We must take the missile threat from Iran seriously.

Such was the statement of Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. General Henry A. “Trey” Obering III at a Missile Defense Status briefing at the Pentagon. Iran, he says, is working on an extended-range variant of the Shahab-3 missile and a new 2,000 km medium-range ballistic missile known as the “Ashura.” Iran is acquiring “advanced ballistic missile capabilities,” and they’re doing it with foreign assistance and an “aggressive development and test program.”

So what was Iran testing last week? Intelligence provides that info, Obering said, but the Iranians themselves are the ones providing the information. Although this may call into question the accuracy of the information due to bias, Obering said that based on what he has seen, they [Iran] have the capability to have long range missiles. And by having Iran talk about the possibility of a space launch brings to mind something else: the ability to have an umbrella of cover under which they could make booster missiles capable of traveling intercontinental distances.

The thought of a nuclear missile capable of reaching the United States from Iran strikes fear into the heart of every American, and Obering stressed that this is the very reason the missile defense system in Europe is needed. Based on azimuth trajectories (the arc a missile would have to travel in order for it to intercept another target), we need radar detection in the Czech Republic, and our actual interceptors located in Poland. Any closer, and they could not travel the proper trajectory to destroy an enemy missile in time to avoid significant damage.

But what if the attack isn’t nuclear, and is, in fact, an EMP? EMP’s are missiles that deploy an electromagnetic pulse, capable of disabling electronics across a large area. The amount of disabling caused is proportional to how close it is to the target when it goes off, hence the desire to intercept those types of missiles as far above the ground as possible. The House Armed Services Committee discussed that threat and said the potential damage would be significant.

The United States has eighteen nations around the globe that we can do missile defense interaction with. “It’s not the United States only” that is concerned, and there are a growing number of nations that want defense. Placing our interceptors in Poland is where it makes the most sense. Although Russia says that we’re exaggerating a missile threat from Iran, and has also come to a misconception that we are pointing missiles at Russia themselves, there are three fundamental problems with that theory. One, the angle of the missiles would actually fire them 256 kilometers into space if they went all the way to their apex, two, interceptors don’t carry the same payload such as an actual destructive missiles does- they’re only designed to hit things that do have that payload, and make them explode on themselves, and three, a European interceptor site (up to 10 interceptors) “would be easily overwhelmed by Russia’s strategic missiles force,” should we fire at them.

Russia, apparently, has been invited to “come have a look,” and we’ve made a proposal: we will set the defense system up but we won’t bring it completely operational unless the Iranian threat emerges. Obering said that an Iranian threat has emerged when there is proof they have the capability to fire off a missile that can travel 2,000 - 2,500 kilometers, and, if we wait till they actual fire off those missiles, it’s too late to get our own defenses up to defend against it. There is the need to be ready now, not later. Yes, Obering said, they [Iran] have long-range missiles.

Tests have been conducted utilizing missiles fired at the proper trajectories from Alaska and California, to emulate an actual airstrike. Obering said they’re concerned that Iran and North Korea will develop the ability to counteract our defense, and shoot our interceptors down before they can do what they are meant to do: protect. That is why by the end of this year we hope to have two tracking satellites that can track launched missiles more precisely than we do with our current ground radar, such as the one located in Japan. Since we have fielded an initial capability to defend the United States against ballistic missile attacks, we must take into account future uncertainties. Right now, we’re hitting our targets within centimeters from where we’re aiming.

At a hearing on Iran’s Nuclear Aspirations before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman David Scott (D-Ga.) says Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and is rushing to fill the power vacuum that exists in the Middle East. (1:04)

 

 Standard Podcast [1:04m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

President Bush, during a press availability with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, addresses “rumors” that the United States is willing to accept less than a full declaration of North Korea’s nuclear programs. President Bush says that North Korea must first make a declaration, and only then will the United States determine whether the declaration is adequate. (1:34)

 

 Standard Podcast [1:34m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Mr. Cirincione claims that if left to the Joint Chiefs and not the President, the budget for Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems would be a fraction of its current size and would be directed more at regional capabilities. (1:10)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing
today to investigate the necessity of a ballistic missile defense
system and assess the relative threats of conventional and
non-conventional attack.

March 23 will mark the 25th anniversary of President Reagan’s
announcement of the now famous ‘Star Wars’ Anti-Ballistic Missile
system. 120 billion has been spent on the project to date, now at a
rate of nearly 10 billion a year, a rate projected to double in the
coming years.

Ranking member Dan Burton (R-IN5) stressed the potential for unseen
threats and the need for a mulit-faceted approach to security
including missile defense.

Witness Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund,
emphasized the fact that the threat from ballistic missiles has
decreased since the late 1980’s both in number of missiles and number
of countries with missiles by about 80%. He said many of the missiles
that remain in the current count are in friendly hands, and most are
“SCUD” type, or shorter range.

Baker Spring, an F.M. Kirby Research Fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, claimed that we live in a ‘multi-polar missile world’
demanding a reworking of current ABM strategy to include space and sea
based options and deal with threats from North Korea, Iran, and the
potential for allied nations to pull the U.S. into conflict.

Steven Hildreth, a specialist in Defense and Foreign Affairs for the
Congressional Research Service, stated that the technology and effort
required to create ICBM’s and ABM systems is so large that only 5
nations have ever succeeded, despite estimates of vast proliferation.
He downplayed the likelihood of further nations going to such legnths
and costs.

Dr. Steven Flynn, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies for the
Council on Foreign Relations, reminded the committee that much more
money is spent on protecting military bases than on protecting cities.
The same is true of missile defense in relation to non conventional
attacks. Such practices, he claims, provide incentive to strike in the
latter fashion.

At an Oversight Committee Hearing regarding Ballistic Missile Defense systems, Dr. Flynn claimed that too much focus on conventional missile and military attacks could lead enemies to avoid the systems by striking civilian populations in non-conventional ways. (0:50)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download