Fully Deployed, Layered Missile Defense is Critical to National Security
Rep. Robert Aderholt wrote the following column on the importance of Missile Defense, published in the May 2009 issue of “Military Space & Missile Forum”. Rep. Aderholt is a member of the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus.
Copa Commission: Fully Deployed, Layered Missile Defense is Critical to National Security
By Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
May 2009
We have all heard the advice that, when invited to a group dinner, you should not bring up religion or politics. In Washington, you could probably add missile defense to that list of topics. Hardly any other topic offers more technical data to discuss; however, I think the decisions one makes about missile defense ultimately derive not just from data, but from one’s philosophy and policy views.
I believe that the United States, as the world’s leading democracy, should have a military that is capable of responding to any challenge. Some might prefer that the United States be roughly equal to other nations; that way, the United States would have to engage in more partnering and compromise at United Nations meetings. That is a dangerous view, however, since the United Nations is not anything close to a world government and has never gone through the compromise process that the 13 colonies went through in order to create a true, federal government, and all the authority vested in such a government. Because of the checks and balances built into our political system, and based on what I know are the principles of this nation, I have faith that our military will be used as a force for good, with regard to international politics. We have no interest in using force for any other reason, nor should we. I do not have the same faith in countries where, unfortunately, the people are under dictatorial, repressive, dangerous regimes.
I will be very interested to see the results later this year of the third Nuclear Posture Review, mandated by Congress. One clause from the Armed Services authorization bill reads: “(4) The role that missile defense capabilities and conventional strike forces play in determining the role and size of nuclear forces.” I hope that report maintains the distinction between missile defense and the nuclear arsenal. A nuclear arsenal offers the deterrent of an overwhelming—but terrible—response. Several articles last year mentioned President Obama’s possible plans to formalize a kind of “nuclear umbrella” protection of Israel. If Iran, for example, attacked Israel, the United States would be obligated to use nuclear force against Iran. With or without an umbrella policy, another military option is a preemptive strike.
Missile defense, however, offers a third option that should actually be a point of agreement between hawks and doves. If the potential aggressor knows their missiles will simply be knocked down, they will be much less likely to make a nuclear strike attempt. In the last two decades, ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) have been used in every conflict. Given that fact, we must have a fully deployed, layered missile defense in case a regime does choose to use ballistic missiles, with varying types of warheads. Missile defense offers us a protective action that is more humane than preemptive strikes or nuclear retaliation.
The president and the Congress are required by the U.S. Constitution to provide for the common defense, the national defense. In the 21st century, that necessarily means maintaining a global awareness and readiness. Regardless of what our allies or potential enemies say and do, our government is obligated to defend the United States. Russia has just announced they will test a new submarine-based ICBM that can carry six warheads per missile. However, a more immediate possible danger is the aggressive testing and warhead preparations by North Korea and Iran. Umbrella policies must not be adopted as a substitute for aggressively developing all of our own missile defense options necessary for us to have a fully functioning, layered defense. We must also not base our policies on the delusion that Iran, North Korea or even China and Russia are going to slow down or abandon their offensive long-range nuclear strike capability goals as a response to the United States reducing its nuclear arsenal and at the same time reducing its missile defense program to a series of long-term discussions about test parameters. History does not bear out such an assumption. It is also very important to note that even if nations currently working on missiles become unlikely to use them against the United States, they may still develop those missiles for the sake of making money through sales to other nations—nations that might at some point strike our allies, or our U.S. bases.
I am grateful to Secretary Gates for accepting President Obama’s invitation to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Our nation and our warfighters have benefited from the stability that provides. I am concerned, however, about the obvious pressure he is under to find ways to cut the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget, as indicated by the April 6 budget announcement. To go quickly through the list, I am concerned that we will not field more than 30 ground-based interceptors (GBIs). What will we do with the additional 14 that were actually already paid for in the FY09 budget? To shut down the program, store them, etc., would probably cost more than the $100 million that the president recently asked his cabinet heads to cut from their budgets. The GBI is the only missile defense system that can protect the United States in the coming 10 years; THAAD and AEGIS cannot protect the continental United States. Our missile defense program has sometimes been criticized for not addressing the use of decoy warheads; the multiple kill vehicle program was meant to do just that, but the budget outline of April 6 halts the program. The kinetic energy interceptor (KEI) and the airborne laser (ABL), the systems designed to stop enemy missiles at the boost phase, are on the verge of very important operational tests, but KEI is not mentioned in the budget memo, and ABL is cut.
This combination of cuts could end up in a tragedy. Layered missile defense is not a concept just dreamed up by contractors to make more money. It is a response to the realities of the different physics and factors involved in trying to stop an enemy missile at different stages or from different trajectories.
At a time when we have spent almost $1 trillion on a stimulus bill, then passed a massive omnibus bill, and then received an outline of an FY10 bill that could be two to three times the amount of most discretionary budgets the past five years, it is disturbing to see such determination to cut $1 billion to $2 billion (or even $3 billion to $4 billion) from the budget, when it comes to protecting this nation. My understanding is that over an eight- to 10-year period, MDA has managed a $36 billion portfolio of programs without going more than 10 percent over budgeted costs, and in several cases even less than that. I don’t think we are holding other agencies to the same standards; we are dramatically increasing federal spending.
Budget cuts and streamlining of programs brings us back to philosophy. Mine is that any new testing plan should be put in place with a determination, by a date certain, to have a working product. This means that if one test reveals a flaw, we are committed to funding and implementing as many tests as needed to solve the problems and achieve success. This would be similar to how we succeeded with the Polaris program and the early NASA programs. Testing plans must not be allowed to become a tool for those who oppose missile defense philosophically to call for a shutdown of a program after one or two test failures.
Many Americans might be under the impression that North Korea’s recent missile dropped into the sea not too far from North Korea’s shore. Reality is that it entered space briefly and traveled 2,400 miles—halfway to Honolulu. I hope that we do not have to suffer an attack on Honolulu, or San Francisco, or a U.S. military base, to end the debate over whether layered missile defense is necessary. If we suffer such a strike, no one will be comforted by the fact that we saved $1 billion in a $3 trillion budget back in 2010, or that we are successfully five years into a 10-year plan to develop proper parameters for hardware testing.
National defense is an obligation, not a science project, and must be pursued with urgency. As the president and the secretary continue to evaluate the threats we face, I hope the proposed budget will fully support missile defense procurement and development.
_________________________________________
Rep. Robert Aderholt represents the 4th Congressional District of Alabama.