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...