Blog

Last month, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at the Atlantic Council to discuss factors that should be considered as NATO drafts a new “Strategic Concept,” which defines NATO’s purpose, nature, and security tasks.

Among other things, Gates said Europe has underfunded defense budgets for NATO, and consequently, has undermined joint security. He noted the importance of missile defense, as land invasion is no longer a pressing threat. The danger of missile attacks is more critical and “more likely to come from outside NATO’s traditional borders; and more likely to require new approaches that incorporate far more than just military power.”

This week, Gates is visiting Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah to discuss missile defense and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In addition to deploying missile shields to Poland and Romania, the U.S. seeks to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. Specifically, the plan is to place the Patriot missile defense batteries in four Persian Gulf states and Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors on Navy ships in the Gulf. Although these steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles, they won’t provide a defense to the U.S. or our allies against the longer-range missiles Iran wants to build.

Gates will also discuss tougher sanctions against Iran. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said, “It’s not lost on the Iranians, all of the security cooperation that’s been going on for years now and all the systems that have been purchased over the last several years, (are) all designed to counter-weight and protect against the growing threat posed by Iran.” (Reuters)

From Heritage:

1. Impose and enforce the strongest sanctions. The U.S. should push other concerned countries to enforce targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime and its internal security organs; ban all foreign investment, loans and credits, subsidized trade, and refined petroleum exports to Iran; and deny visas to its officials.

2. Drop opposition to U.S. gasoline sanctions. Both houses of Congress voted by large bipartisan majorities to impose sanctions against firms that export refined petroleum products to Iran. Yet the White House is dragging its feet, arguing such sanctions will impede diplomatic efforts at the U.N., even though the U.N. is unlikely to approve crippling sanctions.

3. Target public diplomacy to expose the regime’s human rights abuses. Such a campaign should document the abuses and aid victims, step up broadcasting and support for independent Iranian broadcasters outside the country to expose corruption of officials and the regime’s aid to terrorists, and educate Iranians about genuine representative democracy.

4. Facilitate communications among dissidents. The U.S. government should help opposition groups communicate privately with each other using Web-based groups outside Iran and Bluetooth technology that can evade government surveillance and censorship.

5. Aid opposition groups. U.S. intelligence services should provide covert financial and material assistance to democratic opposition groups to strengthen opposition to the regime, similar to the help extended to the Polish Solidarity movement during the Cold War.

6. Reduce Iran’s meddling in Iraq. The U.S. should maintain the strongest troop presence Iraq would permit to aid in containing and reducing Iran’s influence. A stable and democratic Iraq offers Shiites an alternative model that helps de-legitimize Iran’s Islamist system.

7. Target covert actions to discredit the regime. Intelligence services should distribute printouts of Iranian officials’ foreign bank accounts and other assets and pictures of their mansions and villas outside Iran to drive a wedge between the corrupt regime and the people.

8. Modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The U.S. should develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons to convince Tehran that any attempt to use nuclear weapons will likely fail to achieve whatever political and military objectives they have in mind.

9. Expand U.S. military capabilities to defend U.S. interests and allies. Targeting and holding at risk the regime’s top leaders, its nuclear weapons program, and its internal security forces would protect the U.S. from Iranian aggression.

10. Deploy a robust and comprehensive missile defense system. Land-based, sea-based, and ultimately space-based systems that can defend against Iranian ballistic missiles would minimize the ability of Iran to threaten the U.S. and its allies.

Last week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his country and the U.S. were “close to an agreement” on renewing START and hoped negotiations would be wrapped up soon.

This week, the Associated Press reported that a renewal could be finalized by next month. Russia wants access to our missile defense strategy and blames the U.S. for stalled negotiations. Displeased by our Bush-era plans to deploy missile shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia believed the U.S. was capitulating when President Barack Obama dropped those plans. But Russia’s ire has been rekindled. The Obama administration intends to deploy missiles to Poland capable of intercepting shorter range weapons.

One of Russia’s sticking points to START renewal was linking defensive and offensive weapons. Both sides have agreed to the link.

Under the old treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200. Medvedev and Obama reportedly agreed to reduce deployed warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675.

The Pentagon wants the U.S. to continue developing the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), in conjunction with Germany and Italy, but the Army wants to ditch the project, citing the system’s cost. (Source)

MEADS is a mobile system designed to intercept short-range cruise missiles and shoot down planes and drones.

The $19 billion MEADS project, which began over 10 years ago, is intended to replace the Army’s aging Patriot system. In addition to the system’s cost, says the Army, it’s taking too long to build it, and it will be hard to manage. The Pentagon wants to continue building the system and has requested $467 million. At this point, it would cost more money to cancel the project than to continue. The Defense Department would owe contractors, a group that includes Lockheed Martin, at least half a million in penalties.

The Defense Department is also concerned about souring relations with Germany and Italy if MEADS is canceled. The Washington Post quotes the Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring. He said the system is one that the U.S., Germany, and Italy can use when each has the need.

“It’s almost inconceivable to me that the U.S. military would be in an expeditionary operation where it won’t be working with coalition partners in some form or another,” Spring told the Post.

The Army will decide whether to transfer development of MEADS to the Missile Defense Agency. Understandably, Lockheed Martin wants to continue developing the system. “At a time of growing threats, MEADS represents the United States’ first all-new air and missile defense system of its kind in decades and is the only such program in which allies are sharing the cost to develop a capability that each country needs.”

The Army and the Pentagon are in a conundrum. MEADS would provide protection in the field, and canceling it would cost more than keeping it. More than that, dropping the system likely would displease Germany and Italy.

(Image source: Army Technology)

In 2004, the congressionally mandated Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack released an unclassified executive report on its broader study of the U.S.’s vulnerability to EMP weapons strikes.[1] In 2008, the commission released a follow-up report that detailed the vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructures of the U.S. to EMP strikes.[2] Taken together, these two reports make it clear that an EMP attack could inflict severe damage on the U.S. As the initial report stated, “EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences.”

Congress should not let the Obama Administration ignore the commission’s findings. Instead, it should mandate an updated assessment of which countries may be pursuing EMP weapons and associated delivery systems and platforms. Further, Congress should demand that the Administration develop, test, and ultimately field defenses against EMP attacks, including improved ballistic missile defenses capable of countering short-range ballistic missiles that can carry EMP warheads.

What Is EMP?

EMP is triggered by the detonation of a nuclear weapon at a high altitude over the earth. As a result of this detonation, an electromagnetic field radiates down to the earth, creating electrical currents.

These fields cause widespread damage to electrical systems–the lifeblood of a modern society like the U.S. In turn, the damaged electronic systems can cause a cascade of failures throughout the broader infrastructure, including banking systems, energy systems, transportation systems, food production and delivery systems, water systems, emergency services, and–perhaps most damaging–cyberspace.

Effectively, the U.S. would be thrown back to the pre-industrial age following a widespread EMP attack.

What Congress Should Do

The lack of public awareness regarding the disturbing implications of an EMP attack may prompt the Obama Administration to set aside proposals for addressing this problem. Congress should not let this happen. Specifically, Congress should take the following three steps:

Step No. 1: Require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to Produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Describing Which Countries Are Capable of Launching an EMP Strike. The NIE should review not only the weapons systems themselves but the delivery systems and platforms capable of carrying the weapons. Additionally, Congress should obtain from the NIE the intelligence community’s assessment of how EMP-capable countries are incorporating those weapons into their broader military strategies.

The latter assessment would permit the President and his advisors to determine how the U.S. could respond to EMP threats as they arise. Such planning is an essential part of providing an effective defense against these threats.

***

Read the full web memo at Heritage.org.

As President Barack Obama prepares to release his Nuclear Posture Review, many are wondering how different his missile defense strategy will be from the Bush administration’s and whether it will effectively deter proliferation and keep the U.S. and our allies safe.

Part of his strategy has already been revealed. Reuters reported this week that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama agreed to reduce deployed warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675 during negotiations to renew START.

According to the New York Times, the Obama administration has refused to rule out being the first country to use nuclear weapons. Ideally, the world wouldn’t need nuclear weapons at all, but Obama isn’t so naïve as to believe the U.S. should have no such weapons. Deterrence is the goal, but it would be a reasonable defense posture to use the appropriate weapon in our arsenal in response to a serious threat.

Deterrence should rely on more than nuclear weapons, however, and include options for defenses and conventional strike weapons. Further, deterrence cannot be divorced from credible policies for using any of these weapons under appropriate circumstances. What deterrence requires is giving the president a wide array of options for responding to threats to attack the U.S. and its allies, as well as to any attempted attacks.

NYT also reports the administration will put more emphasis on missile defense. Although Obama canceled agreements to deploy missile interceptors and radar to Poland and the Czech Republic, he’s sending Patriot missiles to Poland and missile interceptors to Romania. These and other missile defense developments are intended to defend against Iran, the rogue state determined to continue developing nuclear capability. Obama said he wanted to focus on cost-effective, reliable, and shorter-range weapons. He intends to spend money bringing weapons up-to-date, while reducing what Vice President Joe Biden called “redundant” weapons. An excerpt:

“The idea, officials say, would be to give the president a non-nuclear option for, say, a large strike on the leadership of Al Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan, or a pre-emptive attack on an impending missile launch from North Korea. But under Mr. Obama’s strategy, the missiles would be based at new sites around the United States that might even be open to inspection, so that Russia and China would know that a missile launched from those sites was not nuclear — to avoid having them place their own nuclear forces on high alert.”

Commenting on the story at The Foundry blog, Jeffrey Chatterton says a protect and defend strategy “is the most effective way to minimize the nuclear threat…An effective strategy promotes nuclear modernization, superior conventional weapons, and effective missile defense while reducing the likelihood of armed conflict. Arms control is not the end in itself, but an outcome of the strategy.”

Yesterday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his country and the U.S. are “close to an agreement” on renewing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and that he hopes negotiations will be wrapped up “in the very near future.” (Source)

Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200. According to Reuters, Medvedev and President Barack Obama have stipulated in present negotiations to a reduction of deployed warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675.

Russia has blamed stalled negotiations on U.S. plans to deploy missile shields to Eastern and Central Europe. Obama dropped Bush-era missile defense agreements in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of what he considers a more pressing concern: Iran’s short- and medium-range missiles. In January, Poland’s defense minister revealed U.S. plans to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, Russia said it would beef up its Baltic fleet. Last month, Romania agreed to host missile interceptors (Standard Missile 3).

Our intent is to help these countries defend against Iran, but Russia believes otherwise. After Romania announced the agreement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the U.S. broke its promise to keep the Kremlin abreast of its missile defense developments in the region, and Russian NATO representative Dmitri Rogozin asked, “How can we stay calm when alien military infrastructure, U.S. military infrastructure, has come to the Black Sea area?”

We’re not as hopeful as Dmitry Medvedev when it comes to renewing START. Russia will continue stalling in an attempt to pressure the U.S. to scale back or even cancel plans to deploy missile defense shields to Eastern and Central Europe.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both spoke at the Atlantic Council this week to discuss factors that should be considered as NATO drafts a new “Strategic Concept,” which defines NATO’s purpose, nature, and security tasks.

Secretary Gates said Europe has underfunded defense budgets for NATO, and consequently, has undermined joint security. Specifically, he mentioned missile defense. Land invasion is no longer a pressing threat. The danger of missile attacks is more critical and “more likely to come from outside NATO’s traditional borders; and more likely to require new approaches that incorporate far more than just military power.” (Source)

On the president’s new missile defense policy: “Last year, the Obama administration announced a new plan for missile defense in Europe – a phased, adaptive approach that will give us real capabilities in a shorter period of time than the previous plan. We consider this a U.S.-funded contribution to NATO missile defense, which is critical to the collective-defense mission to protect our populations, territory, and forces.”

Iran is focusing on short- and medium-range missiles, but its long-range capability also poses a threat, whether the capability reaches fruition next year or five years from now. One of the top funding priorities is missile defense. The U.S. and our allies must prepare for long-range weapons, particularly from countries outside NATO that defy the U.N. Security Council.

In scaling back Bush-era missile defense policy, including reducing interceptors in Alaska and California, the Obama administration has left the U.S. vulnerable to long-range ballistic missiles and jeopardized systems like Ground-based Midcourse Defense. In assessing the missile threat, however, the administration seems to realize the need for more, not less, funding for these programs.

Secretary Gates acknowledged the importance of missile defense in his speech, but funding (or the lack thereof) reflects priority. We hope the administration restores missile defense funding and keeps all our options open. Read Gates’s full remarks.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the NATO Strategic Concept Seminar on Monday and urged Russia’s cooperation in preventing nuclear proliferation and other transnational threats. (Source)

Clinton said missile defense “will make this continent a safer place. That safety could extend to Russia, if Russia decides to cooperate with us. It is an extraordinary opportunity for us to work together to build our mutual security. Missile defense, we believe, will make this continent a safer place. And that safety could extend to Russia if Russia decides to cooperate with us. It provides an extraordinary opportunity for us to work together to build our mutual security in the 21st century. The spirit of collective defense must also include nontraditional threats. And we believe NATO’s new Strategic Concept must address these.”

Relations between NATO and Russia soured last year after NATO criticized the former Soviet Union for invading Georgia. Clinton told the audience what NATO expects from Russia:

“We have real differences with Russia on several issues. And we intend to use the NATO-Russia Council as a forum for frank discussions about areas where we disagree. We will use it to press Russia to live up to its commitments on Georgia and to reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states. We will use it to challenge the assertion put forward in Russia’s new military doctrine that NATO’s enlargement and its global actions constitute a military danger to Russia. We will also use the Council to advocate on behalf of human rights and individual liberty – these are principles and values that Russia committed to uphold when it accepted the NATO-Russia Founding Act.”

Russia and NATO are cooperating in training counternarcotics officers from Afghanistan and Central Asia to stop drug trafficking, and Clinton said she hopes there will be missile defense cooperation as well.

“[W]e hope to extend that cooperation to other fields, again, most notably in the area of missile defense…NATO and Russia should have a regular exchange of information on posture, doctrine, and planned military exercises, as well as specific measures to permit observation of military exercises and to allow visits to new or significantly improved military installations. We look forward to working closely with all of our Allies, Russia, and our other partners in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty during the coming months to reverse the erosion of this valuable regime. If we truly believe that our security is indivisible, we must do more to strengthen the sense of strategic reassurance across the Euro-Atlantic area. As we look ahead, our challenge with Russia is to build a relationship where the principles that both sides have agreed to on paper are consistently respected in practice.”

Read Clinton’s full remarks.