Democratic President Obama’s move to slash $1.2 billion from U.S. missile defense programs would be an unwise move, weakening U.S. security, according to William Cohen, the one-time a Republican senator from Maine who became secretary of defense under Democratic President Clinton.
While Cohen at length cited the rising missile threat posed by North Korea, which just tested another nuclear weapon in an underground blast and also test-launched several missiles traveling up to 2,000 miles, Cohen as well could have pointed to actions of Iran. It has an illicit, globally condemned nuclear materials production program, and has launched a satellite using the same multi-stage technology required to build an intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). That satellite was over the United States 30 minutes after liftoff
Writing in The Washington Times, Cohen argued that an isolated, erratic nation such as North Korea could pose problems for the United States if it develops full ICBM missile capabilities and pairs that with its nuclear weapons capabilities, even if the North doesn’t launch a nuclear-tipped missile at an American city.
While some observers take the longest-range North Korean missile launch lightly, saying that Pyongyang failed to orbit a satellite as it claimed it would, Cohen says that is cold comfort. What the North really aimed to do is to further develop the range of its Taepo Dong-2 missile, and Pyongyang succeeded in doing just that, roughly doubling the range to 2,000 miles, according to Cohen, chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm.
Some military analysts say the third stage on the Taepo Dong-2 missile failed, and that if that glitch is resolved, the missile will have a 4,000-mile range, sufficient to reach the United States.
Too, the North has taken other provocative, belligerent steps, including kicking out international arms inspectors, vowing to withdraw from six-party denuclearization talks, and announcing it will rebuild and restart its Yongbyon nuclear reactor that makes fissile materials used in building yet more nuclear arms.
For all these reasons, it is vital that the United States must move ahead to continue constructing a credible multi-layered missile defense system, Cohen argued.
But at this point, the United States has no Airborne Laser or Kinetic Energy Interceptor systems deployed to kill enemy missiles in their boost phase, just after launch, when they are most vulnerable and most easily tracked, before they can emit multiple warheads or confusing decoys or chaff.
The United States also has systems to defend itself, but hasn’t even begun construction of the European Missile Defense (EMD) system needed to protect European allies against attack by long-range Iranian missiles.
Those programs would be frozen or eliminated under the Obama budget for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, April 6, 2009, and Thursday, May 7, 2009.)
Cohen made his comments as Congress is considering whether to approve those cuts, which the administration estimates total $1.2 billion, bringing overall missile defense spending down to $7.8 billion next year.
Actually, because funds are shifted from some less-favored missile defense initiatives to favored programs, the cuts to less-favored programs in reality total about $2 billion, some critics assert.
A key point is that missile defense systems originally were proposed not only as a shield against missile aggression by rogue nations, but also were intended as a way to counter accidental launches by a major power, Cohen noted.
Too, a full multi-layered missile defense shield gives any U.S. president confronted by incoming enemy missiles a response option other than unleashing hundreds of U.S. nuclear-tipped missiles to rain down on the offending nation, others have noted.
The proposed Obama missile defense funding reduction “sends the signal that we do not take the threats of rogue regimes seriously, and are willing to take the risk that current technologies are sufficient to prevent devastating accidents or miscalculations,” Cohen argued.
It is better to err on the side of safety, especially given recent bellicose actions of North Korea, Iran and other rogue states, he asserted.
Too, missile defense cuts “would also confuse our allies and undermine their trust in America’s security guarantees,” he stated.
For example, with the EMD, leaders in the Czech Republic (radar) and Poland (interceptors in ground silos) took great political risks in offering to host the system. Now, Obama proposes freezing the program, with just $51 million proposed for fiscal 2010, which would be the most that could be spent without violating restrictions that Congress imposed in earlier budgets.
“If the United States is vulnerable to the threat of a missile attack by a rogue state, allies could lose confidence in America’s nuclear deterrent — which could lead nations such as Japan to pursue a nuclear deterrent of their own,” Cohen continued.
Fully supporting further development of the multi-layered U.S. missile defense system would aid nuclear nonproliferation goals by devaluing such weapons, helping the cause of ridding the Korean Peninsula of nukes, he added.
Further, U.S. allies then would see less need to build their own nuclear arms arsenals, he reasoned.