• TechnologyInnovator
• EnterpriseInnovator
• SecurityInnovator
• WirelessInnovator 

• NextInnovator(at)Live.com
• No spam, subscription newsletters, solicitations, or attachments please!
• Attn: Harold Abraham, Chief Innovator

• Cyberwarfare Headline News
• Biometrics & Surveillance Headline News
• Terrorism Headline News
• Guerrilla Warfare Headline News
• Nuclear Strategy Headline News
• WMD Headline News

• Stratfor Geopolitical Report
• Stratfor Daily Podcast
• Computerworld Security Blog
• eWeek Security Blog
• Information Security
• Infoworld Zero Day Security
• Cheap Hack: Larry Seltzer's New Blog
• McAfee Avert Labs Blog
• Mike Rothman's Blog
• Network Computing Daily Blog
• NetworkWorld, Buzzblog
• Security Fix, Brian Krebs
• ZeroDay, Ryan Naraine

• Over the River
• eMarketer 
• TechnologyPundits
• Security Insights Blog 
• McAfee AudioParasitics
• Strand Consult
• Ovum
• The Eye For Innovation
• Rethink Research
• Innovation Insights
• Innoblog
• Strategy and Innovation
• The Gadgeteer
• Handheld Speech
• Ghost City

 

A quarter century after Ronald Reagan unveiled his ‘Star Wars’ vision, Ballistic Missile Defense is ready for action

Even while its armed forces are slogging it out against armed militants in the rugged alpine battlezones of Afghanistan in the ongoing effort to defeat terrorism at its roots, America has been engaged in a truly space-age effort to protect its homeland from the risks of WMD terrorism and rogue missile attack. Connected by the once-named and still continuing Global War on Terror, these two extremes are evidence of the new complexities of war, where the enemy is at once a primitivist force seeking to restore the dark ages, while at the same time being a ruthlessly adaptive and innovative opponent – capable of striking deep into our heartland, as lethally demonstrated on 9/11.

Ever since, America has been less worried about the risks presented by the world’s declared nuclear states, who have shown considerable restraint since crossing the nuclear chasm – with the occasional exception to this calm, such as when India and Pakistan came to the abyss of nuclear war in 2002, or a generation earlier when the U.S. and its Soviet opponent came to the nuclear abyss over Moscow’s ill-conceived attempt to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. While so far nuclear states have shown remarkable maturity in possession of this “absolute” weapon, concern has shifted to the less rational, and harder to deter, sub-state entities like Al Qaeda, with no homeland to hold hostage under the cold but persuasive logic of the “balance of terror.”

Up against an apocalyptic, nihilistic opponent, all bets are off, and any presumption of rationality or restraint is suspect. As for the nuclear-aspiring rogue states like North Korea – which reiterated its nuclear capacity this summer with its May 25, 2009 atomic test, following an earlier unsuccessful but nonetheless rattling ICBM test, or the Iranians – who likewise share an aspiration to be both a nuclear and a missile power, no one can be sure if they would join the more mature nuclear club, or upset the balance of terror into something even worse: an imbalance of terror.

And so, in preparation for such a scenario of doom, America has been steadily working toward the development of a multi-tiered ballistic missile defense system (BMDS). Such a dream, of an effective nuclear defense, was most famously presented by President Ronald Reagan over twenty-five years ago, in his famous “Star Wars” speech on March 23, 1983. That’s when he challenged the architects of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) with a simpler vision: “What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. . . . But isn’t worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is!”

Dr. Jeffrey Larsen – President of Larsen Consulting Group and member of the faculty of the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, Northwestern University, and Texas A&M University, where he teaches national security and strategic studies – is a retired Lt. Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, and holds a Ph.D. from Princeton University. He watched Reagan’s 1983 speech, and recalls, “I remember watching Reagan’s 1983 speech – I was actually on nuclear alert in Strategic Air Command that day – and I later discovered that many of my fellow Air Force officers didn’t believe in a missile defense system, that they didn’t understand it – they expressed all the standard critiques that we’ve come to know: that it was too expensive, or wouldn’t work, or would undermine deterrence, and so on. But I saw in that speech a real vision, a way out of the absurdity of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) – President Reagan had incredible foresight by announcing this. I’ve been a firm believer in the concept ever since – and I applaud all the successes. We’ve made a lot of progress.”

Dr. Larsen explained that the “American Constitution calls for the Federal government to create a military force to defend the people and the territory of this country – but throughout the Cold War we were not defending ourselves, we had no defenses. We were intentionally retaining our societal vulnerability as one side of MAD; the idea being that if both societies were vulnerable then neither side would launch first, and therefore through deterrence we can maintain the peace. The same people thought defenses were destabilizing – and made the side that had defenses think they can strike first. Those arguments may have been logically sound given the relationship at the time between the two superpowers, but they were morally reprehensible – to leave the continental United States vulnerable to attack is no way to defend this country. We must move from an offensive-based deterrence strategy to a system based on mutual defense rather than deterrence.”

And in the quarter-century since Reagan outlined his vision for missile defense, Larsen observes, “we’ve been through various versions of the missile defense program – the details change but the desire has been retained, and all presidents since have continued the program. Today, we actually have an operating missile defense system – with systems deployed in Alaska, California, aboard ships, and deployed in forward locations. We do have it, and it is part of our national security strategy, so I think we are making good progress, and heading toward this defensive transition in a way that I hope we are able to sustain.”

And progress continues to be made. To date, four components of America’s integrated BMD system have been deployed – including the Aegis/SM-3 system, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system, and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. But with America facing unprecedented budget deficits, greater scrutiny is being paid to the high-cost BMDS, which has consumed more than $100 billion since its inception. The Obama administration has begun to show a preference for theater defense systems, favoring their mobility and consequent utility against regional opponents like Iran and North Korea.

But despite the deep budget crisis and recession, America’s proposed 2010 budget for BMD remains considerable – totaling US$9.3 billion – $1.7  billion less than 2009, yet only three times the amount allocated for America’s much less essential “Cash for Clunkers” program, which consumed $3 billion in just a few weeks. The mobile THAAD system is slated to get $1.1 billion next year, a third of which is allocated for two dozen new interceptors, while the Aegis has been budgeted to receive $169 million, plus a further $1.7 billion in R&D, and over $2 billion for a new Aegis-equipped destroyer. All said, the Aegis will enjoy an increase of over 50 percent from current funding levels.

Hit hardest will be the more costly GMD system, whose 2010 budget is down a third to $983 million, resulting in a reduction in planned strategic mid-course interceptors from 44 to just 30. Also hit hard is the Airborne Laser (ABL) project, a promising boost-phase interceptor technology, which is budgeted to receive $187 million in 2010, less than half what it received in 2009. Another $1 billion is budgeted for the Space-Based Infrared Surveillance (SBIRS) system, while the more experimental Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor systems have been scrapped.

The new preference for battle-tested theater missile defense systems over the more controversial and higher-priced strategic systems like the GMD, and the still emergent systems like the boost-phase ABL system, was evident in the colorful remarks from JCS vice chairman and U.S. Marine General James Cartwright – who delivered some tough-love to the 300 missile defense experts at the 7th Annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference in Washington this past March: “As you look toward the future, it is a time, because of the economy, that we have to make some pretty significant decisions,” and what “we really have to be doing is thinking about how to build capabilities during these hard times.” He controversially suggested that “ballistic missiles are about as passé as sea mail; nobody does it anymore,” adding that “even countries who we consider ‘Third World’ have gone beyond that.” Tomorrow’s BMDS programs will thus have to be more flexible: “When we’re dealing with a global capability like missile defense, we’re trying to put together an architecture that will serve this nation twenty years into the future.”

And so the testing continues, and the technology evolves – incrementally advancing toward the vision long ago articulated by President Reagan. On August 23, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) conducted an exercise involving BMDS elements and emerging technologies, including “the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX), the transportable AN/TPY-2 X-band radar and the External Sensors Laboratory,” MDA announced. And the ABL system, viewed by many to be on life support, has undergone several recent tests – including a high-energy laser firing in flight on August 18, and a low-power laser test a week earlier on August 10; and on July 31, the more mature Aegis system enjoyed its 19th successful intercept in 23 at-sea firings. On July 22, the joint U.S.-Israel Arrow Weapon System (AWS) was tested, and while the AWS demonstrated interoperability with THAAD, the Aegis, and Patriot PAC-3 systems, furthering the objectives of a truly integrated missile shield that can interoperate with allied systems, though MDA noted “not all test conditions to launch the Arrow Interceptor were met, and it was not launched.”

Some critics question the viability of BMD technology, or whether a missile shield makes much strategic sense. As Dr. Larsen noted, “Many people have been critical of this concept – such as the old Cold Warriors who don’t understand how it works or don’t believe it can work. But there have been many successful tests – including a recent test launch from Alaska – with  realistic operational parameters that was intercepted by GMD missiles launched from California with complete success. So I don’t know how critics can say that we can’t do this.  We have a rudimentary system in place, it works, and it would help defend the United States if we faced a small scale missile attack today.”  

While still not perfect, and certainly not cheap, BMD technology continues to advance – just as President Reagan predicted it would a generation ago. Dr. Larsen pointed out that “a lot of the progress that we’ve made came from the initiative that President Reagan started; some of it came from advances in civil technology as well, but it was his initiative that led to a lot of the scientific advances that allow us to do these things now. I think we’re making progress.”

As Dr. Larsen put it, “The bottom line there – and the main point, I really believe – is that this is the direction we should be moving – toward a future based on defense rather than on continued offensive vulnerability. It is the moral responsibility of our government to protect the people, the territory, and the friends and allies of the United States. We failed to do that during the Cold War, and it’s about time we started focusing on defenses.”