While Democrats may be tempted to cut defense spending and redirect funds to programs propping up a weakened economy, it would be a disastrous mistake to slash funding for ballistic missile defense programs, especially those that kill enemy missiles in their most vulnerable phase of flight.
Democrats especially shouldn’t touch funding for the Airborne Laser (ABL) and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), as well as NCADE.
So says Loren B. Thompson, chief operating officer for The Lexington Institute, a think tank near the Pentagon that focuses on defense and other issues, in an issue brief dated tomorrow.
Thompson indicated clearly that he expects Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic presidential nominee, to win the election next week, beating Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican hopeful. Many polls show Obama leading McCain.
And many political analysts expect Democrats — who already control both the Senate and House — to pick up even more seats in Congress when election results are tallied. That could mean Democrats could wind up controlling the White House, Senate and House, the trifecta of politics.
But Thompson warned Democrats not to follow their usual instincts to savage defense spending, at least not in one critical area: ballistic missile defense programs. Some Democrats in Congress in prior years have attempted unsuccessfully to make deep cuts in funding for ABL, KEI and other programs.
While at one time the United States only had to worry about possible nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, those days are long gone, and Washington now confronts a wide proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, Thompson noted.
And some of those who possess new nuclear capabilities are worrisome, unstable characters uttering irrational statements and initiating unnerving actions, he added.
While it is understandable that Democrats might wish to focus attention, and money, on the souring economy and loss of jobs for Americans, it would be far worse for a million of those Americans to be atomized in a nuclear attack, Thompson noted.
And the fact is that the nuclear threat “grew worse over the last eight years as the Bush administration botched efforts to slow the spread of nuclear weapons. Because of its mis-steps in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and elsewhere, we are facing a more diverse and unpredictable nuclear danger than ever before.”
While there was a daunting nuclear threat during the Cold War, at least back then “we didn’t have to worry about nuts like Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” leaders of North Korea and Iran, respectively, Thompson stated.
“As long as Russia (and later China) was deterred by the threat of overwhelming retaliation, we could convince ourselves we were safe. Not now. Who really understands the thought process of Kim Il-Sung’s ne’er-do-well son, or the [Islamic] nationalists who might one day rule Pakistan? Even if they’re rational — which is assuming a lot, based on past behavior — they still might be accident prone, or given to miscalculation in assessing U.S. behavior. So deterrence the way we used to practice it is a declining franchise, at least when it comes to the growing club of nuclear arrivistes popping up around the world.”
Where that leaves the United States, he said, is that “there really is no alternative to missile defense, a conclusion the Clinton Administration reached ten years ago.”
A new Democratic administration led by a President Obama wouldn’t have to start any new missile defense programs, Thompson said. Rather, it would suffice just to continue existing programs, especially those that kill enemy missiles shortly after they launch.
The Airborne Laser program involves a heavily modified 747-400 cargo jet contributed by prime contractor The Boeing Co. [BA], with a laser system by Northrop Grumman Corp. [NOC] and a beam control/fire control system by Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT].
ABL uses a laser beam fired continuously at an enemy missile to fry its electronics and blast a hole in it, destroying the threat shortly after it lifts off, before the enemy asset has a chance to emit multiple warheads or confusing decoys or chaff.
The Kinetic Energy Interceptor likewise hits the enemy threat shortly after it launches, using an interceptor missile to hit the enemy missile. Northrop leads the program, which also involves Raytheon Co. [RTN] and Alliant Techsystems Inc. [ATK].
Thompson also cited the Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE), “an inexpensive modification of the main air-to-air missile carried on U.S. fighters that could be ready to intercept enemy missiles by the end of President Obama’s first term.”
To be sure, Thompson added, the United States also requires the protection of other missile defense systems that demolish the enemy missile in its midcourse or terminal phases of the ballistic path.
“The new administration will inherit programs capable of defeating the kind of arsenals nuclear upstarts such as North Korea possess,” Thompson noted. “Some of these programs, like the missile-defense capabilities of Navy Aegis destroyers, are available on warfighting systems that serve a host of other missions too, making them real bargains. They’re useless against an all-out Russian strategic attack, but they can cope with most of the other threats we face today.”
Lockheed provides the Aegis guidance system, while Raytheon provides the Standard Missile interceptor that obliterates the enemy missile.
But it is crucial to fully fund the missile defense systems now in development that will kill enemy missiles in their boost phase, before they can emit multiple warheads or take other confusing action, he continued.
“The cost of these programs is so modest, and the threat to America from emerging nuclear actors is so great, that the new administration needs to figure out how to keep them going regardless of what happens to the economy in the years ahead,” Thompson recommended.
To read Thompson’s issue brief titled “Memo to Demo’s: Missile Defense Is Our Top Military Need” in entirety, please go to http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org on the Web.