• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Missile Defense Program Essential to Address Ballistic Missile Threats

    Yousaf Butt of the Federation of American Scientists attempts yet again to distort facts about the U.S. missile defense program and convince the public that missile defense is a waste of resources. He is wrong.

    Butt attempts to give the reader an impression that mounting decoys on the top of ballistic missiles to prevent interceptors from discriminating among the real warhead and other objects in space is a cheap way to overcome one’s missile defense system. While decoys in terms of unit costs might be cheap, it is a very difficult technological problem to mount them on ballistic missile warheads. Additional costs and technological skills are required to miniaturize a nuclear weapon enough to make space for decoys in the reentry vehicle itself.

    The Defense Science Board Task Force’s report concludes that the early intercept of ballistic missiles is not a particularly useful goal or protocol for design of a regional BMD system. It states that “the feasibility of achieving the very high regional missile burnout velocity, depending upon siting, far in excess of what has currently been achieved, to provide this [missile defense] benefit over a large portion of the U.S. is uncertain.” However, the Navy already conducted a successful ascent-phase intercept test against a short-range missile with its Standard Missile interceptor in November 2002.

    While Butt attempts to convince readers that missile defense does not work, he is not shy of saying that it “will therefore strengthen the hands of overcautious, misinformed, opportunistic or hawkish elements within the Iranian and North Korean—as well as Russian and Chinese—political and military establishments.” He is attempting to assign these states action-reaction dynamic.

    Missile defense is considered a reason for more hawkish policy and presumably a larger nuclear buildup. Yet this is inconsistent with any kind of historical experience, because, as Butt himself recognizes, countries have their own motives for a weapons and nuclear weapons buildup. Their motives are often independent of U.S. actions.

    Butt goes so far to say that missile defenses are strategically useless. One suspects that is not what the people of Japan and South Korea thought during the most recent North Korean long-range ballistic missile launch. In the current proliferated environment, it does not make sense to make the United States and its allies deliberately vulnerable from a ballistic missile attack.

    According to Lowell Wood, former astrophysicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Just as individuals can burden themselves severely over long intervals with seemingly-minor ‘poor life choices,’ so can nations impair their futures significantly by making poor choices with respect to their means of defense against various threats.”

    To avoid and mitigate U.S. missile defense “poor life choices,” the Administration should:

    • Expand and continually improve the Navy’s proven and popular sea-based Aegis missile defense system;
    • Pursue and expand advanced integration of the various components of a layered missile defense system, including ground-based interceptors; and
    • Develop and deploy space-based missile defenses, particularly space-based interceptors, to counter ballistic missile attacks.
    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Missile Defense Program Essential to Address Ballistic Missile Threats

    1. ybutt says:

      I guess Ms. Bendikova knows more than the CIA which said more than ten years ago:

      "Many countries, such as North Korea [and] Iran … probably would rely initially on readily available technology … to develop penetration aids and countermeasures. These countries could develop countermeasures based on these technologies by the time they flight test their missiles."

      It is good to see the Heritage Foundation now backs the Obama missile defense program. Every other day the Foundation appears to change their position. A faith-based missile defense program is probably not a wise choice for the country.

    2. Forums4Justice says:

      The Republicans are on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to Defense Spending;
      stop the insanity http://bit.ly/hNKDG6 #teaparty #tcot

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.