic "defense holiday" mindset that is still prevailing in Capitol Hill...and this White House.

[Paul Ross]

You have really blown it here. Smuggling a nuke into the country is a real threat, NOW

Actually, your the one who has blown it. Because I agree that smuggled nuke is a threat..as I said But you blew off... So we should be defending against it, right?

Nonetheless, from the bigger picture, it is the lesser strategic threat.

Before you get so bloody jumpy and make a fool of yourself, try making sure you understand what the person means.

Double ditto to you too. Got it?

To talk about missile defense as the only way to deal with nuclear weapons while reactors are still easy targets (and they won't be for long) is stupid. Many other means of accurate delivery exist.

First, I don't contend missile defense is the ONLY way to "deal" with the proliferation problem. But it sure makes all the other options a lot more feasible. Especially if your little "conventional" attack on North Korea and Iran results in the Russians nuking us in complete surprise.

Missile defense isn't completely effective NOW.

Only because of negligence. Not technical incapacity. We already know that Brilliant Pebbles would have worked. Plus, we already know the Aegis SM-3 works well against short stuff. It just needs to have more range and speed. Which Xlinton sabotaged by forcing the Navy to use its scarce monies to RE-DESIGN the SM-3 to be smaller and shorter ranged. He shrank the 21-inch diameter upper stage to only 16 inches. Drastically cutting range and closing velocity (dropping the capability from ICBM capable intercept...to only at best IRBM intercept capable). Bush has refused to undo the damage Clinton did...and his Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England also cancelled the only other possible fix, in December 2001, the Navy's TBM program. He sure is keeping his promise to Putin and Deng to keep our defenses limited.

I feel so safe already.

[Paul Ross]

Changing context doesn't cut it.

I always look at the big picture, as well as the "crisis" at hand. We can't be blindered.

I was talking about North Korea.

China's Sock-Puppet.

Last time I checked, Hugo Chavez didn't have the capability of making enriched uranium in North Korea.

But he has money. And he has openly courted Iran with his boosterism of their "rights" to nuclear weapons.

And as I said before,

The problem is far vaster and more treacherous than you are surmising.

No, it's not. I was talking about North Korea, not Venezuela, or Brazil (which you don't mention and has also expressed nuclear ambition), or Mexico (which has closet deals with the Chinese), or Panama...

I agree Brazil's socialist and nuclear ambitions also bears close watching...and diversion if we can. Their current rift with Venezuela (which seized Brazilian-owned oil fields in Venezuela) should be exploited. As for Mexico...who knows just what their game really is. The ambiguity sure doesn't encourage me to trust them in the SPP, or to "push the borders out" with them. Better to just enforce our own borders. And defend them.

I not saying we don't need missile defense and never did.

I didn't say you said that. You are the one who was attacking the needs identified in the article however.

I am saying that relying upon missile defense to preclude nuclear attack is foolish.

This is not an exclusive either/or. It is both. And it is synergistic. The defense improves your other options. It makes deterrence, therefore, more credible.

It won't be sufficient and we'd best do the easy stuff or we won't have time for it to become effective.

Again. Its not exclusive, and yeah, do the "easy stuff" if it truly is "easy". Some of it may well prove not to be however, if we don't enhance our overall strategic security posture.

Get a grip.

Pot, meet kettle. ;-)

[Carry_Okie]

Actually, your the one who has blown it. Because I agree that smuggled nuke is a threat..as I said But you blew off... So we should be defending against it, right?

That was long after you'd already flown off the handle accusing me of not wanting to defend this country.

No sale.

Only because of negligence. Not technical incapacity.

There's also the mot-so-small matter of time-to-implementation, which, at this point, would be years, if not a decade. Then there's cost-effectiveness. Denying fissile material is far cheaper. It's worked for forty years. With Islamic piracy as far advanced as it's become, with as much material we have hitting our docks (particularly from Indonesia), and with our borders a seive, it is FAR more cost effective to assure that terrorists don't have fissile material than to institute border control, as much as you or I think it a necessary thing to do. Worse, in this political climate of free-traitors, just try instituting ANYTHING that inhibits imports in any way.

Missile delivery systems are getting more affordable for rogue states, but brilliant pebbles would look pretty dumb if we didn't do the easy things first.

[Paul Ross]

That was long after you'd already flown off the handle accusing me of not wanting to defend this country. No sale.

No sale right back. The Left Wing shibboleths (like the notion that the smuggled nuke precludes the sense of missile defense) so widely broadcast still need us conservatives to be especially sensitive to them. Call me touchy. But I am not going to give those a pass. So I am glad you agree that missile defense is a good idea.

There's also the mot-so-small matter of time-to-implementation, which, at this point, would be years, if not a decade.

Actually, I think a thin-screen Aegis defense, on a crash basis, could be accomplished in under a year...with all 80+ of our Aegis ships adapted to it. Brilliant Pebbles could likely be up and running in several years, also on a crash basis. Depends on how serious we are.

Then there's cost-effectiveness. Denying fissile material is far cheaper. It's worked for forty years.

Well, there's the counter examples of India and Pakistan. And now the twin-crises of Iran/NK engineered from our "buddies" Moscow and Beijing. So far there is no sign of any "multilateral" solutions. And apparently the hazards and reprecussions of a unilateral fix by us militarily has the White House behaving impotently...as if that option is really off the table. But if it were a practical option, I certainly agree we certainly should go for it. But don't hold your breath.

it is FAR more cost effective to assure that terrorists don't have fissile material than to institute border control

OH, I didn't know THAT was an either/or situation. I don't accept that as the choice. We do both if we can. We don't limit ourselves a' priori.

Worse, in this political climate of free-traitors, just try instituting ANYTHING that inhibits imports in any way.

The times' they are a' changing. Never say never. We need to be hard-headed about those forces of security-be-damned importers. I think the public is rather further ahead of the opinion mavens at the New York Times on that.

[RightWhale]

The US can probably not afford to install a complete missile defense system. 10,000 warheads coming in at once would be stopped by a system way in advance, both technically and in budget, of what we have so far. Add in lasers and ABMs and Sprints and whatever and put the continental defense budget up a factor of 1000x. There are practical and fiscal limits to this.

[Carry_Okie]

Call me touchy.

OK, you're touchy.

Actually, I think a thin-screen Aegis defense, on a crash basis, could be accomplished in under a year..

That's not brilliant pebbles.

Depends on how serious we are.

Or what constitutes the best use of limited money and resources. Oh, and prove that it works too.

Well, there's the counter examples of India and Pakistan.

India isn't a threat to us. Pakistan should be dealt with.

And apparently the hazards and reprecussions of a unilateral fix by us militarily has the White House behaving impotently...as if that option is really off the table.

Flush Condi Rice.

We don't limit ourselves a' priori.

Our finances do.

I think the public is rather further ahead of the opinion mavens at the New York Times on that.

So are our lenders. That's the problem.

[Paul Ross]

The US can probably not afford to install a complete missile defense system.

Maybe probability and completeness can be debatable...but we really don't need to. Certain levels are certainly relatively affordable. I strongly commend to you the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense [Direct Link]

And the Free Republic discussion thread to it here

Particularly galling are the hard-headed cost assessments made by the IWG, which totally confound the "can't possibly afford it" crowd, when they note:

The total life-cycle DOD CAIG-validated cost-estimate of this Bush-41 defensive deployment, including all of its RDT&E expenses, all of its production and launch costs, all of its operational and testing costs for 20 years – plus complete replacement of the constellation (involving the orbiting of another 1000 pebbles) – was $11 billion (1990 dollars)..21 In marked contrast to having an impressive global mis- sile defense capability for 20 years, the 6-year RDT&E budget for the Bush-43 ballistic missile defense program (2001-2006) – including no deployment costs – is administration-stated to be roughly $50-billion as-spent dollars. A January 2006 Congressional Budget Office study estimated that the current missile defense program could cost another $247 billion between now and 2024. A detached observer perhaps could be excused for some puzzlement as to the origin and nature of the differences in ballistic missile defense tastes, judgments, and directions of the Bush-41 and -43 administrations.

[mad_as_he$$]

Because Governments by their very nature to not truly understand proactive approaches to problem solving.

[RightWhale]

I say probably only because there is new technology coming along that may do the job eventually but not anytime soon. A complete defense is not possible now.

[cva66snipe]

Yes. And Caspar Weinberger too. They had a lot of solid, common sense apparently missing in the Capitol today...

Amen. No better Secretary of Defense has graced the office than Weinberger. Second to none. Within 4 short years the Rockefeller Republicans undid all Reagan and Cap accomplished. Clinton then finished the job.

[Paul Ross]

...there is new technology coming along that may do the job eventually but not anytime soon

Good enough technology is not the enemy of the Perfect.

Granted, we may harbor hopes for differing technology. Personally, I believe it will be great when we get the brand-spanking-new new X-Ray Mirror technology adapted so that we can have another go at doing the Excalibur Device tests at Los Alamos. If we get the Administration to test it.

Edward Teller will be vindicated yet, I hope. Thus, if successful, it would mean that we could literally have a defense for far cheaper than the offense...and so incredibly robust that it couldn't be overwhelmed.

But we still need a "low" intra-atmospheric defense of the perimeter for cruise missiles, and short-range ballistics with depressed-trajectories etc. Hence the need for the PAC-3s, and Aegis, etc.

The Fleet and our forces around the planet also need to have these defense capabilies in place for their very survival in our current theaters of operation where they are exposed to the reach of our enemies.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[RightWhale]

I am not disputing the current ABM system installed just down the road, nor research into air-borne lasers. These are far from complete protection systems, and we should never think we can have a complete protection. We can change the odds only.

[Paul Ross]

We can change the odds only.

Spoken like a statistician! Heh.

Someday in the not-so-distant future we may be able to improve the odds so drastically that we can almost regard it as complete protection. And certainly our enemies would have to treat it as tantamount thereto in terms of their attack plans...hence deterring them.

[GOP_1900AD]

We here in the US are fairly lame when it comes to history. We know a little bit about our own, and that's about it. Few alive today realize or recognize how closely today's mass attitudes, government policy and military realization strategies mimic those of the UK, 1919 - 1938. Our late summer 1940 still looms. We've never before experienced anything like that - Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were miniscule in comparison. I think that's part of the problem. Most people cannot comprehend what something like that (but, given today's technology, far worse) would be like.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The main reason I immediately understood SDI would work is the way the liberals and socialists screamed so loud against it.

[Paul Ross]

Indeed.

And they still do.

But now, after repeating that claim, they contradict it with their new main argument, that since it works, it works too well, (in effect) and will force our enemies (if the Liberals ever stop to admit who and what they are) to "arms race" to overwhelm it with the rather expensive options of more launchers, platforms, decoys and MIRVs/MaRVs and hardening.

Every dollar spent on that stuff is less money available for these enemies to put towards other mischief...and this plays to our particular advantages, as the Soviets discovered to their misfortune. Heh.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Paul Ross]

Ping.

[Paul Ross]

The main reason I immediately understood SDI would work is the way the liberals and socialists screamed so loud against it.

Bump. Bears repeating!

[backhoe]

The main reason I immediately understood SDI would work is the way the liberals and socialists screamed so loud against it.

That was my take on it, too.

And don't forget we lost eight full years we could have made even more advances when Little Big Fraud and his crew stonewalled missile defense in favor of idiocy like midnight basketball.

Here's some old stuff of mine:

-Israel's Arrow Anti-Missile System and the THEL...--

-Links for Missile Defense- Nuke News--

And yes, I really mean my tagline.

[Paul Ross]

LOL! It is indeed a good tag line!

Thanks for the links from the past. In particular, I think it odd that no one in the "disarmament" community ever demands that the SAM-300's be inspected by us to see if the warheads being packed are nuclear.

The usual leftist sites, such as FAS, still only report it as packing a conventional warhead.

The only reasonable use for a nuclear warhead in an air defense missile [ likely a neutron type ] would be to make the system effective against ICBM warheads. Since they have about 8,000 of these things deployed around their national periphery...and if we confirmed a substantial number had the nukes....wouldn't that create an uproar, eh?