DEBATE PREP: Missile defense is not expendable
November 20th, 2011
06:00 AM ET

DEBATE PREP: Missile defense is not expendable

Editor’s note: This analysis is part of Security Clearance blog’s “Debate Preps” series. On November 22, CNN, along with AEI and The Heritage Foundation, will host a Republican candidate debate focused on national security topics. In the run-up to the debate, Security Clearance asked both the sponsoring conservative think tanks to look at the key foreign policy issues and tell us what they want to hear candidates address.

By Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner and Sally McNamara, Special to CNN

Ballistic missiles pose an increasing risk to the United States and its allies, particularly as more nations strive to acquire nuclear weapons. The once exclusive nuclear weapons club now has nine members, and Iran is knocking on the clubhouse door. Altogether, at least 32 countries have ballistic missile capabilities.

Defending the United States, its forward-deployed troops, and its friends and allies against such threats should be a national security priority for the U.S. president. We have a fledgling missile defense capability. But further investment, research and procurement are needed to truly realize a fully effective ballistic missile defense (BMD) system.

The growing threat of missile and nuclear attack is particularly acute in East Asia. Diplomacy has failed to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. North Korea's extensive ballistic missile force can now strike South Korea, Japan, and U.S. military bases in Asia. Its ongoing long-range missile program could threaten the continental United States by 2015.

China has expended enormous effort in developing long-range missile forces with a precision strike capability that places a large variety of targets at risk through-out the Asia-Pacific region.

Washington has sought to develop common missile defense policies to defend Asian allies against missile attacks from North Korean and Chinese launch sites - but with mixed results.

America and Japan have made considerable strides in BMD cooperation and interoperability. Tokyo has developed and deployed a layered, integrated missile defense system consisting of sea-based SM-3 interceptors for high-altitude missile defense and land-based PAC-3 units for terminal phase interceptions.

On the other hand, liberal South Korean presidents from 1998-2007 downplayed the North Korean danger, and Seoul resisted joining an integrated missile defense system with the U.S.. Instead, it has built only a low-tier missile shield of older German Patriot-2 missiles and Aegis destroyers without theater ballistic missile capability.

Seoul's reticence about defending itself against the North Korean threat changed dramatically with the election of conservative President Lee Myung-bak in 2007. However, President Lee must follow through with requisite actions, including contemplation of a comprehensive regional network with the United States and Japan.

America's European allies are also vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. The United States has a mutual defense clause with its 27 fellow NATO members. A ballistic missile attack on any one member could therefore, potentially involve the U.S. in military action. It surely makes greater sense to deny a potential aggressor the means of attack in the first place.

Many NATO members have taken tentative steps to build components of what could eventually become a comprehensive missile defense architecture, such as the Patriot air defense system. However, European nations must do more to adequately protect their populations and territory from the risk of missile attack.

Turkey, Poland and Romania have all recently agreed to host elements of the U.S.'s missile defense architecture. As important as these bases will be, Europe's contribution to transatlantic-wide missile defense must be about more than hosting U.S. sensors and interceptors. Truly effective BMD requires a layered approach capable of intercepting missiles in all phases of flight - boost, midcourse and terminal. Linking together members' capabilities into a coordinated, layered defense is estimated to be just €200 million ($279 million) over 10 years.

Given the increasing global missile threat, the U.S. must reverse the budget cuts proposed for missile defense programs. Instead, we must significantly strengthen the land, sea and air components of U.S. missile defense.

A comprehensive missile defense would not only protect the American homeland, but also reassure our friends and allies. Missile defense contributes to regional peace and stability and supports international nonproliferation efforts by reducing other nations' perceived need to acquire nuclear weapons. It is a win-win solution to one of today's greatest security threats.

Bruce Klingner is senior research fellow in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation. Sally McNamara is senior policy analyst in Heritage's Thatcher Center for Freedom.


Filed under: 2012 Election • Analysis • Bachman • Cain • China • Debate Preps • Defense Spending • Gingrich • Huntsman • Paul • Perry • Romney • Santorum
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. Ray

    this deterrent has been around for decades and we still get challenged,because they know we won't use it for fisrt stike.

    November 20, 2011 at 3:15 pm | Reply
  2. Clint Sharpe

    please. you guys got Heritage to post on this subject?

    Here is the view of actual scientists: from FAS -

    http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/2011%20Missile%20Defense%20Report.pdf

    November 20, 2011 at 1:09 pm | Reply
  3. slavetousa

    What happened to the anti-ballistic missile treaty with the USSR? Oh, I guess since they "fell" and America has no opposition, they think they can place anti-ballistic missiles around the globe. JUST STOP. I mean seriously, how much control can one really gain? America the free? More like America the tyrant, oppressing people and religious beliefs around the globe. What was once a place to escape persecution has become the vile evil corruption they once stood against.

    November 20, 2011 at 10:13 am | Reply
    • tom

      what utter malarkey!

      if you want to see "vile", go visit north korea, or iran, or saudi arabia, where you can be arrested and tortured for not thinking "the right way".

      as for the ABM treaty, "mutually assured destruction" only works if both sides are rational and fear the consequences of nuclear retaliation. after 9/11, it's pretty safe to assume that neither condition applies to the islamists.

      the real trouble with a missile defence isn't that it is "evil", but that it won't work. the united states does not have a very good track record in building systems that are 100% reliable. and in this case, a failure is actually worse than no system at all.

      November 20, 2011 at 11:46 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.