Blog

Today’s guest for our “Ask the Experts” interview series is Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. She recently co-authored an article for the Washington Times on President Barack Obama’s missile defense policy and the existing missile threat.

Welcome to the 33-Minutes blog, Ms. Heinrichs. Tell us about your organization and what it does.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is dedicated to studying the ideologies that drive terrorism and developing policies that can most effectively address terrorism, secure our country, and defend the democratic principles of the United States and our allies. Ultimately, the goal is to make America safer and more secure for generations to come.

Why is missile defense important?

Missile defense is especially important right now because dangerous and unstable regimes have and sell ballistic missiles. Countries like Iran could give ballistic missiles to terrorist groups; if the terrorist group were to launch them, the U.S. would have a more difficult time tracing them back to Iran.

Also, terrorists and regimes with the same radical religious ideology may not be deterred by the threat of retaliation since they view death as a good thing. Missile defense gives the U.S. military the ability to intercept an incoming missile before it lands on an unsuspecting city or military base. More fundamentally, if we have a robust missile defense system in place, it could cause other countries to reconsider pursuing ballistic missiles in the first place, if they know our system would render them useless. In other words, missile defense plays a crucial role in our deterrent strategy.

Do you believe the Obama administration is moving the U.S. in the right direction?

The administration should significantly increase the entire Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget to fill the holes in our missile defense system as soon as technically possible– before countries like Iran and North Korea develop missiles that can penetrate the current system. Instead, the Obama administration cut promising programs the MDA was developing to pay for certain investments. The programs they have chosen to emphasize will help make our ballistic missile defense system more effective against shorter range ballistic missiles. These are good investments, and previous administrations planned to do this, too. The problem is, the Obama administration sacrificed critical programs to pay for these investments instead of increasing the top line. The programs they cut would have given the U.S. the ability to intercept missiles right after they are launch, when they are still over enemy territory. Having this ability would deter enemies from launching the missile in the first place.

The administration also cancelled the “European Site” which would have protected the U.S. and Europe from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) within the next several years. A recent DIA report confirms Iran may have an ICBM by 2015.

What else do readers need to know about this issue?

There is no “silver bullet’ program in our layered ballistic missile defense system. Elected officials will often make the argument that they “support missile defense” by pointing to particular programs they support, while at the same time voting for cutting or eliminating other ballistic missile defense programs. Each program defends against a particular kind of ballistic missile threat, and all the systems work together to provide a protective shield for Americans and U.S. interests. Although our system does offer the U.S. some protection against certain kinds of missiles, there are still holes, and we must continue to sustain and improve upon it.
————————————————————————————–

Previous interviews:

Riki Ellison

Dr. Steven Metz

Peter Huessy

Today’s guest for our “Ask the Experts” interview series is Peter Huessy, a senior defense associate at the National Defense University Foundation (NDUF) and president of the defense consulting firm, GeoStrategic Analysis. Mr. Huessy is also a consultant for Analytic Services and the Missile Defense Agency.

Welcome to the 33-Minutes blog, Mr. Huessy. Tell us about your organization and what it does.

NDUF is the key fundraising and public outreach arms of the NDU. My company, GeoStrategic Analysis, is a defense consulting firm specializing in nuclear, missile defense, homeland security and counter terrorism, as well as the congressional role in all of these matters.

Why is missile defense important?

General Chilton put it best: North Korea with ballistic missiles capable of targeting Los Angeles would be able to hold at risk the US population and threaten them after invading the Republic of Korea and thus able to leverage that capability against any US effort to come to the defense of the Republic of Korea; a US President should not be out in the box of only having the choice of surrender or risking the death of thousands of Americans. Missile defense takes away that coercive North Korea capability. Missile defense can also stop a terrorist EMP attack led by a joint terror group/Iranian effort, for example, as well as stop an accidental or unauthorized launch of a ballistic missile. Theater systems are critical to defending US forces overseas.

Do you believe the Obama administration is moving the U.S. in the right direction?

Some right directions in increasing the number roof Aegis SM and THAAD interceptors, but there is: (1) mismatch between missiles purchased and Navy ships available; (2) deployment of defenders for CONUS stopped at 30 in California and Alaska–not sufficient and need further improvements; (3) SM-3 will not be available earlier than 2020 to defend against long-range Iranian missiles; and (4) ABL not going forward or KEI, both good technologies; too few eggs in too few baskets re: future–almost all dependent upon the Navy standard missile.

What else do readers need to know about this issue?

There is no ONE (1) missile defense system; there are 14 interceptors, radars, and other elements of a world-wide deployment of systems that defend the US, our allies, and forces overseas from a variety of missile threats. Hezbollah has now secured Scud missiles from Syria that have ranges from hundreds of miles up to over 1500, while Iran and North Korea have rockets that now have ranges at +3000 kilometers. The media continually claim that missile defense costs $10 billion, as if it is a single system as opposed to nearly twenty integrated but separate programs. People need to know that in 2000, we had ZERO missile defense interceptors deployed worldwide; we now approach 1200 such interceptors. Their investment has been well spent!

Thank you!
————————————————————————————–

Previous interviews:

Riki Ellison

Dr. Steven Metz

Today’s guest for our “Ask the Experts” interview series is Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA). The group also has a blog, which covers the latest missile defense news.

Welcome to the 33-Minutes blog, Mr. Ellison. Tell us your about organization and what it does.

MDAA’s mission is to drive the political will through education and advocacy to make the world safer from the proliferation and threat of ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction to our nation, troops overseas and allies by advocating for the development and deployment of missile defense systems.

We are a non-profit, non-partisan organization that is membership driven. I founded the organization after President G.W. Bush and Congress withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and made the decision to move forward on missile defenses in December 2002.

I have been passionately involved with Missile Defense since 1983, inspired by President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative speech and briefed by Dr. Edward Teller.

Why is missile defense important?

Because in the world we live in today the United States cannot deter states or third party actors from attacking or threatening others with nuclear weapons or WMD by relying solely on the mutually assured destruction through the retaliation of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Missile defense provides our President with other options to stabilize crisis regions like the Middle East or the Far East without the American and Allied bloodshed that would come with preemptive military action. Having missile defense allows our allies to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities if a neighboring state or third actor does. Japan and South Korea’s reaction to North Korea’s nuclear status are working examples of this.

Do you believe the Obama administration is moving the U.S. in the right direction?

They have made broad policy statements in support of missile defense as stated by the Secretary of Defense in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review released March 1, 2010. However, actions speak louder than words. The 2010 and 2011 defense budgets for missile defense are less than President George W. Bush’s and the threat and proliferation of ballistic missiles has risen during the same time. There are concerns about adequate protection of the U.S. homeland with the reduction of defensive long range Interceptors from 44 to 30. The acceptance of the high risk of protection of the east coast of the U.S. without a multiple shots as the rest of the nation has is a great concern. What exactly is the plan of deployment of the Presidents vision for missile defense and how much will it cost to defend our allies.

What else do readers need to know about this issue?

Two key points:

First, there should be no connection to missile defense in the upcoming START treaty to reduce strategic arms with Russia. Giving up missile defense protection of the U.S., Europe or any place we have troops and allies, in exchange for a reduction of arms with Russia is unfair, unsafe and would leave us defenseless against the current threats from Iran and North Korea as well as other future threats.

Second, the cut in funds and programming for the Airborne Laser by the current administration is not in the best interest of our national security. This system demonstrated two laser shoot downs, at the speed of light, on two boosting ballistic missiles this year. This was a revolutionary achievement by a system that should continue to be developed and eventually deployed. It is the only system that has been proven to destroy missiles in their boost phase. It is a game changer for the United States.
————————————————————————————–

Previous interview:

Dr. Steven Metz

The 33-Minutes blog will feature a new interview series called “Ask the Experts.” Our first guest is Dr. Steven Metz, Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department and Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute.

Dr. Metz graciously responded to our questions, and we believe his insights will help readers understand the importance of missile defense.

Welcome to the 33-Minutes blog, Dr. Metz. Tell us about your organization and what it does.

My organization is the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. It is the U.S. Army’s institute for geostrategic and national security research and analysis. The Strategic Studies Institute conducts strategic research and analysis to support the U.S. Army War College curricula, provides direct analysis for Army and Department of Defense leadership, and serves as a bridge to the wider strategic community.

Why is missile defense important?

Missile defense is vital today because the traditional form of nonproliferation, which took shape during the Cold War, is no longer effective in saving the world from the disaster of nuclear warfare. It was predicated on the assumption that nations which might use nuclear weapons for aggressive or coercive purposes could not obtain them without technological and scientific help. So if they could be prevented from getting such help, they could not build nuclear weapons.

Today technological and scientific knowledge has proliferated to a degree which makes this assumption invalid. This means that the United States and the world community must focus on lowering the utility of nuclear weapons for nations which acquire them. This must be a two part process: extended deterrence, in which the United States makes clear that any first use of nuclear weapons will result in the destruction of the state that used them; and missile and air defense, which will make nuclear states question whether a nuclear strike would be effective. Even if not 100% foolproof, such a defense–whether national or regional–would contribute to security by causing a potential aggressor to doubt the effects of aggression.

Do you believe the Obama administration is moving the U.S. in the right direction?

In 2010 President Obama made deep cuts in the Missile Defense Budget. In my opinion, this was a mistake. But the Fiscal Year budget did include a  $577 million increase over the previous year. This is still below the Bush administration’s funding levels and more is needed. Hopefully the increase between 2010 and 2011 represents the beginning of a trend.