Time to Get Serious about Missile Defense (092909) by J. F. Kelly, Jr.

A commentary by J. F. Kelly, Jr. President Barack Obama’s dream to rid the world of nuclear weapons faces a tough sell with current and aspiring members of the nuclear club. Nuclear weapons are seen as the great equalizer by second tier powers and wannabes that makes them players on the world scene and gains them attention. It’s hard to imagine North Korea, for example, giving up membership in the exclusive club or that Iran can be persuaded from seeking to join. One can’t rid the world of nukes by wishing them away. In that regard, the Security Council resolution, drafted by the Obama Administration, is an exercise in futility. But then so is the Security Council or, for that matter, the UN itself with its toothless resolutions, corruption and hypocrisy. I don’t usually agree with anything that Libyan dictator Moamar Gadhafi says, but I applauded when he said that the UN headquarters should be moved out of the United States during his otherwise content-free, ninety minute ramble. For someone who aspires to rid the world of nukes, the Obama decision to renege on plans to place anti-missile radars and interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe and to slash funds from missile defense seems inconsistent with his aforementioned dream. Ronald Reagan had a dream, also. It was to develop an anti-missile defensive system that might someday render missile-delivered nuclear weapons obsolete. Reagan’s dream was labeled “Star Wars” and ridiculed by political opponents but, significantly, not by the Soviet Union, possessors of the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. They had greater respect for American technology and ingenuity than Reagan’s critics did. The technology has come a long way since then. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union collapsed, largely because its leaders knew that they could not match American technology and determination. Today, Russia’s defense establishment is a ragged shadow of its former self but it still retains the world’s largest nuclear weapons arsenal. Wishing will not make it go away. The leaders of Russia, like those of China, India, the Western nuclear powers and, hopefully, Pakistan, are rational actors and the assured mutual destruction strategy works with rational actors. But how about North Korea, Iran and perhaps even Pakistan should radical Islamists gain control of that country’s nukes? A missile defense system is essential to defend the threat of rogue missile attacks against our territory, our deployed forces and our allies. Diplomatic engagement, threats and resolutions alone won’t do. The Obama Administration’s decision to abandon plans to base anti-missile interceptors and radars on Polish and Czech territory, a plan that incensed Russia, and rely instead on sea-based, short and medium range anti-missile systems was supposedly influenced by recent intelligence reports that that Iran was now focusing on short and medium range ballistic missiles that could put Europe and Iran’s Middle East neighbors within range. An Obama Administration aide reportedly explained that it didn’t make sense to use a $70M ground-based missile against a short or medium range Iranian missile costing less than $15M, which completely misses the point, of course, since the damage caused by that cheaper missile with a nuclear warhead could be incalculable. Clearly, that aide is not ready for prime time and hopefully does not influence defense decisions in the this administration. Still, cost savings is a likelier reason for the switch which did not endear us to our Eastern Europe friends. Obama cut overall missile defense funding by half, a curious move for someone who wants to rid the world of the nuclear threat. The threat at the moment happens to be that a radical Muslim fanatic like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will launch a nuclear missile attack on Israel or deployed U.S. forces or Europe or all of the above. Actually, I happen to agree with Mr. Obama that the emphasis should be on mobile, deployable, ship-based systems, not fixed land sites. I’m biased, of course. I commanded and served in guided missile ships. We have 62 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers (DDGs), 15 of which are modified for SM-3 missiles capable of intercepting and destroying short and medium range missiles and 22 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers (CGs), 3 of which have been so modified. More could be converted. They can be deployed anywhere in international waters and rotated and maintained on station. Improved capability against longer range missiles would require larger hulls, such as the three 14,000-ton Zumwalt-class DDGs currently under construction or authorized. Copyright 2009 by J. F. Kelly, Jr.