The Defense Department announced four locations it will investigate as a potential East Coast missile defense site to supplement interceptors in Alaska and California.
The four locations–Camp Ravenna, Ohio; Fort Custer, Mich.; Fort Drum, N.Y.; and the Portsmouth Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Training Area, Maine–will undergo a 24-month Environmental Impact Statement process, which includes investigating how land use, water resources, air quality, local community infrastructure and socioeconomics, and more would be affected by setting up a Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) site.
DoD has still not committed to building an East Coast site, but Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) said there is growing support for establishing a third site to protect against threats from the Middle East and other locations.
Owens acknowledged there were some mixed opinions about the need for a third site or the wisdom in investing in it now amid tight defense budgets, but he added that “some of that was, if you will, reduced because of what’s happened in North Korea, what’s happened in Iran. That there’s maybe a heightened level of concern that we need to make sure we have these kinds of facilities in place so they can, if you will, take out any potential attack. And, in large measure, this is a deterrent activity…We are attempting to deter someone from even considering a launch.”
Owens touted Fort Drum, home to the Army’s 10th Mountain Division and more recently a drone squadron, as an ideal candidate for a missile defense site. “I think the physical facility at Fort Drum–meaning the infrastructure, the roads, electric–all those things are in place. They also have barracks, an immense amount of land that’s available, and they also have infrastructure pieces–a PX, commissary, recreational facilities. Some of the other installations don’t have those things up and ready to go, so we think that gives them a tremendous heads up.”
He said it was up to the local community and the base leadership to sell Fort Drum to the Missile Defense Agency, but he said his office would support local officials in any way needed.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said in a statement that “Northeast Ohio’s strategic location, robust infrastructure, and skilled workforce make it a leading contender. The strong support from the local community for this potential new mission at Ravenna has made it even more attractive to missile defense planners.”
Portman has pushed to keep on track the effort to establish a third GMD site, writing to MDA director Vice Adm. James Syring in October 2013 to express his support for both the site itself and the inclusion of Camp Ravenna as a potential location. Portman successfully pushed an amendment into the compromise National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2014 in December that requires MDA to report to Congress in six months about its progress on both the EISs and developing a contingency plan to deploy missile defense assets should the Pentagon choose to create a third site.
As for Camp Ravenna itself, the former ammunition plant now serves as a National Guard training center and could use an additional mission. Michael Zetts, spokesman for Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who represents the military training center, said that “Camp Ravenna is already a first class facility offering stellar training facilities in a community that cares deeply about the base. Camp Ravenna also offers extensive transportation access including major airports, highways, waterways and rail as well as many research facilities, universities and medical institutions. There is also broad support among community leaders and elected officials for locating a missile defense site at Camp Ravenna.”
In addition to the four sites that will go through the EIS process, the Pentagon had originally also considered Camp Ethan Allen in Vermont. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) does not support creating a third site and did not want it in his district.
“The ground-based interceptors being contemplated for an East Coast missile defense site cost huge sums of money, without delivering reliable capability,” he said Jan. 31, when the Pentagon announced its final four sites. “I welcome the news that Vermont’s Camp Ethan Allen will not be considered as a site, and I continue to pursue redirecting those funds toward projects that have more proven and cost-effective success in keeping Americans safe.”