What’s the rush? asks Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a member of the congressionally mandated Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism.

The U.S. has several nuclear arms containment options, so why rush to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and allow Russia to dictate our missile defense policy?

Last month, the U.S. and Russia agreed to honor the spirit of the expired START, as they continue to negotiate a replacement Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to roughly 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.

Russia blamed our plans to continue developing a comprehensive missile defense system for the renewal delay. Sokolski, writing at National Review Online:

“The odds of START’s being ratified before November’s elections are hardly on the rise. The next round of negotiations begins today in Geneva…As it is, 41 Senators (all 40 Republicans plus one independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman) have warned President Obama that they are in no mood to approve START unless the White House supports a ’significant’ nuclear-weapons-modernization program. The Defense Department’s Nuclear Posture Review, which details U.S. nuclear-weapons requirements for Congress every five years, was due in December. The administration is divided and has asked for two extensions; the review is now due in March and may be delayed again. Complicating matters even further, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin is pushing to link missile defenses with offensive missiles in START, a potential killer provision for most pro-missile-defense Republicans.”

Senior officials in the administration are keen to “show progress” with Russia, in light of the mid-term elections. They may resubmit a Bush-era nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, whose approval would “pretty much be a slam dunk.” But bringing this agreement before Congress has drawbacks, the most important of which, is that it is sure to force a debate over Russia’s cooperation with Iran in the nuclear weapons and rocket fields. This is unlikely to make passage of START easier in the Senate.

If Obama stops pushing START, and the U.S. diversifies “arms-control portfolio to address nuclear threats outside” Russia , whose deployed nuclear capabilities have diminished in the last 25 years, we might make some headway, without letting Russia call the shots.

Will Obama be proactive and take the initiative in containing Russia , or will appeasement policies prevail?

The Department of Defense (DOD) has released its Ballistic Missile Defense Review, conducted from March 2009 through January 2010. Download the 61-page report in PDF.

In assessing the ballistic missile threat around the world, DOD found the threat to be growing. As technology improves, missiles are becoming more accurate and farther-reaching. Ballistic missile systems are also more flexible and mobile. These trends are particularly disturbing as rogue states continue developing long-range weapons and nuclear capability. Last year, Iran test-fired the long-range Sajjil-2 missile, capable of reaching Israel and Southern Europe. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have a longer range than the Sajjil.

“There is some uncertainty about when and how this type of [ICBM] threat to the U.S. homeland will mature,” states the report, “but there is no uncertainty about the existence of regional threats. They are clear and present. The threat from short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and IRBMs) in regions where the United States deploys forces and maintains security relationships is growing at a particularly rapid pace.”

DOD’s recommended priorities for the U.S. include testing new capabilities before deployment, testing under realistic operational conditions, and adapting as threats shift.

DOD contends that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense presently protects the U.S. against ICBM attacks from Iran and North Korea. To maintain this “advantageous position” as the threat grows, DOD says the U.S. will:

“Maintain readiness and continue to develop existing operational capabilities at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

“Complete the second field of 14 silos at Fort Greely to hedge against the possibility that additional deployments become necessary.

“Deploy new sensors in Europe to improve cueing for missiles launched at the United States by Iran or other potential adversaries in the Middle East.

“Invest in further development of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) for future land-based deployment as the ICBM threat matures.

“Increase investments in sensors and early-intercept kill systems to help defeat missile defense countermeasures.

“Pursue a number of new GMD system enhancements, develop next generation missile defense capabilities, and advance other hedging strategies including continued development and assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor.”

Some experts question the report’s conclusions. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring believes the threat to the homeland could well be more imminent, which leaves the U.S. vulnerable to strategic surprises and risks the lives of millions of Americans. Our solutions and strategies should be more immediate rather than future oriented.

Representative Michael Turner, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times in which he makes the case for restoring funding for missile defense.

President Barack Obama cut missile defense spending. He dropped plans to deploy missile interceptors and radar to Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively. He reduced interceptors in Alaska. However, Obama is looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. Is the administration committed to beefing up defenses? Turner says that depends on the FY 2011 budget.

“The administrations policy cannot be funded if the missile defense budget remains flat,” he writes. “There are simply no more future programs like Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Multiple Kill Vehicle to take money from. Unless the Administration decides to further cut the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, take resources from critical programs such as testing and targets, or perhaps slow roll the implementation of its new policy, it cannot follow through on its stated commitments. A better solution is to restore top line funding for missile defense.”

In a move that seemed impulsive, it appeared the Obama administration scaled back Bush-era missile defense policy just for the sake of scaling back. For example, reducing interceptors in Alaska and California has left the U.S. vulnerable to long-range ballistic missiles and jeopardized the GMD system. Turner opposed these cuts and notes that the Pentagon reached similar conclusions about GMD a short time later.

“For the foreseeable future, GMD is the sole missile defense capability to protect the U.S. homeland from a rogue missile attack. So while the administrations most recent changes are welcome, they must be followed by continued support and funding in the budget.”

In the area of European and theater missile defense, the administration is only now realizing the need for more, not less, funding for these programs. For example, the Obama administration dropped previous plans in Central Europe to focus on increasing “cost-effective” sea- and land-based missile interceptors, but things aren’t as simple as they seemed.

“[A]s details have emerged,” Turner writes, “officials now acknowledge it will cost more, necessitate additional missile defense-capable ships, and require significant investments to develop new technical concepts. Full coverage of Europe and further protection of the United States comes later than previously planned and depends not only on new technologies but also on new host nation agreements. Securing some of these agreements may prove difficult as Russian officials are now grumbling about key aspects of the new approach such as the longer-range Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block II interceptor.”

The bottom line is that any one of the 28 countries that have ballistic missiles could hit the U.S., intentionally or not, and our missile defense program must be fully funded and flexible enough to deal with these threats. This week’s budget debates will reveal how committed Obama is to protecting the U.S.

The Obama Administration is finally doing something that is likely to lessen the threat posed by an aggressive Iran. It is following the lead of the George W. Bush Administration and looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf.

This is according to a January 31, 2010 article in The New York Times. This step has many advantages for the United States and its friends and allies in the region regarding the Iranian threat. Reflective of a “protect and defend” strategy, it offers a defensive solution that serves to demonstrate the aggressive intent of Iran. The alternative is to give the Iranians a first strike option. It also does not require the global consensus that has been holding up the imposition of effective sanctions against Iran. This is not to say that this step should substitute for the diplomatic effort to impose sanctions on Iran, only augment it.

Third, it provides direct reassurance to U.S. friends and allies in the region and strengthens security ties there. Fourth, it will serve to lessen the pressure on the friends and allies there that do not have nuclear weapons to seek them in the future. Likewise, it will lessen the likelihood that the friends and allies that may have nuclear weapons will be put in a circumstance where they would compelled to use them. This last point is critical. Last fall, The Heritage Foundation ran a series of exercises based on an abstract of Middle East regional setting, where all the nation-equivalent players were presumed to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The exercises demonstrated that pursuing a defensive option resulted in fewer nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a nuclear conflict broke out when the player equivalent to the United States simultaneously relied on nuclear retaliatory options, pursued a policy of nuclear disarmament and chose not to pursue defensive options.

The Obama Administration, however, needs to close the circle on this productive step. 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. These steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles. The problem is that these current systems will not provide a defense to the United States or its friends against the longer-range missiles that Iran is seeking. This will permit Iran to focus on threatening the United States directly in order to drive a wedge between the United States and its friends and force the United States out of the region. It is an obvious window of vulnerability that the Obama Administration must close.

The Obama Administration can close this window of vulnerability by taking three steps. The first is to upgrade the sea-based missile defense system to make it capable of countering longer-range missiles. This sea-based system could also be used to protect the United States against an Iranian launch of a short-range missile off the coast that carries and electro-magnetic pulse nuclear warhead. Such an upgrade program should be put on the fast track. The second step is to restore the larger number of Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors that are designed to counter long-range missiles that were proposed by President Bush. The Bush Administration proposed placing 44 such interceptors in Alaska and California and ten in Poland. President Obama, last year, made the unwise decision to scale back the number to be place in Alaska and California to 30 and cancelled the agreement with Poland. The most powerful step the Obama Administration could take to close this window of vulnerability is to announce that it will revive a proposal of the Reagan Administration and the George H.W. Bush Administration to put missile defense interceptors in space. This is a missile defense program that will serve to put the Iranians on the defensive.

It is to be expected that critics of the missile defense program will now call for the program to be terminated. Accordingly, it is appropriate to note that many of these critics oppose the missile defense program for the reason that they view missile defense as complicating the arms control and disarmament agenda they support. For them, this test failure has nothing to do with their opposition to the program. Indeed, they would likely see a successful test as a stronger reason for terminating the program than a failed one.

Regarding the technology, even curtailing, let alone terminating, the GMD program would be shortsighted. Failures in a test program for technology as advanced as the GMD system should be expected. For example, the Navy’s Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) program suffered numerous test failures in the 1950s. Polaris, however, laid the foundation for the deployment of an SLBM force that was the backbone of the strategic nuclear force that deterred a Soviet nuclear attack for much of the Cold War. Furthermore, it is frequently the case that the scientists, engineers and contractors working on an advanced technology program will learn more from failed tests than successful ones. The proper response to a failed test, like the one on January 31st, is to maintain a robust program that applies the lessons from the failure to advance the program in the future. The alternative is to believe that any advanced technology weapons program can succeed under a circumstance where it is always just one test failure away from termination. If anything, the testing program for the GMD system has been too timid because of concern about negative political reaction to any such failure and inadequate testing budgets. Under this timid approach, the opportunities for dramatic advances in technology are very limited.

Finally, this test was designed to mimic the sort of long-range missile attack on the United States that Iran is likely to be able to mount in the future. The GMD system is the only one currently available to protect U.S. territory against long-range missile attack. If this program is cancelled, the U.S. will again become vulnerable to attacks with long-range ballistic missiles. It is intolerable that the American people would remain so vulnerable. The GMD program needs to continue and companion sea-based ballistic missile defense systems should be advanced to give them the capability to counter long-range missiles for the defense of U.S. territory. Currently, the sea-based systems are capable of countering only short- and intermediate-range missiles. Finally, the U.S. could revive a program pursued during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations to develop and field space-based ballistic missile defense interceptors. All three steps are necessary if the federal government is going to meet its obligation to provide for the defense of the American people.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano, Deputy Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, will speak at the ICAS Winter Symposium in Washington, D.C., on February 12, 2010.

An expert on defense, intelligence, and homeland security, Carafano will address “Protecting America In The New Missile Age ” at the symposium.

Carafano is a West Point graduate, a 25-year Army veteran, and a national security affairs weekly columnist for the Washington Examiner. He’s also the author of Private Sector/Public Wars: Contracting in Combat-Iraq, Afghanistan and Future Conflicts (Praeger, 2008), a rigorous study of contractors’ role on the battlefield and their impact on military effectiveness and civil society.

The symposium will be held on Capitol Hill in the Rayburn Office Building, Room B-318, from 1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

In October, sources reported that Poland was in the running to receive missile interceptors under President Barack Obama’s new missile defense plan. Last week, Poland’s defense minister announced that the U.S. plans to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, Russia intends to beef up its Baltic fleet. (Source)

Poland will install a base with several launch pads and manned by U.S. troops. Responding to Russia’s plans to shore up its Baltic fleet, a high-ranking source in the Polish Foreign Ministry downplayed the threat. “Let’s stay calm. Such strengthening, even if it becomes true, is no direct threat to Poland. The Russians have known about the Patriots for at least two years. So there is no reason to react to unofficial comments.”

Signed in November, the deal between the U.S. and Poland sends about 100 U.S. troops to Poland. Although the deal reflects both countries’ aim to protect the region from missile attacks, the plan is seen as offensive in nature from Russia’s perspective, rather than defensive.

Last year, President Barack Obama dropped Bush-era plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, the goal of which was to protect the region from Iranian attacks. Russia opposed the shields and threatened to install missiles near Poland’s border. Obama said he reneged on the agreements to focus on systems that would defend against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range.

“In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month,” the Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes wrote in the New York Post last year, “the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat…The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)”

On January 21, the Committee on President Danger, a non-partisan organization that educates Americans about the Islamic threat, sent a letter to Congress and President Barack Obama to express concern about the president’s stance on missile defense. The committee believes he’s changed America’s missile defense program for the worst.

An excerpt:

“Since last spring, the White House has cut some $1.4 billion from programs within the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. In doing so, it has terminated a number of promising programs, among them the Airborne Laser, the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor. All these programs intercepted missiles in early flight and were an important hedge against future offensive missile threats. It has also limited the U.S.-based missile interceptors in Alaska and California to 30 instead of 44, which are currently our only defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“It likewise ended a European ‘third site’ of ground-based defenses, including interceptors and radar, in Poland and the Czech Republic. The latter deployment of 10 missiles, contrary to many claims, was designed to shoot down longer range rockets from Iran, including those capable of reaching both central Europe and the continental United States, as a supplement to the U.S.- based systems. Our other theater missile defense systems, such as THAAD, Patriot and the Aegis-based Standard Missile, numbering close to 1,000 interceptors when current acquisition plans reach fruition, were acquired over the past decade and were scheduled to be simultaneously deployed. These systems have not been designed to shoot down longer range rockets, especially those of intercontinental range.”

Read the full letter at the committee’s web site.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has released a video that shows the Airborne Laser (ABL) successfully firing at a target missile. View the video at the ABL web page.

“This test demonstrated the full functionality of the ABL system to successfully acquire, track, and engage a boosting target,” according to the MDA. “Test instrumentation aboard the MARTI collected data to evaluate ABL laser system performance. This test engagement was not intended to lethally destroy the missile.”

Last summer, defense contractor Boeing and the MDA announced the success of the ABL’s first in-flight test. The ABL tracked and hit a missile target launched from San Nicolas Island off the California coast. The ABL was mounted to Boeing’s modified 747, which took off from Edwards Air Force Base, and its infrared sensors found the target.