A Weapon that Doesn’t Work for a Threat that Doesn’t Exist

Related
Complex 2030: The Costs and Consequences of the Plan to Build a New Generation of Nuclear Weapons, a World Policy Special Report by William D. Hartung and Frida Berrigan, April 2007 (PDF)
---
April 25, 2007

Anti-Missile Missiles in Europe

By William D. Hartung

As Sen. Jess Trussme (a mythical political leader played by our good friend Ira Shorr) is wont to say, the beauty of missile defense is that it is “a weapon that doesn’t work for a threat that doesn’t exist.” This is doubly true for the Bush administration’s plan to put missile interceptors in Poland and anti-missile radars in the Czech Republic.By optimistic projections, the system would cost $3.5 billion and would be ready to go by 2013. U.S. officials involved with the project argue that this is early enough to deal with the highly touted Iranian threat, since they believe that Tehran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon and mount it on a ballistic missile until at least 2015. If this is so, there is much more time available to negotiate a cap on Iran’s nuclear program than Bush administration officials have officially acknowledged. Negotiations would not only be more effective, but they wouldn’t waste billions of dollars that could be used for far better purposes.

And what kind of system would exist by 2013, if - in a first for the missile defense program - it was actually developed on schedule? Most likely one that is no more effective than current missile interceptors, which have given no evidence that they can stop an incoming warhead under realistic conditions.

If the proposed system only wasted money, that would be outrageous enough. But it is also provoking a three-way political crisis among Europe, Russia, and the United States. One common objection has been raised by Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn of Luxembourg: “We don’t want to be a political football between Russia and the United States. We want the United States, Russia, and Europe to play together in a common defence project.” (Kristin Roberts, “Russian Official Dismisses U.S. Shield Cooperation,” Reuters, April 24, 2007).

While the Czech and Polish governments seem to be prepared to go along with the U.S. plans, nobody has asked the Czech and Polish people. A full 57% of Czechs oppose having U.S. anti-missile radars on their soil, versus 25% in favor. In Poland, the numbers are 68% against U.S. missile interceptors, versus 26% in favor.

As for the Russians, they are having none of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ arguments that they can “share” the project with Washington. From Moscow’s perspective, a system of ten missiles now could be expanded in the future in an effort to blunt their nuclear deterrent vis-à-vis the United States.

Given the obscene nuclear overkill possessed by both countries, the threat of US missile defenses may not be all it is cracked up to be.
But Russian leaders see it in the context of other provocative moves by the United States, from expanding NATO right up to their borders, to building military relationships with former Soviet Republics (and bordering states) from the Ukraine to Georgia to Kazakhstan, to seeking military bases in Rumania and Bulgaria. As the Washington Post put it, “it’s hard to think of a better way to revive the Cold War” than getting the U.S. and Russia into a tangle over the administration’s proposed missile deployments in Europe (”Missile Fantasies,” Washington Post, February 25, 2007).

The real danger of the whole missile defense effort is that it serves as a rationale for maintaining large, ongoing nuclear arsenals. As long as the illusion of a “technical fix” to the nuclear threat is kept alive, the urgency for reducing nuclear stockpiles is diminished.

Combined with the Bush administration’s “Complex 2030″ plan, which calls for building a new generation of nuclear weapons, missile defense represents a threat to peace, and ultimately a threat to all human life. The truth is that the only way to be truly safe from nuclear weapons is to get rid of them - all of them. This is no easy task, but if the U.S. government expended a small portion of the energy it is throwing into its misguided missile defense program into promoting nuclear disarmament, substantial progress could be made in relatively short order.

America up to its old tricks again

Editorial

Published: 21/04/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)
Gulf News

The US has persuaded Nato that in their best interests, a missile shield should protect them from the danger of attack. The supposed source of such a deadly attack would, according to US intelligence, be both Iran and "others" in the Middle East.

As if things weren't bad enough through US policy, the thought of having armed missiles pointing towards the Arab world - just in case - is fearful. It is also more likely to lead to a rethinking and escalation of strategic defence in the region than a deterrent.

It also underlines the US attitude to foreign policy. Namely, to seek out and undermine all perceived threats, whether imagined or real. Such bravura performance reinforces the danger of the ill-conceived policies that emanate from the White House and the Pentagon.

Russia has already expressed alarm, and quite rightly so, at the prospect of 10 interceptor missiles being based in Poland, with an associated radar station in the Czech Republic.

Russia maintains that as there are no Iranian ICBMs, the installation of the missiles is primarily aimed as at Russia. Considering the US defence system will not protect all Nato members - Turkey and parts of Greece - it is likely that Russia's concerns are valid.

Missile Fantasies

The administration's rush to deploy missile defenses in Europe brings a sinister response from Russia.

Sunday, February 25, 2007; B06

THE EMERGING debate over the deployment of U.S missile defenses in Central Europe is based on a series of false pretenses. The Bush administration pretends that it is sensible to invest $225 million next year in preparing to install ground-based interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against an attack from Iran, even though the glitch-plagued defense system hasn't yet proved workable and Iran doesn't have a missile that could reach the United States or Europe. The Polish and Czech governments, eager to deepen strategic cooperation with the United States, pretend that they will benefit from hosting the systems, even though they have little reason to worry about threats from the Middle East and the Bush administration has been slow to reward their past collaboration in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The prize for cynical posturing, nevertheless, goes to Russia, which in the past few days has suddenly advanced a claim that it knows to be false: that the deployment of the antimissile system would weaken the Russian nuclear deterrent. As Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals know, even if U.S. interceptors in Poland could function according to the Bush administration's scheme -- which they can't, and won't anytime soon -- they would not be capable of stopping a single Russian intercontinental ballistic missile, much less the massive force that remains at Moscow's disposal. U.S. officials have met with Russian counterparts on at least 10 occasions to explain this.

Mr. Putin and his generals nevertheless are threatening that Russia might respond to the U.S. missile defenses by redeploying intermediate-range missiles that were banned from Europe by a 1987 treaty. An even more sinister comment came Monday from the commander of Russian missile forces, who said that if Poland and the Czech Republic hosted the U.S. rockets and radars, they would be targeted by Russia's strategic missiles. This crude attempt at intimidating Moscow's former Soviet satellites predictably produced a defiant response from the two governments and probably eliminated any domestic opposition to an otherwise questionable venture. As Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg put it, "The Czechs will now think the shield is even more necessary."

The Bush administration's pushing of this initiative, which would not result in the deployment of any interceptors in Europe before 2010, is probably motivated by the same political impulses that have driven missile defense since 2001. Administration officials are determined to create a program so literally set in concrete that it can't be stopped or reversed by future presidents -- as was the missile defense program of President George H.W. Bush. Whether the technology actually works or a threat exists that justifies the rush never seems to matter much.

Such sandbagging justifies close scrutiny by Congress of the Pentagon's $10 billion funding request for missile defense in next year's budget, including the funds for Poland and the Czech Republic. But the Russian gamesmanship is more worrisome. On the opposite page today, Mr. Putin's foreign minister denies any interest in confrontation. But at the same time Mr. Putin may use the U.S. defense program as an excuse to revive a major piece of the Soviet nuclear arsenal with which to threaten NATO members in Europe. It's hard to think of a quicker way to revive the Cold War.

The 'Bush Doctrine' and Weapons in Space

February 12, 2007

by Rodrigue Tremblay

"The dangerous patriot: "The one who drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions. He is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism . . . which identifies numerous enemies who can only be dealt with through military power and which equates the national honor with military victory."

James A. Donovan, Colonel, US Marine Corps

"Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control."

Lord Acton (1834-1902)

"If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject... "

William Graham Sumner

On September 20, 2002, George W. Bush, in conformity with the path that Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Rice and Co. had traced for him, adopted a hegemonic foreign policy and issued the famous hubristic "Bush Doctrine". His then Security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and her assistant, Philip D. Zelikow, drafted much of the 2002 report titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States”, which has come to be known as the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive wars and of American assertive military hegemony around the world.

Eight months before, in his January 29, 2002 first State of the Union Address, Bush, inspired by his neocon and theologian speech writers, had singled out three disparate countries as belonging to an "axis of evil" (Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), even though two of these countries had been at war at each other for years (Iraq and Iran) and the third (North Korea) had no visible political ties to the first two. Bush also expressed his intention that the United States control both the Earth and Outer Space, no matter what the other 191 countries of the world think and no matter what international law and international treaties call for.

On Earth, the neocon Bush-Cheney administration's goal was to invest so much in military gear, and to take military actions if necessary, that no other country would ever challenge its status as the world's sole military superpower.

The intention was to establish a military New American Empire for the 21st Century, along the lines of the British Empire in the 19th Century.

In Space, the administration asserted the "far out" claim that the United States has the right to control Outer Space and to deny access to space to any country not in sync with U.S. interests. Bush's then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the so-called report on "Counterspace Operations Doctrine" (2004), even stated that the U.S. should not refrain from using such tactics as "cover, concealment, and deception" and "satellite jamming" to control Outer Space. —The chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, General Peter Pace, said that (Donald) Rumsfeld must truly be 'inspired by God!' This hairy policy was revisited and signed into law by President George W. Bush, on October 18, 2006, thus initiating a new and dangerous Space arms race.

The U.S. already has a 'Air Force Space Command', which was created on September 1, 1982, by the Reagan administration. But to indicate that nothing is off-limits, the U.S. Air Force also announced, on November 2, 2006, that it was setting up what could become a new four-star command to fight in cyberspace, where officials say the United States has already come under attack from China, among others. In the words of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, "The aim is to develop a major command that stands alongside Air Force Space Command and Air Combat Command as the provider of forces that the President, combatant commanders and the American people can rely on for preserving the freedom of access and commerce, in air, space and now cyberspace."

However, the goal of preserving free access to Space and cyberspace is paramount. Worldwide, most people believe that Space should not be militarized. The underlying principle here is that Space, Outer Space and celestial resources, such as the Moon or the planets, are the common heritage of humanity as a whole and should not be appropriated by any one country or any nation in particular, through military means or otherwise. Besides, any attempt by one nation to militarize Space, and even to take control of cyberspace, would be in violation of the spirit of the 1967 “Outer Space Treaty” (OST). This fundamental treaty has been signed by 125 countries and ratified by 98, and it solemnly bars participating nations from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in Outer Space.

That is why the world entered into a new era when China, on January 11 (2007), launched a missile strike against one of its old orbiting weather satellites, 800 kilometers above Earth. The Chinese government also announced that the deployment of its anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon was a move to demonstrate the danger of having weapons in Space, and that its objective was to encourage the Bush-Cheney administration to enter into talks aiming at abolishing weapons in Space. Unfortunately, the current administreation had already announced that it opposes the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that would seek to prohibit or limit access to, or use of, Space. —It acts like it would welcome a new arms race in Space and possibly would like to start a new 'Cold War' with China and Russia.

The issue of weapons in Space is not new. In 1981, the old Soviet Union developed an ASAT system consisting of a bomb-carrying satellite, which was positioned next to a target satellite to be destroyed. During the same period, the United States developed an ASAT system, whereby an F-15 fighter would carry a two-stage missile to a high altitude and let the missile tracking system guide it to a target missile set to be destroyed. Since Congress voted a moratorium on the development of ASAT systems, in 1985, the United States has not tested any new ASAT system.

However, the Chinese demonstration and the Bush-Cheney avowed policy of taking military control of Space indicate that urgent action is required on this issue, if Space is to be kept demilitarized. A U.N. agency tailored along the International Atomic Energy Agency should have the responsibility to inspect any rocket launch to make sure that it does not carry armaments into Space. That may be the only way to make sure that no national government place armaments into Space.

Therefore, it would seem appropriate that the United Nations, under its new leadership, convene an international conference and adopt necessary measures to reinforce the Outer Space Treaty and make sure that no single nation-state can dominate Space or could ever claim that Space belongs to it.

Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com

Also visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

Author's Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com

_______________________________________________

Posted, February 12, 2007, at 5:30 am

Send contact, comments or commercial reproduction requests (in English or in French) to:

bigpictureworld@yahoo.com

N.B.: Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.

Please register to receive free emails on new postings of articles.

Send an email with the word "subscribe" to: bigpictureworld@yahoo.com

Home: TheNewAmericanEmpire.com

© 2007 by Big Picture World Syndicate, Inc.

Czech Republic Give Go-Ahead To US 'Son-Of-Star-Wars' Base

Related
US anti-missile system in Czech Republic will threaten Russia
---

· Prague says move is good for European security
· Russia threatens to review its own missile defences

Ian Traynor, Europe editor
Monday January 22, 2007
The Guardian


Protesters display a banner against a US missile base in the Czech Republic. Photograph: Michal Cizak/AFP/Getty Images

The Czech government has announced that it wants to host a large US military site for the Pentagon's much-criticised missile shield system, confirming for the first time that Washington had asked Prague for permission to build a radar site for the national missile defence programme.

Russia had warned earlier this month that any extension of the US missile project to eastern Europe would force it to review its military planning.

In one of his first acts as the new Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek said that building the facilities in the Czech Republic, the first extension of the "son of star wars" project beyond the US, would boost European security.

---

---

Mr Topolanek referred only to a radar site, a strong indication that the Pentagon is hoping to locate the bigger part of the European project - a large missile interceptor silo that would theoretically fire off rockets to destroy incoming missiles - in neighbouring Poland.

Russia warned earlier this month that any US extension of its missile defence project to eastern Europe would force it to review its military planning to counter the perceived threat.

The American demand was one of the first issues Mr Topolanek has had to handle after becoming prime minister. The Czech Republic has effectively been without a government since elections became deadlocked seven months ago.

The centre-right leader cobbled together a weak coalition and won a parliamentary confidence vote on Friday courtesy of two opposition defectors.

As soon as Mr Topolanek won the vote, the Americans tabled their request. "We are convinced that a possible deployment of the radar station on our territory is in our interest," he said.

"It will increase the security of the Czech Republic and Europe."

The new defence minister, Vlasta Parkanova, a Christian Democrat, reinforced support for the contentious scheme, while acknowledging public reservations. "I am aware that locating an allied radar site on our territory is a sensitive issue for Czech citizens. Some threats can be confronted only in cooperation with our partners, and an attack by a ballistic missile is among them.........We should not consider this issue ideologically but consider whether it raises the security of the Czech Republic and all its citizens."

The US has been quietly negotiating with the Czechs and the Poles for four years, while scouting Poland and areas east of the Czech capital, Prague, for suitable missile defence sites. Both centre-right governments in Prague and Warsaw are pro-American. If the US plan gets a green light, the spending on the Polish and Czech projects is likely to total $1.6bn (£810m) with the bases built by 2011.

The Americans have already built two missile interceptor sites, in California and Alaska, but the proposed project in the Czech Republic is the first in Europe. It has alarmed Russia, which claims it and not "rogue states" in the Middle East or Asia is the target of the missile shield. The US says the installations are aimed at thwarting potential North Korean long-range missiles, while the European sites guard against long-range missiles from Iran or other regional foes.

Up to two-thirds of Poles and Czechs are against taking part in the missile shield, according to opinion surveys, and the government in Warsaw, while in favour, has opposed the US terms. The Pentagon insists both would-be sovereign US bases with the staff stationed there, some 500 in total, not subject to Polish or Czech law.

"I approach the problem of extra-territoriality with reserve, I won't hide that," the Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, said last year.

Poland said it had no comment on a report that a final deal had been agreed. Foreign ministry spokesman Andrzej Sados told Reuters: "Consultations concerning that issue have been going on for months... We need more consultations, which we are conducting with our American friends through diplomatic channels."

Although discussions have been going on for years to reassure Russia, the Kremlin argues that the missile shield is in any case doomed to failure, and will merely succeed in stoking tension and mistrust.

Nikolai Solovtsov, the officer in charge of Russia's strategic missile command, said this month that a US extension of its missile defence project to eastern Europe would affect Russia's military planning.

"Russia will have to take additional measures to counter missile defence systems to prevent its strategic deterrent potential being downgraded," he said.

The Russian top brass dismiss assertions that the scheme is aimed purely at countries such as North Korea and Iran, pointing out that the project deals with intercontinental ballistic missiles, which neither North Korea nor Iran possesses.

Bush to Announce "Orbital Battle Station"

STAR WARS REDUX: Democrats to Gut Missile Defense / Bush to Announce "Orbital Battle Station"

PJM in Seattle

December 1, 2006 2:59 AM

Exclusive to Pajamas Media

In 2007 both Democrats and Republicans are going back into space with their pet peeves and passions intact.

By Taylor Dinerman

Democratic leaders are poised to gut America’s missile defense - at the same time North Korea and Iran are testing long-range missiles that can strike the U.S. and its allies, including Israel, Japan and Britain.

Meanwhile, sources inside the missile-defense community tell Pajamas Media that the Bush administration is planning to ask Congress to begin funding development of an “orbital battle station.”

With these key developments, 2007 is set to be the biggest battle of space-based weapons since President Reagan proposed “Star Wars” in 1983.

The incoming chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee is Carl Levin. Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has long been a foe of missile defense. In 1980s, he worried that President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative — which aimed to develop technology to destroy Soviet missiles during all phases of flight — was “destabilizing.”

Today Sen. Levin sings the same tune in a different key. “They’ve not done the operational testing yet that is convincing,” said Senator Levin during a post-election press conference. He was referring to the Ground based Missile Defense [GMD] system being installed in Alaska and California, to defend against North Korean missiles. He added that he favors stalling purchases of interceptor missiles - vital for missile defense — until after testing is complete.

In short, Sen. Levin and other longtime opponents of missile defense plan to use “testing” - set to an unrealistically high level - to stop missile defense.

How the Game is Played

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney explains how the game works: “The idea is that we put it [missile defense] on ice until absolutely everybody is satisfied. It is a formula for not having the missile defense we need.”

Critics hope to stop missile defense by devoting its entire budget to testing, which is costly. At $100 million dollars or more per test, a test or two could easily absorb the entire Ground-based missile defense budget.

Certainly testing sounds reasonable. Why not make sure the stuff works before blowing billions on it? But the testing fixation ignores that, like software, most successful weapons systems are best debugged after being deployed. And some weapons systems were never tested at all before deployment.

Complex weapons systems have often been used successfully without proper testing. In 1940, Britain’s new air defenses — radars, ground observers, anti-aircraft guns and squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes — had never been tested against even a small scale simulated attack. Yet they won the Battle of Britain. Likewise in the 1991 Gulf War the first two E-8A ground surveillance radar aircraft had only just begun a long testing process when they were shipped to Saudi Arabia. During the war they performed magnificently and now these aircraft are in high demand all over the world.

For decades, critics of advanced technology weapons have pointed to testing failures to support their drive to cancel the programs. Yet test failures are a normal part of the development process of any weapon system. Consider the M-1 tank. Its early tests were riddled with failures, yet now it is one of the most effective tanks in the world.

Democrats: “A limited defense capability that works.” Reasonable but Disingenuous

Over in the House of Representatives, Democrats are deploying a similar strategy to stop missile defense. Seven House Democrats, including Ike Skelton (D-MO), John Spratt (D-SC), Loretta Sanchez and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), recently sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld complaining of “tests that have been highly scripted with unrealistic countermeasures, the time of the enemy launch was known and the threat came from only a single enemy missile.” This sounds reasonable, but is actually disingenuous. Each test is designed to achieve a specific set of goals, this is what the Democrats mean by “scripted.”

Each test requires the use of a heavily modified ICBM as a target. Hundreds, maybe thousands of highly trained specialists operate sensors and collect the telemetry from both the interceptor and the target missile. Development testing like this is designed to gather information on performance and reliability. It will be years before the system is ready for “operational testing.”

While the Democratic lawmakers insist they support “fielding a limited defense capability that works,” they still see missile defense as a boondoggle. The letter writers contend: “Since the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was launched in the mid 1980’s the United States has spent nearly $100 billion dollars on missile defense programs and studies with little to show for it.” This last sentence is ironic since most Democrats have long opposed any actual deployment of strategic missile defenses.

Missile Defense: A Brief History

Missile Defense has gone through several phases of research and development. In the early 1990s a system called Brilliant Pebbles was ready to begin development when it was canceled by the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile a number of tactical missile defense systems have been developed including the Patriot PAC-3, which worked well during the 2003 Iraq operation and as well as the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile which is planned to begin operations in 2009 and the Airborne Laser built into a Boeing 747 which may be operational early in the next decade.

Democrats in Congress have learned not to treat homeland missile defense with the disdain they demonstrated in the 1980s; the threat of attack from rogue nations seems far too real to shrug off. Generally Democratic lawmakers support for modest research budgets and “limited” missile defenses, while citing “inadequate testing” to stop actual deployment.

Democratic opponents of missile defense often speak as if the ground-based missile defense system was the whole program, ignoring the sea based SM-3 missile, which has been undergoing a rigorous and successful test program in the waters off Hawaii. Indeed, it is so successful that Japanese government is buying it to equip its Aegis cruisers. The Defense Department has been reluctant to fund an upgrade of the system to give it its full potential against long range missiles.

How Serious Are Pols About Missile Defense?

One test of how serious both Democrats and the Bush Administration is about defending America against missile attack is whether they are ready to use the ultimate high ground - outer space. The best time to hit a ballistic missile is just after blast off when it is climbing against of gravity and emitting a massive heat signature. This is known as “Boost Phase Intercept.” In 1992 a space-based system that could perform this task known as Brilliant Pebbles was being developed by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization [SDIO]. It was canceled by Les Aspin, Clinton’s first Secretary of Defense, who claimed that he was “taking the Stars out of Star Wars.”

Aspin also imposed drastic cuts to the long term missile defense science and technology research budget, cuts from which that part of the program has never really recovered.

Coming Soon: The Orbital Battle Station

Pajamas Media has learned that the Bush administration is going to ask Congress for funding to begin development of an “orbital battle station” that will be able to attack enemy missiles in their vulnerable boost phase.

Each Battle Station would be a fairly large satellite that carried a number, perhaps 40 to 50 infrared guided “kill vehicles.” On orders from the ground, the battle station would launch these kill vehicles, roughly about the size of a loaf of bread, at incoming missiles. Professor Everett Dolman of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and the author of %%Amazon= 0714681970 Astropolitik - Classical Geopolitics in The Space Age%%, says that space based systems are “the only viable option for global defense against the most likely threats, such as an attack by Iran against Israel or by Pakistan against India.”

“The technology,” Dolman said, “for a basic orbital interceptor that could hit an ICBM in mid flight has been available to the U.S. for at least two decades. Indeed should the U.S. dedicate itself to a fast track development and deployment of several dozen networked anti-missile satellites, it could have a baseline capability in place within two years.”

The Bush administration pending request for an orbital battle station will surely touch off a brawl over “space weaponization”. Loren Dealy a spokeswoman for the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee told Pajamas Media: “Our members have serious concerns with the concept of space-based interceptors.”

Critics have long believed space-based systems would set off an arms race in space that would destabilize international relations. Keeping space a sanctuary for our satellites seems reasonable, until one recognizes that this leaves billions of dollars of vital U.S. military assets defenseless targets that could be hit and destroyed by primitive space weapons that Iran or others could build regardless of any restraint we show. The orbital battle stations could possibly knock out such weapons the same way they knock out long range missiles.

While some Democrats can be expected to fight tooth and nail against any orbital battle station, the defense community suggests that others such as Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) are not going to reject space-based defense as out of hand. Others such as Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) may want to slow things down. Last May, he said “We owe it to ourselves to understand the full ramifications of a move into space before we introduce this additional variable into the missile defense equation.” Overall they may spend the same sums the GOP was planning to spend, but would keep any effective defense systems on the drawing board forever.

Now that the Democrats are in charge of both houses of Congress for the first time since the 9-11 attacks, they face an important and ultimately revealing choice: will they to stick with the bromides beloved by their base or work with the president to safeguard the country from North Korean and Iranian missiles?

---

Taylor Dinerman writes a weekly column for the Space Review (www.thespacereview.com), and has written on space and defense issues for The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Ad Astra, the magazine of the National Space Society, Space News and elsewhere. He was an author of the textbook ‘Space Science for Students’ and is a consultant for the U.S. Defense Department. His views in no way represent those of the Department.

———
Return to Pajamas Media homepage

digg this STAR WARS REDUX: Democrats to Gut Missile Defense / Bush to Announce "Orbital Battle Station"'),'delicious','toolbar=no,width=700,height=400'); return false;" href="http://del.icio.us/post"> del.icio.us comment