While there are rumblings in the House about building a missile-defense site on the U.S. East Coast, lead senators said the issue is far from pressing right now.
House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) said March 26 at a missile-defense conference that officials “must assure full coverage of U.S. territory” and “look at building an additional (Ground-based Midcourse Defense) GMD site somewhere in the continental United States, specifically in the East Coast.” His stance is influenced by that of Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), the chairman of the HASC’s Strategic Forces subcommittee who questioned Pentagon officials last month about their lack of any funding for studying an East Coast site, despite some support for one by defense experts.
McKeon, speaking at the U.S. Missile Defense Conference sponsored by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, said “missile defense will play a key role” in the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill the HASC subcommittees will begin marking up this month. He said he will rely on Turner’s “input and guidance” to ensure MDA has robust resources to protect the U.S. homeland from missiles.
Boeing’s [BA] Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (GMD) is made up of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California that are intended to protect the United States from long-range ballistic missiles. President Barack Obama also has a nascent Phased Adaptive Approach program for missile defense in and around Europe.
If the HASC includes language supportive of a GMD site on the East Coast in the upcoming defense bill, the proposal might not receive a warm reception by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).
SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters on March 27 that an East Coast site is “unnecessary.”
“I asked the military; I rely heavily on their recommendation,” Levin said. He was referring to comments from Army. Gen. Charles Jacoby, who establishes requirements for homeland missile-defense capability, during a March 13 SASC hearing.
“Today’s threats do not require an East Coast missile field and we do not have plans to do so,” said Jacoby, who commands U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command.
Levin noted at the time some lawmakers have suggested deploying at least one ground-based interceptor on the East Coast because of the potential threat of a long-range Iranian missile reaching this country.
Yet Levin and SASC Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) told reporters on March 27 they have not given much thought to an East Coast GMD site.
“I would focus on Europe first because that’s where the Iranian threat can be countered,” McCain told reporters. “We have not had a lot of conversation (about an U.S. East Coast site in the SASC), because obviously the attention has been focused on the European situation because (of) the emerging threat of Iranian capabilities. I think that’s logical.”
McCain, though, said he “certainly wouldn’t be opposed to” an East Coast site, “depending on our assessment of the threat.”
McKeon, for his part, argued at the missile-defense conference that the East Coast of this country is vulnerable.
“Limiting GMD to select areas is like having a10-foot-tall electrified wire fence on three sides your property,” he said. “What good are defenses if they can be bypassed?” He noted Iran’s “aggressive” nuclear pursuits and space-launch test. Additional missile on the Eastern seaboard could help serve as a hedge against Iran, he argued.
Turner raised the issued during a March 6 hearing of his subcommittee on the FY ’13 missile-defense budget request attended by officials including MDA Director Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly.
“I don’t even see a dollar figure for an East Coast site, which NORTHCOM recommended before the (Phased Adaptive Approach) EPAA was announced and which the Institute for Defense Analysis and the National Academies of Sciences recently recommended,” Turner said. “Not even a cent for environmental impact study work which would consume at least 18 months of time.”
He asked: “Why don’t we knock this out at least part of the way so we have an option to proceed if we’re wrong about the threat of Iran and we need to move more quickly?”