Report: Kill European Missile Defense And Airborne Laser; Halt Procurement, Deployment Of Aegis, GMD, THAAD, Patriot; And End Streamlined Missile Defense Budget System

The multi-layered U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) program has come under attack in a report from a think tank, just as Congress is poised to slash funding for BMD.

A planned European Missile Defense (EMD) program should be canceled along with the Airborne Laser missile defense system, and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the Aegis/Standard Missile sea-based system, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and Patriot air-defense assets should be pushed back into research and development only, cutting off any further procurement or deployment, the report continues.

The paper, part of a larger work assailing the U.S. nuclear deterrent force, is expected to be used by missile-defense opponents in Congress.

This report contains errors, such as an assertion that missile defense "is the most expensive defense acquisition program in history."

In totaling BMD costs, the report states that $120 billion has been spent thus far, with another $62.5 billion expected over the next five years. That would amount to $182.5 billion, about as much as the Army Future Combat Systems program to acquire new vehicles, aircraft and more.

And the $182.5 billion would be far less than the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or Lightning II, aircraft program.

The CDI report is authored by Philip Coyle, CDI senior adviser.

He earlier asserted that the Airborne Laser, a ballistic missile defense platform that kills enemy missiles with a laser beam, could be defeated if the enemy merely painted its missiles white to reflect the beam. That was countered by a picture of a missile body, painted white, which had been blown open by a laser beam. (For story and picture, please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, April 21, 2008.)

Coyle laid out his missile-defense math this way:

"Since President Reagan’s famous ‘Star Wars’ speech in 1983, the United States has spent at least $120 billion on missile defense. Over the next five years, the Pentagon has requested another $62.5 billion for missile defense, with no end in sight. If the next U.S. president and Congress support this level of spending on missile defense, by the end of 2013 over $110 billion will have been spent just since 2003, not counting U.S. missile defense spending in the previous twenty, forty, or sixty years. In FY 1985, two years after Reagan’s speech, his administration’s missile defense budget was still only $1.8 billion. In 1986 it jumped to $3.7 billion, and then to about $5.0 billion per year for the last two years of his administration. The average during the Clinton administration was about $3.5 billion per year. Under President George W. Bush it has run about $10 billion per year. The President’s request for FY 2009, was the highest amount to date requested for missile defense by any president–$13.2 billion DOD-wide, including $9.4 billion for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) itself."

In other words, Coyle criticizes missile defense for being expensive.

While missile defense proponents don’t deny that it is expensive, agreeing to a $100 billion cost thus far, they point out that the casualty cost of just one U.S. city destroyed by a weapon of mass destruction carried by an incoming enemy missile would be astronomical, making the $100 billion price pale into insignificance.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks alone, which involved mere airliners instead of weapons of mass destruction, are estimated to have caused $100 billion or more in damages.

Coyle also makes several other assertions:

First, he predicts that "Iran is not so reckless as to attack Europe or the United States. There is no believable threat to Europe from Iran to justify U.S. missile defenses in Europe, and North Korea is negotiating an end to its nuclear programs."

Apparently, Coyle is willing to bet all of Paris that Iran wouldn’t dream of launching a missile from a submarine at the City of Lights. Iran has launched multiple missiles in salvos, launched a missile from a submerged submarine, and announced plans for a space program that would involve much of the technology required for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could strike anywhere on the planet, including New York or Washington. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he envisions a world without the United States, and that Israel should be wiped from the map, and that Israel soon shall cease to exist.

Further, North Korea, in fact, while admitting to a plutonium weapons development program, has yet to explain how traces of highly enriched uranium came to be found on documents that Pyongyang turned over to inspectors. And North Korea has yet to turn over to inspectors even one of its nuclear weapons. It also has proliferated nuclear reactor technology and missile technology to the Middle East.

North Korea, which in the 1990s launched a missile arcing over Japan and into the sea, is developing the Taepo Dong-2 ICBM.

On another point, Coyle criticizes the United States for wishing to erect a European Missile Defense (EMD) shield to protect Europe and the United States from Iranian missiles, because the EMD irritates Russia.

"Proposed U.S. missile defenses in Europe are threatening to Russia, and are threatening to reignite Cold War-style tensions with Russia. Proposed space-based missile defenses are also threatening to Russia, as well as China," Coyle continued.

Further, Coyle says the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) isn’t developing a missile shield that could defend against a large number of missiles, so why bother with missile defense.

"The MDA claims to be able to handle at best one or possibly two missiles from Iran, assuming Iran does not use decoys or countermeasures." Actually, the EMD would have 10 interceptors in Poland, and some Russian leaders have alleged that once the EMD is built, the United States would install far more interceptors there. "If Iran believed that U.S. missile defenses were effective, they would simply build more missiles. This would not lead to a safer world," Coyle argued.

He also repeated earlier assertions by missile defense opponents that it won’t work.

"U.S. missile defenses have no demonstrated effectiveness to defend Europe or the U.S. under realistic operational conditions," Coyle alleged.

Actually, the record for missile defense programs stands at 37 successes in 47 tests, including a target missile that was obliterated Friday in a test of the Ground-based Missile Defense system. The EMD interceptor would be a variant of the GMD interceptor. (Please see full story in this issue.)

That test Friday had one flaw, in that the target missile failed to eject countermeasures that the GMD interceptor was poised to kill.

Coyle continued the claim by missile defense opponents that missile defense systems aren’t effective against enemy missiles emitting multiple warheads, decoys or confusing chaff. The Coyle argument continues:

"U.S. missile defenses lack the ability to deal with decoys and countermeasures, lack demonstrated effectiveness under realistic operational conditions, and lack the ability to handle attacks involving multiple missiles. MDA Director Lt. Gen. Henry Obering testified before Congress in 2007 that 40 Aegis ships (at a cost of about $2 billion each, not including 20 interceptors per ship) could protect only half of Europe and none of Central Europe. He also testified that 80 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries could protect only key assets in Europe, not all of Europe, and would cost about $40 billion with recurring costs of roughly $2.4 billion per year. He warned that ‘the current configurations of Aegis BMD and [THAAD] do not have the ability to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) without extensive and costly modifications.’

Furthermore, ‘mobile system sensors for Aegis BMD and THAAD cannot provide equivalent radar coverage of Europe.’"

In those criticisms, Coyle ignores some key points, however:

Protection for Europe is to come from EMD, not from Aegis or THAAD systems.

Further, the Aegis and THAAD systems are intended to counter short- and medium-range enemy missiles, not ICBMs. In contrast, the GMD system is designed to take out ICBMs. The EMD interceptor is a two-stage variant of the three-stage GMD.

Russian leaders have furiously opposed the EMD, threatening to use Iskander missiles to demolish it if it is built, a clear attempt to intimidate President-elect Obama on the day he was elected.

Coyle urges Obama and Congress to cancel the planned EMD, adding that to avoid having Obama appear to weakly cave to Russian bullying, there should first be some "scientific and technical reviews" criticizing the system, to give Obama cover.

As well, Coyle recommends terminating any further procurement or deployment of the Aegis sea-based missile defense system, the GMD system, the THAAD system, and Patriot air defense interceptors, leaving those programs only with some research and development money. That would be justified, he stated, because of "their vulnerability to decoys and countermeasures, and to attacks with multiple missiles."

In other words, he is saying that if an enemy flings many nuclear-tipped missiles at U.S. cities, if the U.S. missile defense system can’t take down all of the incoming threats, then there is no point in killing some of them and at least sparing those targeted cities from annihilation.

"Because of their vulnerability to decoys and countermeasures, and to attacks with multiple missiles, the GMD system and THAAD should be returned to a true research and development status with no further procurement or deployment of hardware. And given their limited area of coverage as well as vulnerability to decoys and countermeasures, and multiple attacking missiles, further procurements and deployments of Patriot and Aegis systems should also be put on hold," Coyle urged.

He also proposes extensive testing of U.S. missile defense systems, not merely to be able to kill enemy missiles, but to be able to take out any and all countermeasures on those missiles.

That is upping the ante from earlier demands by critics of missile defense programs, who years ago said missile defense wouldn’t work, terming it a bullet hitting a bullet, and demanded then that they wanted to see an interceptor take out a single, simple missile.

"Before being permitted to purchase or deploy any more missile defense hardware in the United States or abroad, the [Department of Defense] should be required to demonstrate through realistic operational testing the ability of any proposed system to deal effectively with decoys and countermeasures under realistic operational conditions," Coyle recommended.

Others ask, however, just how much time the United States has to field operational missile defense systems to counter threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Even under the current accelerated missile-defense development pace, many BMD systems may not be fully operational before 2013, and North Korea possesses nuclear weapons now and is developing an ICBM. Iran has enough nuclear material to produce one nuclear weapon now, plus atomic bomb designs, and may have enough fissile material for several bombs by the end of next year. (Please see full stories in this issue, and in Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, Dec. 1, 2008.)

Coyle also assailed the Airborne Laser, alleging that it "lacks a credible operational concept and should be canceled."

In fact, the ABL promises the cheapest means of killing enemy missiles, using an aircraft-mounted laser — a concentrated beam of light — to annihilate the enemy missile in its most vulnerable phase of flight, shortly after takeoff, before it has an opportunity to emit multiple warheads, decoys or confusing chaff — precisely the items that Coyle finds so troubling with other, interceptor-based missile defense programs.

Finally, Coyle urges Obama and Congress to strip the MDA of its flexible budgetary system, and place it under the same restrictive budget rules as other programs. Congress provided those streamlined budget processes to MDA so that it could move, swiftly, to create systems defending American cities against enemy missile attacks.

Other parts of the lengthy report recommend taking nuclear forces off day-to-day alert.

To read the report titled "2009 National Security and Nonproliferation Briefing Book" in full, please go to http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/2009NSNPbriefingbook.pdf on the Web.