The Enduring Features of the Debate Over Missile Defense

The Enduring Features of the Debate Over Missile Defense by Baker Spring Backgrounder #1972

Today, the United States has only an extremely limited capability to defend its people, territory, foreign deployed forces, allies, and friends against ballistic missile attack. At this point, U.S. territory is defended against long-range ballistic missiles by just 11 test interceptors, located in Alaska and California, with an operational capability. U.S. coastal areas are undefended against short-range ballistic missiles that could be launched from ships.

This vulnerability is dangerous because the threat of missile attack continues to grow, as demonstrated by North Korea’s launch of a salvo of test missiles on July 4. U.S. missile defense capabilities still need to catch up with the threat. The shame is that these capabilities could have caught up to the missile threat by now.

The danger is compounded by a misguided perception in Congress, particularly among some supporters of missile defense, that the debate over missile defense is all but over and that the side backing missile defense has won. The facts do not warrant such complacency. The debate is not over.

In this regard, it is critical for Congress to recognize that the ABM Treaty imposed strict limits on development and testing activities, not just deployment options.[5] Following U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the easiest and earliest deployment options for those who manage missile defense programs in the federal government was to push to deployment those limited areas of development and testing that were permitted by the ABM Treaty. However, the easiest and earliest deployment options were far from the most effective options. Missile defense opponents, and even some proponents, in Congress and the bureaucracy have consistently fought the rapid exploitation of more promising technologies. This is particularly the case regarding space-based interceptors for countering ballistic missile attacks. For example, the Clinton Administration cancelled outright the Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptor program in 1993, despite its promise. The Brilliant Pebbles program has yet to be revived. In 1997, President Bill Clinton used a line-item veto to cancel the Clementine II space probe.[6] This system would have demonstrated the effectiveness of Brilliant Pebbles technology and advanced U.S. goals in space exploration. Its predecessor, the Clementine probe, was highly successful and very inexpensive for a space vehicle.[7] The Advanced Technology Kill Vehicle (ATKV) program, which was developing lightweight and small kill vehicle technology from the Brilliant Pebbles program for use in surface-based interceptors, remains dormant. The teams of technologists that were advancing these more capable missile defense concepts have been disbanded and would now be difficult to reconstitute.

The Democrats do NOT believe in an effective missle defense system for our country. They will seek to kill it the first chance they get.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

that is why it should have been issue numero uno in the election campaign, especially since it is becoming obvious it is a real part of the strategy against N.Korea and Iran.

Yes, missile defense is critical.

Japan has been a good partner in the program, and is probably privately dismayed by the thought of the Democrats gutting the program.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.