Chilton: Cyber Hackers, Foes, Penetrate Military Computer Systems; New Nuclear Weapons Needed To Thwart Terror Thieves
U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs deter threats and therefore should be continued, since successful tests last year increase confidence that missile defense works in the real world, a key military officer told Congress.
While rumors swirl that a Democratic President Obama and Democrats with a larger majority in the new Congress will slash missile defense programs deeply, Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said missile defense programs are needed, and they work.
He appeared before the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee, as Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who chairs the panel, noted that over recent years, “I have argued that our primary focus should be on countering the most imminent, here-and-now threat to our deployed troops and our allies: short and medium range missiles.”
Translated, that means she favors already developed systems led by Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT], the sea-based Aegis weapon control system that is paired with the Raytheon Co. [RTN] Standard Missile, and the Lockheed-led Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, system, and the Patriot system, also by Raytheon.
But she doesn’t much favor the Airborne Laser (ABL), which is still in development by The Boeing Co. [BA], which her subcommittee attempted to slash to about a fourth of its requested funding two years ago, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system already developed and emplaced in Alaska and California, also by Boeing, the European Missile Defense (EMD) system, by Boeing as well, and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) by a team including Raytheon and Northrop Grumman Corp. [NOC].
With some understatement, she noted that there is a “vigorous discussion” on Capitol Hill over missile defense programs.
Tauscher and some other lawmakers have challenged whether the ABL, GMD, EMD and KEI systems will work well, or she has observed that they aren’t fully developed, which is true.
But the ranking Republican member on the subcommittee, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, said a multi-layered program is critical. While the subcommittee has supported near-term missile defenses such as GMD, Aegis, THAAD, Patriot and others, “we also have to figure out a way to preserve investments in future capabilities,” an apparent reference to ABL, KEI and the like, he said. “I would appreciate [the thoughts of other subcommittee members] on which future capabilities are most promising.” ABL is the only laser missile defense system; the other missile defenses involve interceptor missiles.
Turner also stressed that the United States doesn’t have the luxury of waiting for all technology to be totally mature, or for many tests against target missiles to be performed, because enemies are developing missile technologies and nuclear programs now.
Testing is essential, Turner said, but “real world events do not wait for more testing. We may be days, if not weeks, from a North Korean missile launch and, according to Adm. [Timothy J. Keating, commander of the Pacific Command], the military is prepared to shoot down any North Korean ballistic missile with a ‘very sophisticated’ and complex, but effective ballistic missile-defense system.'”
North Korea already has developed and tested a nuclear weapon, and it is developing the Taepo Dong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile that could strike the U.S. West Coast. Preparations for a test launch in North Korea are underway, and Pyongyang has announced liftoff will be next month, though the reclusive regime says it will be a satellite launch, not a military missile test.
Separately, Iran has a nuclear materials production program, and Tehran has launched a satellite, which involves the same technology as an intercontinental ballistic missile.
A key reason that U.S. missile defense must be developed is that nations such as Iran and North Korea that have nuclear programs and growing missile capabilities don’t operate on the same restrictions that deterred aggression by the old Soviet Union, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) noted. While Moscow in the Cold War was cowed by the fear that any nuclear war it would start would draw instant nuclear annihilation from U.S. missiles, emergent nuclear rogue states don’t “look at nuclear deterrence” with the same apprehension, Franks said.
They have different values and different fears, he said.
For example, if Iran were able to shoot two nuclear missiles and annihilate Manhattan and Washington, D.C., or North Korea could shoot two missiles and destroy Los Angeles and San Francisco, what could the United States target in those nations that would be of even vaguely comparable value?
But what could concern leaders in those rogue states is if the United States has a credible missile defense, so that if one of those countries launches an attack, its missiles may be destroyed by U.S. systems, leaving the offending rogue nation open to counter-attack, all for nothing.
Chilton also said a multi-layered ballistic missile defense system is vital to protect the United States, its forces and its allies.
“U.S. missile defense capabilities provide a critical deterrent against certain existing and potential threats, increase he cost of adversaries’ already expensive technologies, and reduce the value of their investments,” Chilton said, after comments by Tauscher.
He and others have observed that fielding a U.S. missile defense screen against enemy weapons gives the president an option other than a massive retaliatory strike against a nation attacking the United States, a strike that would mean nuclear incineration of that enemy nation and much of its population.
“We must continue the careful development of a missile defense capability that preserves our freedom of action at home and abroad,” he said.
“Regional and global ballistic missile threats will require sustained, focused attention and dedicated resources to endure a balance defensive capability portfolio,” the general added.
He endorsed efforts of the Missile Defense Agency to increase “the redundancy and depth of the ballistic missile defense system.”
The agency, or MDA, is tasked with ensuring that any nation launching a missile attack on, say, an American city will see its missile annihilated by a U.S. missile defense system that has multiple chances to bring down a single missile. When the missile launches, the ABL can fire its laser at the missile and keep hitting it until it is killed. If the missile somehow could escape that, it might be hit by an interceptor from the GMD system high in the sky. Or the Aegis sea-based system could take a shot at the enemy weapon. If the enemy missile slipped by that, it could face being hit by THAAD.
While critics and lawmakers wishing to cut missile defense funding have questioned whether tests show missile defense works, Chilton said it works well enough.
“Successful tests in 2008 improved our confidence in the performance of existing capabilities,” he said. And military personnel are training in using missile defense assets, he noted.
While some lawmakers have questioned whether the Missile Defense Agency and its programs receive sufficiently tough oversight, Chileon said the Missile Defense Executive Board “provides effective oversight.”
And a Global Integrated Missile Defense Concept of Operations, or ConOps, is proceeding well, he said.
He also extolled a proposed conventional-warhead missile that could strike anywhere in the world, on short notice.
“To provide the president a better range of non-nuclear options against rapidly emerging threats, we also require a deployed, conventional prompt global strike capability to hold at risk targets in denied territory that can only be rapidly struck today with nuclear weapon platforms,” Chilton observed.
Cyber Threat: Hackers
Hackers are managing to invade military computer systems, though defenses are competent to stymie most attempts of cyber vandals, Air Force Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, commander of the Strategic Forces Command, said.
Chilton spoke as a witness in a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee.
“Are we vulnerable today?” Chilton said. “I would say yes.”
The intruders range over a gamut from the “bored teenager” to criminals, up to high-end cyber warriors including those in the forces of nation-states, he said.
“Every day there are attempts to penetrate our network,” he reported, “some of which are successful.” But “many, many” more are defeated by Department of Defense (DOD) cyber protections.
It is vital for the military to adopt a new culture of awareness of, and preparation against, cyber attacks, he said, adding that routine inspections of any military unit should include inspections of computer gear to ensure that it contains defenses against cyber assaults.
He responded to questions from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who asked about cyber attacks, and whether assailants are more likely to invade commercial or military computer systems.
Rep. James R. Langevin (D-R.I.), asked whether there should be a DOD involvement in a government-wide campaign to thwart cyber assailants.
Chilton replied that currently, DOD efforts center on domains with addresses ending in .mil, but he would welcome a broader effort that would include protecting domains with .gov and .edu addresses.
The general made clear that it isn’t necessary to establish a DOD cyber command, because one already exists: “We have a cyber command today, and that is the United States Strategic Command,” he said, responding to Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.).
He also said that while the United States doesn’t need “a new nuclear weapon,” the military does require improved nukes that are more reliable, with added safety and security features, recognizing that in this age, terrorists wish to steal nuclear weapons.
It is important to have reliability, since the United States fields a nuclear force not only to protect itself, but also to protect its allies. Otherwise, each of them might feel compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons, leading to a nuclear proliferation problem. “Our allies rely on the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States,” he said.
We weren’t worried about the [Soviet Union operatives] stealing our weapons, because they had plenty of their own,” Chilton recalled, speaking to Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D- Calif.), who chairs the subcommittee. He noted that in citing needed improvements, he isn’t referring to the Reliable Replacement Warhead plan.
He also cited a need for ballistic missile defense, and space situational awareness. And he said perhaps it would be well to examine export controls designed to prevent sensitive U.S. military technology from falling into foreign enemy hands, to see whether curbs are so tight they prevent U.S. firms from selling more products overseas.