Blog

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.

On February 1, 2010, the Obama Administration released its defense budget proposal as part of its fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget request.[1] The defense budget proposal contains three components:

• A $33 billion supplemental appropriation to support overseas contingency operations (OCO) during the current fiscal year;
• A detailed FY 2011 budget request for the core defense program and OCO funding; and
• An outline of defense spending levels for FY 2010 through FY 2015.

The Administration proposes spending $738.7 billion on defense in FY 2011: $159.3 billion on OCO and $579.4 billion on the core defense program. The Administration’s proposal lacks a detailed description of the spending projections for FY 2012 through FY 2015, except that it estimates annual OCO spending at $50 billion annually.

The most important of the proposal’s three components is the spending outline for FY 2010 through FY 2015 because it reveals the future trend of the overall defense budget. This trend line clearly shows that the resources provided to the military will not be sufficient to maintain America’s long-standing security commitments to the American people and to U.S. allies and friends. These commitments include, for example, defending the American people against attack, preserving freedom of the high seas, and preventing a hostile power from dominating Europe.

Congress has a constitutional duty to use its power of the purse to fill the gaps that the Obama Administration’s defense budget would otherwise expose.

A Delayed Draconian Cut

Under the Obama Administration’s current budget outline, total defense spending is expected to decline from $722.1 billion in FY 2010 to $698.2 billion (in current dollars) in FY 2015. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), total defense spending would fall from about 4.9 percent in FY 2010 to roughly 3.6 percent in FY 2015. (See Chart 1.)

In 2009, the Obama Administration’s budget outline had recommended a draconian cut in the FY 2011 defense budget. The good news is that the Administration has flinched, proposing a FY 2011 budget of $738.7 billion–$118 billion more that it had proposed in last year’s budget. The bad news is that this merely delays the draconian cut. Under the budget outline in the FY 2011 budget, the FY 2012 defense budget would drop roughly $92 billion below the proposed FY 2011 level. This cut is the most important factor contributing to the negative trend of defense spending declining as a percentage of GDP.

This planned cut directly affects the core defense program, which funds the military capabilities needed to uphold U.S. security commitments into the future. The core defense program is slated to decline from 3.8 percent of GDP in FY 2010 to less than 3.4 percent in FY 2015. (See Chart 1.) According to the Administration’s budget outline of a year ago, the core defense budget will continue declining after FY 2015, approaching 3 percent of GDP by FY 2019.

Read the full text of Baker Spring’s article at Heritage.

 
The Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring has written a web memo titled, “Sustain the Other European Missile Defense Program,” in which he discusses the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) development program.

President Obama appears reluctant to support agreements we made with Poland and the Czech Republic to build missile defense shields, and he’s proposed to cut $1.4 billion from the missile defense program. But what about our joint missile program with Germany and Italy? An excerpt:

“The Germans are covering 25 percent of the cost of the program, while the Italians are covering 16.7 percent. The U.S. is responsible for the remaining 58.3 percent. This cost-sharing arrangement is based on a $3.4 billion contract that was signed by the three countries in 2004.

“The Obama Administration requested a little more than $569 million in research, development, test, and evaluation funding for the program for fiscal year 2010.Generally speaking, Congress is on track to support the Administration’s request. The question is whether the Obama Administration and Congress will support the program in the years after fiscal year 2010. Therefore, Congress should express its desire to see this program continue in fiscal year 2011 and beyond.”

Spring adds that the MEADS program should stay on track. Not only will it reinforce our commitments with Europe, it will ensure mobility of missile defense power for ground forces, 360-degree protection against missile and air threats, and more.

Read the full article here.

(Image source: Army Technology)

 
The Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring has written a web memo titled, “Obama Missile Defense Proposal: Numbers Matter,” in which he addresses the Obama administration’s proposed missile defense cuts.

We’ve mentioned the administration’s proposal to reduce ground-based midcourse defense interceptors from 44 to 30 and the president’s non-support of missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. Spring goes further and outlines implications of the proposed cuts. An excerpt:

“The emerging Iranian ballistic missile threat appears to be discounted. The Bush Administration’s final proposal regarding the overall ballistic missile defense program divided the program into ‘blocks’ for advancing both the technology and the number of fielded systems.

“As it relates to countering the emerging long-range missile threats from rogue states, specifically North Korea and Iran, Block 1 is dedicated to defending the U.S. against North Korean missiles, and Blocks 3 and 4 are dedicated to defending the U.S. and Europe against Iranian missiles. Block 1 defines the requirement for countering long-range North Korean missiles as the 30 interceptors in Alaska and California that are retained in the Obama Administration’s program. Block 3 would have delivered 14 additional interceptors in the U.S. but for the Obama Administration’s announcement. Likewise, Block 4 would deliver the 10 GMD interceptors to Poland.”

Spring points out that the president’s proposed cuts indicate that he doesn’t consider Iran a threat and urges Congress to examine the evidence before approving cuts to missile defense.

Should we assume the president will compensate for the cuts to ensure we’re able to defend ourselves from long-range missile attacks? No, says Spring:

“This is a dangerous assumption. While future sea-based interceptors derived from the Navy’s Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors could be given the capability to intercept long-rang missiles, it is far from certain that the Obama Administration will take this step. What is certain, however, is that the Obama Administration is not going to support the development of even more effective space-based interceptors.”

Read the full article here.

 
The Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring has written an article about how President Barack Obama’s plans for missile defense are putting America at risk. Spring recounts several events that have proved threatening to the U.S. and the world. An excerpt:

“On February 2, 2009, Iran successfully launched a satellite into orbit using a rocket with technology similar to that used in long-range ballistic missiles. On May 20, 2009, Iran test-fired a 1,200-mile solid-fueled ballistic missile. North Korea attempted to launch a satellite on April 6, 2009, which, while failing to place the satellite in orbit, delivered its payload some 2,390 miles away in the Pacific Ocean. This was followed by a North Korean explosive nuclear weapons test on May 25, 2009.”

Spring notes that instead of maintaining or increasing our defense budget in response to these threats, the Obama administration seeks to cut missile defense spending and scale back production. The result is a 15 percent decline in defense spending. The president’s response to threats from rogue nations like Iran and North Korea has been shamefully weak. Apparently, the president doesn’t take his duty to protect the homeland seriously.

A majority of Americans believe in strong missile defense, but almost everything the president has done so far exposes a different agenda. Playing party politics at home is one thing, but displaying meekness to the world is another.

“Further, Congress and the American people need to be reminded that while the United States has made progress in positioning missile defense systems in the field in recent years, the U.S. remains highly vulnerable to this threat,” Spring writes. “This is no time for the U.S. to slow the pace of developing and deploying effective defenses against ballistic missiles. Indeed, the Obama Administration and Congress need to accelerate the effort by focusing on developing and deploying the systems that offer the greatest capability.”

Spring outlines a detailed proposal for how to build a strong and comprehensive missile defense system. Read the full article here.

 
At the Heritage Foundation blog, Baker Spring writes about the Czech government temporarily pulling back from parliament agreements between the Czech Republic and the U.S. to install missile defense radar. He writes:

“Critics of the planned ground-based missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic that would be used to counter long-range missile threats from Iran against Europe or the United States ought to think twice before assuming this move puts that plan in trouble…Both opponents of emplacing a missile defense radar in the Czech parliament and the Obama Administration need understand the likely cost of pulling back.”

Baker notes that pulling back from both agreements increases the risk of nuclear war. Rogue state Iran continues to be a concern. If that country obtains a nuclear weapon and long-range missile, our ability to protect the region will be limited. Reversing our agreements with Central Europe would not only be seen as weak, it would weaken the security relationship between the U.S. and the Czech Republic.