Biden's missile-defense missteps

Comments: 8

Last Updated: 2:45 AM, October 27, 2009

Posted: 12:48 AM, October 27, 2009

Vice President Joe Biden's trip last week to Poland and the Czech Republic may have helped soothe rattled allies after Team Obama pitched overboard the W-era, anti-Iran missile shield that was to be deployed in both countries. But the
	 newmissile-defense plan he pitched has problems.
	 
A lot of them.
	 
In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month, the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat.
	 
The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)
	 
So the Pentagon is proposing to place Navy ships equipped with SM-3 missiles around Europe to intercept and protect the continent from Iran's short- and medium-range missiles. This is a solid move to defend Europe.
	 
But while Iran may be a threat to Europe, it's a much
	 biggerthreat to us (and Israel). So while it's appropriate to defend Europe as part of NATO, the new plan doesn't do enough to protect the good ol' US of A from the Iranian ICBM threat.
	 
Supposedly, there's a plan for that, though, which includes developing a land-based SM-3 for Europe by 2020 and using missile-defense interceptors that the Bush administration placed in Alaska and California.
	 
Unfortunately, the US Air Force estimates that Tehran could have an ICBM by 2015 -- an assessment the Pentagon is now hoping may be on the early side. Of course, intelligence estimates can be wrong; an Iranian ICBM could be here
	 soonerthan 2015.
	 
But the Obama administration thinks that if the Iranian ICBM comes online before the land-based SM-3s are developed and in place, the West Coast, Bush-era missile-defense sites give us some breathing room.
	 
Not really.
	 
The West Coast missile-defense architecture was designed to protect us against North Korea's nuke and missile threat, not Iran's -- hence the development of a similar system in Eastern Europe.
	 
The Alaska and California sites
	 couldtake out an Iranian ICBM targeted at much of the United States, but there are serious questions about coverage -- including New York and Washington -- because of the missiles' trajectory and range.
	 
Worse yet, President Obama decided to reduce the number of West Coast interceptors from 40 to 30, which would limit the capability to take out incoming ICBMs, because several interceptors would be fired at each missile to ensure a kill.
	 
That means there's a gap in our defenses against an Iranian ICBM strike until the land-based SM-3s are operational, which, by the way, will almost certainly face funding and engineering-development challenges.
	 
In the end, the Biden proposal not only lags the Bush plan's deployment time frame, it's possibly more expensive and probably only equally as capable. Plus, the Russians (and Chinese) may try to get us to stand down on the new, "juiced" land-based SM-3, arguing that they're a counterspace weapon in the arms-control talks many think the Obama administration is interested in opening on the weaponization of space.
	 
In other words, some experts think there's a chance there'll never be a land-based SM-3 system.
	 
So unless you're living in a fantasy world, brace yourself for the fact we'll be facing an Iranian nuclear-capable ICBM threat soon -- perhaps sooner than we thought -- without an effective defense.
	 
It's also a good time to remind ourselves that the purpose of defense is to be technologically ahead of the threat, not behind it -- which is where we'll be if we're not careful.
	 
Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
	 peterbrookes@heritage.org

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Peter Brookes

A lot of them.

In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month, the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat.

The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)

Veep: Pitching problematic, costly plan.

So the Pentagon is proposing to place Navy ships equipped with SM-3 missiles around Europe to intercept and protect the continent from Iran's short- and medium-range missiles. This is a solid move to defend Europe.

But while Iran may be a threat to Europe, it's a much bigger threat to us (and Israel). So while it's appropriate to defend Europe as part of NATO, the new plan doesn't do enough to protect the good ol' US of A from the Iranian ICBM threat.

Supposedly, there's a plan for that, though, which includes developing a land-based SM-3 for Europe by 2020 and using missile-defense interceptors that the Bush administration placed in Alaska and California.

Unfortunately, the US Air Force estimates that Tehran could have an ICBM by 2015 -- an assessment the Pentagon is now hoping may be on the early side. Of course, intelligence estimates can be wrong; an Iranian ICBM could be here sooner than 2015.

But the Obama administration thinks that if the Iranian ICBM comes online before the land-based SM-3s are developed and in place, the West Coast, Bush-era missile-defense sites give us some breathing room.

Not really.

The West Coast missile-defense architecture was designed to protect us against North Korea's nuke and missile threat, not Iran's -- hence the development of a similar system in Eastern Europe.

The Alaska and California sites could take out an Iranian ICBM targeted at much of the United States, but there are serious questions about coverage -- including New York and Washington -- because of the missiles' trajectory and range.

Worse yet, President Obama decided to reduce the number of West Coast interceptors from 40 to 30, which would limit the capability to take out incoming ICBMs, because several interceptors would be fired at each missile to ensure a kill.

That means there's a gap in our defenses against an Iranian ICBM strike until the land-based SM-3s are operational, which, by the way, will almost certainly face funding and engineering-development challenges.

In the end, the Biden proposal not only lags the Bush plan's deployment time frame, it's possibly more expensive and probably only equally as capable. Plus, the Russians (and Chinese) may try to get us to stand down on the new, "juiced" land-based SM-3, arguing that they're a counterspace weapon in the arms-control talks many think the Obama administration is interested in opening on the weaponization of space.

In other words, some experts think there's a chance there'll never be a land-based SM-3 system.

So unless you're living in a fantasy world, brace yourself for the fact we'll be facing an Iranian nuclear-capable ICBM threat soon -- perhaps sooner than we thought -- without an effective defense.

It's also a good time to remind ourselves that the purpose of defense is to be technologically ahead of the threat, not behind it -- which is where we'll be if we're not careful.

Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. peterbrookes@heritage.org

Have a comment on this PostOpinion column? Send it in to LETTERS@NYPOST.COM!

Topics

Comments (6)

Post Your Comment

coswriter

10/27/2009 6:39 PM

The Obama administration is in over their heads. What a disaster.

Report Abuse
gregdn

10/27/2009 3:23 PM

Anyone who honestly believes that Iran would try to nuke the U.S. needs to have his or her head examined.
And by the way, if this move is to defend NATO why aren't all NATO countries picking up the tab for this?

Report Abuse
Caveman2010

10/27/2009 10:07 AM

Wake Up America, YOU Can Still Stop Obamacare
-First, there is nothing in these thousands of pages that pushes Americans to be more responsible about their own health. There are no rewards for quitting smoking, or getting on the treadmill, or getting a flu shot. That is a huge miss.
- Second, there is no attempt to rein in malpractice costs. Putting a lid on awards is not hard. though it may well be impossible given the vast amount of money that flows through the malpractice shops into Democratic coffers. Estimates vary, but many reports say that fear of lawsuits prompt some 20% or so of medical expenses for unnecessary procedures and tests.
- Third, I am not aware of any effort to cut through the regulatory impasse and allow insurers to compete across state lines. The consequence of the status quo is near-monopolies enjoyed by insurers in most states; what is the point of that? There is some talk about removing the insurance industry?s exemption from anti-trust enforcement. Why not address the problem directly?
- Fourth, there is little change in the basic model of reimbursements. Doctors get paid by the government according to formulas that encourage waste. For instance, in some cases doctors will prescribe only one month of medication so that the patient must return frequently, ringing up unnecessary monthly office visits.

Report Abuse
Caveman2010

10/27/2009 10:07 AM

The Senate Finance Committee health bill released last week controls doctors by cutting their pay if they give older patients more care than the government deems appropriate. Section 3003(b) (p. 683) punishes doctors who land in the 90th percentile or above on what they provide for seniors on Medicare by withholding 5 percent of their compensation.
The Washington politician DO NOT CARE about you or your parents.
We should reduce the paychecks of all Washington DC politicians by 5% for every fiscal quarter they do not deliver a balanced budget !
Help STOP this VERSION of HEALTH CARE REFORM !
CALL your representative today !

Report Abuse
PatriceLumumba

10/27/2009 10:06 AM

I see the republicans are still in days of soviet threats. They need the "cold" war scenario in order for them to flex their muscles. Then some idiot will come along and claim they brought down communism as Reagan did. Communism, like all other ideology had reached it's end not brought done by anyone. As any sensible person would know, politics and ideologies revolutes. It changes with with the advent of time and generations. This communism and the Iranian nuclear threat is a phony. The republican columnists for the New York Post are fast running out of ideas and since the only thing they know how to do bash the president, it has become increasingly hard to find material to submit for their payment. Thus the slate of stupidity by everyone, including the editorials in this right-wing neo-con rag.

Report Abuse
RoGo

10/27/2009 9:19 AM

Obama the commie will leave us defenseless. How could we elect this POS. The Republic is facing an internal threat.Hard to believe there are this many stupid people.

Report Abuse