Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Senate minority whip, spoke before a National Defense University Foundation and National Defense Industrial Association breakfast in Washington at the Capitol Hill Club April 21, 2009. Key portions of his remarks were transcribed by Space & Missile Defense Report.
” … A long time ago, the Israelis moved past the ideological debate about missile defense that we’re still having in this country. Given the existential threats to [Israel], they can’t afford those debates. I worry that too many in Washington think we can still afford them here.
“The administration’s defense budget did significant cuts to missile defense [which] are inexplicable as a matter of policy, and dangerous — especially” in some areas.
“While the administration’s final plans for missile defense remain unclear, recent recommendations by Secretary Gates suggest a $1.4 billion overall reduction, combined with an additional $900 million for theater missile defenses that must come from the remaining [Missile Defense Agency] budget. Accordingly, MDA will have to find about $2.3 billion in program reductions. These are startling reductions, as much as a fifth of the entire Missile Defense Agency budget.
“The administration’s emphasis on theater missile defenses is not necessarily bad, but it should not come at the expense of our national missile defense efforts. The lack of planned improvements to the national missile [defense] program is particularly worrying, and in my view should be rerversed.
“This system is the only means for protecting the homeland against the long-range [missile] threat over the next 10 to 15 years. We need to ensure that it doesn’t become obsolete. A $1.4 billion cut to longer-term program research and development — that will necessarily retard our ability to stay ahead of the threat. Is this a risk we want to take?
“As I noted before, North Korea and Iran are making significant advances. For the second year in a row, the annual report on military power of the People’s Republic of China has noted that that nation does not even have sufficient control of elements of its strategic nuclear forces, making the prospect of an accidental or unauthorized launch a real possibility.
…
[Reversing deep missile defense budget cuts that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed] “It’s not going to be easy, obviously. We face substantial cuts to the entire defense budget, and there’s no easy way to reallocate spending to undo the damage to the missile defense part of the president’s budget.
“In my view, the White House Web site accurately states, and I quote, ‘the greatest danger to the American people is a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon, and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes.’ …
“Yet at the same time, the Web site calls for dramatic reductions in U.S.-Russian nuclear stockpiles. …
“So which is the real threat? Thousands of nuclear weapons in the American and Russian arsenals, or a nuclear Iran and North Korea, and nuclear terrorists? By conflating the two problems into one, the administration risks muddying the issue and making it more difficult to address the true dangers, which most people agree are the threat of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, and the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
… “Having just returned from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and Israel, I am extraordinarily worried that the situation in Pakistan could actually deteriorate faster than Iran can acquire its weapons. Pakistan is a nation of 170-some million people, with probably at least 100 nuclear warheads, and is falling rapidly into the clutchesof the Taliban — perhaps a third to a half of the country already under some form of control by the Taliban, with the Pakistani army seemingly unable to control its spread, with a leadership that’s divided and weak and in my opinion in a state of denial about what has happened. Experts warn … that within one to six months, Pakistan could fall to the Taliban.
“Think for a moment what the consequences of that would be: Pakistan becoming Iran, except with already 100 nuclear weapons. This is a real danger, and I do support emphasizing the threat that this kind of challenge would pose. … [need missile defense]
“Now, there are ways that we can deal with these threats and still have bipartisan support. It requires working with the international community, strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regimes [with] tougher export controls, sanctions, monitoring, and controlling the spread of nuclear-related technologies. It also means supporting the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction efforts, to police and eliminate nuclear weapons in the states of the former Soviet Union. But most importantly, it requires firm thinking and concerted international effort to find the right combination of carrots and sticks capable of persuading North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear aspirations.
“[President Obama] said ‘rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something.’ It is unclear how the administration intends to accomplish that. … [an example of a violation is the North Korean long-range missile launch.] Why return to arms control, then? Why risk the bipartisan consensus? As frustration mounts over the inability of the international community to prevent North Korea and Iran from going nuclear, groups such as Global Zero turn their efforts to what seems to have worked in the past: strategic nuclear arms control and other treaty regimes that limit U.S. and Russian nuclear capabilities. This is the easier thing to do, apparently. The hope is that U.S.- Russian nuclear reductions or elimination and ratification of the CGBT will somehow deal with the problem of nuclear proliferation, which is to say the problem posed by North Korea and Iran. This is wishful thinking, to say the least. CGBT … is really the quintessential example of feel-good arms control. It was rejected by the Senate for two key reasons: first, it’s unverifiable. And second, the prohibition on testing will make it impossible for the United States to maintain a credible deterrent. [still true]
[Verification hasn’t advanced sufficiently to detect nuclear testing activities.] The National Academy of Sciences … recently found that nuclear tests could take place with as much as one to two kilotons of yield, and still be successfully hidden from detection.
The past 17 years of stockpile stewardship have failed to prevent a dangerous deterioration in our nuclear weapons stockpile.
[but even Gates said without upgrades, a return to nuclear testing will be] unavoidable.
We’ve seen, mainly, in the areas of missile defense and arms control, a 180 degree turn from policies of the previous administration. Congress bears a great responsibility, as we evaluate these policies. … That debate needs to be informed.
Q&A
…
(If the United States would reduce down to 1,000 nuclear weapons?) you’re probably talking about eliminating one of the legs of the triad. (especially since we have some aging going on with respect to all three legs of the triad, and its not clear yet what we are going to do to modernize in all three cases)
People that just blindly speak about an arbitrary number don’t know what they’re talking about.
[Q. Do you support Secretary Gates’s philosophy of shifting money and emphasis to theater missile defense systems … ]
I support the add-on and the emphasis on theater, but what I don’t support is the shift, as you say. In other words, taking it out of longer-term strategic forces. We’re essentially capping the ground-based system in this budget. And you can argue that there’s a certain logic to that based upon today’s trheat. There are two problems with that. Missile defense is the best example of very long lead time requirements. My friends who don’t like missile defense much emphasize this all the time, in their ‘Research-Forever’ mantra. ‘Oh, this requires more research and testing. Research forever. Deploy never.’ There is a long lead time in these things. And you have to anticipate what the threat might be, in order to be there when it’s there.
And the second problem is that, by, in effect, not only capping the numbers but eliminating the modernization or future improvement of the system, you’ve relegated us to only what we have today.
Multiple Kill Vehicle potential, killed, under this budget.
Airborne Laser: research forever.
So the kinds of things we would go to as a next step — to try to achieve a boost phase capability, for example — are being sacrificed. That’s what I don’t agree with.”
…
[Q. (If Congress would restore missile defense programs to a vigorous level, what would you see cut to offset it?]
When we’re stimulating the economy with $1.3 trillion of wasteful spending in one bill, I’m not exactly inclined to volunteer to cut in areas that are critical to the national security of the United States.
We’re going to spend a lot of money in order to create jobs and get the economy going again. One area that we might have looked to is in the area where we are cutting now. But I have to be honest with you, and say, that in order to achieve a stimulative effect, I would have taken the roughly $69 billion that the Pentagon says that they needed right now — and nobody can spend money more quickly [laughter] they give the order and the money goes out the door — they needed about $69 billion worth of stuff. Well, that might have freed up $69 billion for the kinds of things that I’m talking about. So, I don’t accept the premise [that the most important program] has got to get cut, whereas frivolous and wasteful spending is just the ticket to get us out of the [economic] fix we’re in.
However, having said that, I could have been more charitable to Secretary Gates’s efforts. Because I do support re-looking at the entire defense budget, trying to find ways to reduce unnecessary spending. I could start about five arguments right now by throwing out some of the … programs, and getting into a fight about whether we should or shouldn’t. Reasonable people can differ about all of those things. And I appreciate his effort to try to reduce unnecessary spending. And frankly, I’m not even opposed to the termination of some development programs within missile defense, and putting them into a research mode. … What I don’t like is the notion that is, is two things: the appearance of contradiction, our biggest threat is from countries like Iran and North Korea, and I would say something else that might happen in the world, like a nuclear-armed country like Pakistan, for example. And yet we’re putting all of our effort, in terms of effort, into the rather pass� issue of U.S.-Russia nuclear weapons. … And secondly, if we’re going to put the emphasis on theater-oriented systems, and cap one of our strategic systems, shouldn’t we at least be looking out in the future about how we’re going to improve those strategic systems [including those killing enemy missiles] in the boost phase?
And I haven’t even mentioned my favorite subject … space.
[Q. The Gates proposal takes Airborne Laser and basically kills it. There would be no more planes, except for the existing prototype plane. Kinetic Energy Interceptor is a question mark. He has said that boost phase is what we need because it hits the enemy missile at its most vulnerable phase, before it can emit multiple warheads, and chaff, confusing decoys. What is your sense now as far as — if the Gates proposal is adopted — what happens to U.S. chances to develop a boost-phase capability?]
“Basically, it puts it all on hold. I don’t see what other effort is out there. They haven’t even been willing to fund a measly little $5 million study of whether a space based program might be beneficial. Not even adequately funding the situational awareness in space. So, basically, it puts it all on hold. And as I said, the problem with that is that you can’t simply ramp up in a couple of years to meet a threat that all of a sudden develops. These things take a long, long time to develop, and produce, and deploy.”
…
[Q. You mentioned boost phase missile defense capabilities, and the decision about the Airborne Laser, putting it on hold. There is, of course, another boost phase system, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, which hasn’t … had quite as high a profile as the Airborne Laser, and also hasn’t had a particularly happy budget … over its lifespan. Would you care to comment on KEI, and where (Gates intends to put it)?]
“I don’t know. … I have no idea where he … . It doesn’t seem to me that it has a place, however, if you look at all (material) that was talked about. And, again, the bottom line here is that, you can argue about the effectiveness of any of these specific systems. They all have their pros and their cons. It is important to continue to think about what we want to do, to have active and honest research going on, and to at least have policy that you driving toward, so that the research is not just an academic exercise, but is designed to get you to a specific result in a certain period of time. And that is what I don’t see in this budget. Itmay be asking too much of the secretary to put that in the budget, as opposed to an overarching policy. After all, the policies are under review. But to the extent that we all agree that there’s something missing here, as part of the budget, one would certainly hope that later — as the strategy is laid out, at least in policy terms — and as future budgets might reflect — that the deficiency that I’ve identified will be accounted for. It will be made up, that there will be a statement that of course, what we do intend to do in the medium and long range with regard to these boost phase systems, to improve our ground-based system – it’s not always going to be just exactly like it is now — what we intend to do about that is — and then fill in the blank. But you’ve got to fill that blank in, you can’t say that’s the end of it, we’re never going to improve beyond what we have right now. And you can’t say, in two or three years from now when we get around to it, we’ll start thinking about it, because time doesn’t permit that luxury. That’s the blank that I think is going to have to be filled in.
“Thank you all very much for your attention.”
(Applause)
Stephen Hawking: The Worth Of Space Exploration — A Partial Transcript
A year ago, on April 21, 2008, Stephen Hawking, possessed of one of the greatest minds of our age, set forth why space exploration is worth it, even at great expense. He appeared at the George Washington University, before the Elliott School of International Affairs – Space Policy Institute, an appearance co-sponsored by Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT]. He spoke with a computer-generated voice.
Although his Herculean intellect is trapped within the confines of a body increasingly paralyzed by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), the irony is that he is one of the greatest authorities on the infinite space of the universe, and its infinite possibilities.
A British subject schooled at Oxford and Cambridge, he holds many of the highest academic and professional honors that the United Kingdom can bestow.
This partial transcript was prepared by Space & Missile Defense Report.
” … We don’t know how life first appeared. The probability of something as complicated as a DNA molecule being formed by random collisions of atoms in the primordial [soup] ocean is incredibly small. … Still, if the probability of life appearing on a suitable planet is very small, since the universe is infinite, life would have appeared somewhere [despite that improbability]. If the probability is very low, the distance between two independent occurrences of life would be very large. However, there is a possibility … that life could spread from planet to planet, or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors. We know that Earth has been hit by meteors that came from Mars, and others may have come from farther afield. We have no evidence that any meteors carried life, but it remains a possibility. An important feature of life spread by [this means] is that it would have the same basis, which would be DNA, for life in the neighborhood of the Earth.
On the other hand, that inaugurance of life would be extremely unlikely to be DNA-based, so watch out if you meet an alien. You could be infected with a disease against which you have no resistance. One piece of observational evidence on the probability of life appearing is that we have fossil technology from 3.5 billion years ago. The Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago, and was probably too hot for about the first half-billion years. So life appeared on Earth within half billion years of it being possible, which is short compared to the 10-billion-year lifetime of an Earth-like planet. This would suggest either panspermia [the transfer of life from one place in the universe to another] or that the probability of life appearing independently is reasonably high. If it was very low, one would have expected it to take most of the 10 billion years available. If it is panspermia, and … life in the solar system or in nearby stellar systems will also be DNA-based.
While there may be primitive life in another region of the galaxy, there don’t seem to be any advanced, intelligent beings. We don’t appear to have been visited by aliens. I am discounting reports of UFOs, when they appear only to cranks and weirdos. [laughter]
If there is a government conspiracy to suppress the reports, and keep for itself the scientific knowledge the aliens bring, that seems to have been a singularly ineffective policy so far. [His comments came as the economic collapse was accelerating.]
Furthermore, … we haven’t heard an alien television quiz shows. This probably indicates that there are no alien civilizations at our stage of development within the radius of a few hundred light years. Issuing an insurance policy against abduction by aliens seems a pretty safe bet. Why haven’t we heard from anyone out there? … One view was expressed in this Calvin cartoon. The caption reads, “Sometimes, I think that the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
More seriously, there could be three explanations of why we haven’t heard from aliens.
- First, it may be that the probability of life appearing on a suitable planet is very low.
- Second, the probability of primitive life appearing may be reasonably high, but the probability of that life developing intelligence like ours may be very low. Just because evolution led to intelligence in our case, we shouldn’t assume that intelligence is an inevitable consequence of Darwinian natural selection. It is not clear that intelligence confers a long-term survival advantage. Bacteria and insects will survive quite happily if our so-called intelligence leads us to destroy ourselves.
- This is the third possibility: Life appears, but in some cases, develops into intelligent beings. But when it reaches the stage of sending radio signals, it will also have the technology to make nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. It would therefore be in danger of destroying itself before long. Let’s hope this is not the reason we have not heard from anyone.
Personally, I favor the second possibility that primitive life is relatively common, but that intelligent life is very rare. Some would say that it has yet to occur on Earth. [laughter]
One Way To Know: Go
Can we exist for a long time away from the Earth? Our experience with the ISS, the International Space Station, shows that it is possible for human beings to survive for many months away from planet Earth. However, the zero gravity of orbit causes a number of undesirable physiological changes: a weakening of the bones, as well as creating practical problems with liquids, etc. One would therefore want any long-term base for human beings to be on [a] planet or moon. By digging into the surface, one would get thermal insulation, and protection from meteors and cosmic rays. The planet or moon could also serve as the source of the raw materials that would be needed if the extraterrestrial community was to be self-sustaining, independently of Earth. One of the possible sites of the human colony in the solar system, the most obvious is the moon. It is close by, and relatively easy to reach. We have already landed on it, and driven across it in a buggy. On the other hand, the moon is small, and without atmosphere, or a magnetic field to deflect the solar radiation particles, like on Earth. There is no liquid water, but there may be ice in the craters at the north and south poles. A colony on the moon could use this as a source of oxygen, with power provided by nuclear energy or solar panels. The moon could be a base for travel to the rest of the solar system.
Mars: The Next Target
Mars is the obvious next target. It is half as far again as the Earth from the sun, and so receives half the warmth. It once had a magnetic field, but it decayed 4 billion years ago, leaving Mars without protection from solar radiation. This stripped Mars of most of its atmosphere, leaving it with only 1 percent of the pressure of the Earth’s atmosphere. However, the pressure must have been higher in the past, because we see what appear to be runoff channels and dried-up lakes. Liquid water cannot exist on Mars now. It would vaporize in the near-vacuum. This suggests that Mars had a warm, wet period, during which life might have appeared, either spontaneously or through panspermia. There is no sign of life on Mars now, but if we found evidence that life had once existed, it would indicate that the probability of life developing on a suitable planet was fairly high. NASA has sent a large number of spacecraft to Mars, starting with Mariner … in 1964. [NASA] has surveyed the planet with a number of orbiters, the latest being the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. These orbiters have revealed deep gullies, and the highest mountains in the solar system. NASA has also landed a number of probes on the surface of Mars, most recently the two Mars rovers. [They] have sent back pictures of a dry desert landscape. However, there is a large quantity of water in the form of ice in the polar regions. A colony on Mars could use this as a source of oxygen. There has been volcanic activity on Mars. This would have brought minerals and metals to the surface, which a colony could use. The moon and Mars are the most suitable sites for space colonies in the solar system. Mercury and Venus are too hot, while Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants with no solid surface. The moons of Mars are very small, and have no advantages over Mars itself. Some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn might be possible, in particular, Titan, the moon of Saturn, is larger and more massive than our moon, and has a dense atmosphere. The Cassini-Huygens mission of NASA and ESA [the European Space Agency] has landed a probe on Titan, which has sent back pictures of the surface. However, it is very cold, being so far from the sun, and I wouldn’t fancy living next to a lake of liquid methane.
Reaching For The Stars? Yes.
“What about beyond the solar system? Our observations indicate that a significant fraction of stars have planets around them. So far, we can detect only giant planets, like Jupiter and Saturn, but it is reasonable to assume that they will be accompanied by smaller, Earth-like planets. Some of these will lie in the Goldilocks zone, where the distance from the stars is in the right range for liquid water to exist on their surface. There are around a thousand stars within 30 light years of Earth. If 1 percent of these had Earth- sized planets in the Goldilocks zone, we have 10 candidate new worlds. We can’t envisage visiting them with current technology, but we should make interstellar travel a long-term aim. By long-term, I mean over the next 200 to 500 years. The human race has existed as a separate species for about 2 million years. Civilization began about 10,000 years ago, and the rate of development has been steadily increasing. If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before. Thank you for listening. [Extended applause]