PETER HUESSEY: THERE IS NO GOOD REASON NOT TO BUILD MISSILE DEFENSES
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/there-is-no-good-reason-not-to-build-missile-defenses
Russia is demanding the US stop building missile defenses in Europe, just as it simultaneously helps Iran build the very rockets that hold NATO at risk.
In language reminiscent of the Cold War, President Putin is once again urging Washington “better not to do this”. Warns the Russian Chief of the General Staff Nikolai Makarov: “Taking into account a missile-defense system’s destabilizing nature, that is, the creation of an illusion that a disarming strike can be launched with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive use of the attack weapons available will be made when the situation worsens.”
In short, if we build defenses, they threaten to attack. This despite serial attempts by Washington to “reset” relations between the two former Cold War adversaries.
Central to the Russian confusion over NATO missile defense objectives is a long standing view by the Russians that sees missile defense as an arm of aggression, of providing a shield behind which an US attack will take place. During the Cold War, Gorbachev called missile defense “space strike weapons”.
What are we proposing to build? The US major missile defense initiative is the EPAA, the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Over time, the missile shield we defend against short, medium and eventually long range missiles. Current land and sea deployments protect against some threats.
But for better protection, and after appropriate testing, the Block 1B version of the Navy Aegis based Standard Missile (SM-3) will be deployed, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats. This will provide the near-term guts of the EPAA approach followed by the more capable 2A and the 2B missiles.
However, despite a successful test in the past 30 days, and while original plans were to buy sixty-two SM interceptors, production next year may be cut by more than half. This will undermine three things: our ability to fulfill the inventory needs of US combat commanders; to acquire the missiles for a good unit price; and to best implement US security policy.
These missiles can be deployed on both ships and on land–known as “Aegis or Navy ashore”. They can defend US interests in the Far East and Pacific, in Europe and the Middle East. To be clear, the missile defenses are not a substitute for US offensive weapons, but an insurance policy which adds to deterrence.
As the former Commander of the US Strategic Command told me, missile defense denies an adversary the ability to blackmail the United States in a crisis. Retired General Chilton said a North Korean or Iranian leader might very well threaten the use of ballistic missiles as a means of coercion and leverage, to prevent the US and its allies from protecting their interests.
Some critics have complained that until Iran or North Korea launch rockets that demonstrate sufficient range to hold Chicago at risk, there is little need to seek protection of the United States as future elements of the EPAA are designed to do. But fire insurance needs to be bought before your house burns down. Similarly, you do not buy auto insurance after a car wreck.
The whole point of the assessment of the attacks of 9/11 was to “connect the dots” before a terrorist attack, not afterward. Unfortunately, we are still playing catch up. Missile defense now both responds to existing threats and anticipates future ones.
Given growing international cooperation between North Korea, Iran, Russia and China on ballistic missile development, strategic surprise is likely. We know current Iranian missile capabilities put much of central Europe at risk. The continental United States may very well be next. Should current Iranian rockets be deployed in Venezuela or from an off-shore freighter, the US mainland would be at risk now.
In any case, as Senator Jeff Sessions, the third ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Thursday, warned against proposed cuts in current missile defense capabilities-specifically the Aegis SM3-1B–explaining “it is better to have one in the hand than two in the bush”.
Critical to the effectiveness of the Aegis-based missile defenses is that they be “available where needed”. Having defenses on station where needed avoids “a rush to war” where missile threats emerge over the horizon and threaten to turn a crisis into an open conflict. As Uzi Rubin argued in a June 15th address, missile defenses now allow “us to choose to de-escalate”. Missile defenses also have to be seen by both our allies and adversaries as sufficient to “do the job”, which makes a higher production rate for missile defense interceptors beneficial.
Shortly after it appeared North Korea might launch its first ICBM, former Secretary of Defense William Perry advocated that President Bush launch a strike against the launch facilities using B2 bombers. This “rush to war”, as I called it at the time, would indeed be one of the few options for an American President in the absence of deployed missile defenses.
But with missile defense we can do a number of key things. We can protect Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The deployment of mobile Aegis ships with SM1B interceptors does three missions: (1) it provides a US President leverage against the coercive or blackmail threats of missile launches; (2) it diminishes the terrorist aspects of missile threats; and (3) protects against the disruption of commercial shipping and the oil trade, critical to US economic health.
Combined with the US-Israel alliance and the growing cooperation over Arrow, David Sling and Iron Dome missile defense systems, the full up production of these Aegis standard missiles pushes the US and its allies closer to realizing the full vision of a truly global and layered missile defense system that for the free peoples of the world “provides for the common defense”.
Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland , a defense and national security consulting firm.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/there-is-no-good-reason-not-to-build-missile-defenses#ixzz1yQETDiqy
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Comments are closed.
