June 7th, 2007
“ABMs won’t work, and they won’t work because MIRVs do work.” - Harold Brown, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense
The U.S. House recently passed a massive $504 billion defense authorization bill for 2008; that’s more than the rest of the world collectively spends on defense. Conspicuously absent from this bill was $764 million the Bush Administration wanted for missile defense research and development. While Congress should be applauded for their efforts to limit the scope of such a misguided program, more still needs to be done.
National missile defense (NMD) is a series of systems designed to defend an entire country from an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). NMD has proven reliably unreliable and exceedingly provocative. A principal counter-measure to NMD is a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV). A MIRV is a ballistic missile carrying multiple warheads that separate from the missile during its descent, each targeting a discrete objective. The only effective means of defending against a MIRV is to destroy the missile before the warheads separate; this however introduces a whole host of feasibility issues. MIRVs are offensive weapons and as such are extremely destabilizing. The U.S.’s insistence to further develop NMD will ultimately compel Russia and China to expand the role of MIRVs in their strategic posture as evidenced by Russia’s recent decision to outfit its newest ICBM with such technology.
Another consideration pertaining to the relevance of NMD is the hierarchy of potential nuclear threats. Most experts would agree that the primary threat to the U.S. vis-à-vis nuclear weapons is from a non-state actor smuggling a nuclear device into a U.S. city or port; not from a state launched ICBM, which NMD is designed to counter. There are already valuable programs in place, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, designed specifically to mitigate this more pressing threat. Nunn-Lugar secures and dismantles weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet states, eliminating a potential source for WMD from terrorists. The Department of Defense is only seeking $348 million for Nunn-Lugar in 2008, which is half the amount at which Nunn-Lugar was initially funded. Which begs the question, why does the U.S. devote resources to NMD which does not work, but underfunds Nunn-Lugar which does work?
June 8th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I agree, but the ABM system in its current design isn’t intended to counter advanced MIRV technology and the large arsenals of states like Russia. It’s made to counter unsophisticated single warhead weapons from rogue states, like those in the DPRK or any that Iran would produce.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:26 am
I fully concur with Bruce’s viewpoint, but would like to go further. Not only will an ABM system not solve the problem, but it will also distract us from the only real solution. As Bruce said, it will not and cannot provide security against the only serious threat which is from non-state actors. Nor can we ever be sure it would even protect us against aggression by states and who would like to test it to find out? The only possible protection against nuclear weapons attack is to introduce a total and universal ban on production, possession and use which has the backing of the international community and international law and would instantaneously categorize the perpetrators as having committed crimes against humanity. The ban must be total, unambiguous, absolute. Any other solution is only a huge waste of money to buy a false sense of security and — of greater concern — serve as an active incentive for states and non-states to find a technological work around. Ironically the USA is the one country in the world that does not have any need for nuclear weapons to ensure our security and yet we are doing the most to legitimize and prolong their existence.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Given that our most dangerous foe today—in the likely use of a nuclear weapon—is a non-nation representative faction, why does Congress hesitate to fully fund the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program? It is likely that these individuals, who have a cause célèbre, are committed to advancing their goal at all costs, without regard to effect of its means on innocent men, women and children—or its impact on the world as a whole.
There is no “clean up and return” for a city after a nuclear bomb explosion. The bombsite and a large surrounding area would be off limits, not for days or years, but for scores of years. Hurricane Katrina and 9/11, as devastating and horrendous as they were, would look minuscule in comparison to a nuclear bomb. Thus, shouldn’t our Congress earmark another $348 million (approximately one day’s expenses incurred by the war in Iraq) to properly address this potentially horrific disaster? Of course they should. Not doing so defies all logic.
Every humanitarian, scientist, and businessman—indeed, every citizen in the United States—should write their congressman today to ask why the CTR Program isn’t slated for full funding in 2008. I have done so. Let’s do all that is possible to secure the nuclear bombs and materials that are yet to be fully accounted for. To do less may be the biggest mistake this country has ever made.
The consequences of delay are unthinkable. Fully fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program NOW!
September 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
All good points! I agree 100%