Missile Defense, Then and Now

[Valin]

Power Line:

John Hinderaker

3/15/13

 

Readers of a certain age will recall the battles over missile defense that raged during the Reagan administration. Virtually all Democrats opposed all forms of missile defense, deeming the concept not only unfeasible–”like hitting a bullet with a bullet,” as though that were impossible–but destabilizing as well. John Kerry’s denunciations of missile defense were typical: “a dream based on illusion, but one which could have real and terrible consequences,” As recently as 2008, Barack Obama said that he didn’t “agree with a missile defense system” and promised to slash funding for development of such systems. He did, too.

 

I was reminded of all of this by a low-key, matter of fact story in today’s newspapers:

 

The Obama administration will add 14 interceptors to a West Coast-based missile defense system, reflecting concern about North Korea’s focus on developing nuclear weapons and its advances in long-range missile technology, officials said Friday. …

(Snip)

 

Well, that is good news. Still, one wonders: has anyone ever asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether he now admits that he was wrong about missile defense being a “dream based on an illusion,” with “real and terrible consequences?” Or how about the Democratic Senators and Congressmen, many of them still in office, who bitterly attacked President Reagan for wanting to develop missile defense systems, and President Bush for wanting to deploy such systems? Does anyone ever ask whether they have changed their minds, or how they now feel about our ability to defend against North Korean missiles?

 

(Snip)

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

Being a Democrat/Leftest means never having to say you were wrong.

[Valin]

What Reagan Knew About Missile Defense

Amy Payne

March 19, 2013

 

It would take only 33 minutes for a missile to reach the U.S. from anywhere in the world. That’s a sobering thought when North Korea is taunting America with threatening video propaganda about its nuclear capabilities and Iran is advancing its nuclear program.

 

In response to these threats, the Obama Administration announced Friday that it would increase the number of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Interceptors protecting the U.S. from 30 to 44. These 30 interceptors allowed White House spokesman Jay Carney to state that the U.S. is “fully capable of defending itself” against a North Korean ballistic missile attack.

 

He didn’t mention that the Obama Administration has tried to undermine the long-range missile defense program since it came into office, including announcing the “restructure” of the advanced SM-3 IIB interceptor program designed to protect the U.S. and allies from a long-range ballistic missile threat. As Heritage’s Michaela Dodge explained:

 

When the Administration took office four years ago, it scaled down the number of interceptors protecting the U.S. from 54 to 30. This included cutting 10 interceptors in Poland and 14 in Alaska. The Administration justified its step by saying that the missile defense threat has not progressed as fast as the Bush Administration expected—this despite the fact that both North Korea and Iran have been very public about their efforts to develop long-range ballistic missile capabilities.

(Snip)

 

Thirty years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan asked a question that is just as vital today: “[W]hich part of our defense measures do we believe we can do without and still have security against all contingencies?”

 

[Draggingtree]

Obama's Dangerous Flip-Flops On Missile Defense

 

Wed, Mar 20 2013 00:00:00 EA12_ISSUES

Posted 03/19/2013 06:48 PM ET

Missile Defense: The administration beefs up our Alaskan-based interceptors it once downgraded in response to North Korea's threat, while ending the final phase of the Europe-based defense against Iran it once supported.

We welcome the Obama administration's decision to place an additional 14 ground-based interceptors (GBI) at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., by 2017, as well as a second TPY-2 phased-array X-band long-range missile defense radar system in Japan following North Korea's deployment of a new road-mobile missile.

We are reminded that if President Obama hadn't scuttled President Bush's plans, these added interceptors would already be in their silos. Obama plans on boosting that force from the current 30 to 44.

The Bush administration had deployed the first GBI at Fort Greely in 2002 and planned on at least 55.

As a candidate, Obama said he wouldn't support "unproven missile defense."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/031913-648586-obama-scuttles-european-missile-defense-shield.htm?p=full

[Valin]

Joe Biden’s War

The Vice President’s long opposition to missile defense meets the reality of North Korea.

Jeffrey Lord

3.21.13

 

“The president’s continued adherence to [sDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”

— Senator Joseph Biden on Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, designed to protect against nuclear attacks from nuclear armed enemies like North Korea

 

“Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the U.S. will add 14 interceptors to the 30 in its missile defense system by fiscal 2017, sending a signal to North Korea after the totalitarian regime threatened nuclear strikes.”

— Bloomberg Business Week on the Obama-Biden Administration decision to belatedly deploy an underdeveloped SDI against a potential North Korean attack

 

Joe Biden had a headache.

 

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

SDI at 30, Part II

Jay Nordlinger on the tag ‘Star Wars,’ the American Left, the Soviet Union, and more.

Jay Nordlinger

3/26/13

 

 

Reagan is the object of widespread respect today. He is respected even by some of those who once scorned him. So it may be hard to imagine just how mocked and reviled he was in his time. Liberal elites (to use a convenient though unsatisfactory phrase) painted him as a Hollywood simpleton who would inflict his fantasies on the country and world.

 

Immediately after his missile-defense speech, they dubbed his project “Star Wars.” The first movie in that series had come out in 1977; the third one (Return of the Jedi) came out in the weeks following the speech.

 

(Snip)

 

That’s pretty much the way it went, all through the 1980s.

 

It would be hard to convey at this remove just how big missile defense was as a subject of debate. It was virtually dominant. There was constant political warfare over missile defense. People in such organizations as the Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists became famous. They were on television all the time, talking against missile defense. A man named John Pike was a near-constant presence.

 

In May 1985, William F. Buckley Jr. devoted one of his big Firing Line debates to missile defense. His resolution was “We should go full speed on Star Wars.” (Sometimes, you just bow to the derisive jargon of your opponents.) WFB said that “shielding human beings from destruction” was better than “threatening to destroy human beings in order to deter destruction.” Missile defense, he said, was “a step in a civilized direction.”

 

(Snip)

 

 

Editor’s Note: This week, we are running a series by Jay Nordlinger on missile defense. It has been 30 years since Reagan gave his speech announcing the project. What was his vision, and how has it fared? For Part I of the series, go here.

[Valin]

SDI at 30, Part III

Jay Nordlinger

3/27/13

 

The president who followed Reagan was his vice president, George Bush. The president who followed him was Bill Clinton — who was no fan of missile defense. He put the brakes on the program immediately. As Rich Lowry writes in his book on the Clinton years, he “slashed funding for missile defense roughly in half.”

 

(Snip)

 

In 2000, President Bush’s son, George W., campaigned on missile defense. He won. And at the end of his first year in office — in December 2001 — he announced that we were withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

 

(Snip)

 

There was much gnashing of teeth — not so much from Moscow as from Democrats. One of the loudest gnashers was Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said we were making a “tragic mistake,” one that would spark a “massive new arms race.” He threatened to cut off funding for missile defense if Bush went through with withdrawal. The president, obviously, was undeterred. And SDI went forward.

 

Do you remember the resolution in that Bill Buckley debate, from 1985? “We should go full speed on Star Wars.” That is pretty much what the George W. Bush administration did. The spirit of the administration in this regard was captured by Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, in a 2006 interview with me:

 

“Everyone’s saying you can’t do anything until you can do everything, and in life I’ve never found that to be the case. To me, first you crawl, then you walk, then you run. And so let’s get on with it. Let’s stick something in the ground and not pretend that it’s perfect.”

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

SDI at 30, Part IV

Jay Nordlinger

3/28/13

 

You will remember a curious incident in March 2012. Obama is talking with Dmitri Medvedev, Russia’s outgoing president. Their conversation is caught on tape. Obama says that a number of issues can be “solved,” and “particularly missile defense.” But “it’s important for him to give me space.”

 

(Snip)

 

An Associated Press report from last month tells us something interesting — something about the strange politics of missile defense. Under Obama’s plan, the AP explains, our interceptors “would be upgraded gradually over four phases, culminating early next decade with those intended to protect both Europe and the United States.”

 

Russia opposes the plan, says the AP, “especially the interceptors in the final stage.” Russia “fears those interceptors could catch its intercontinental missiles launched at the U.S.”

 

(Snip)

 

Why aren’t we farther along? Here are three reasons. First, we operated within the restraints of the ABM Treaty for too many years. Second, missile defense is hard — a hard scientific task. An expert says, “I don’t want to take anything away from the wizards at Apple who give us iPhones and other wonderful gadgets. But that is easier than getting one missile to strike another, each hurtling at 15,000 miles per hour in the vastness of space.” At the same time, missile defense is doable. Human ingenuity can achieve it.

 

Which brings us to the third reason: a deficiency of political will, or national will. The country will have to want missile defense, in order to get it. More about this in due course.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

SDI at 30, Part V

Jay Nordlinger

3/29/13

 

In that speech of his, 30 years ago, Reagan said,

 

I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs.

 

Yes — failures and setbacks, and successes and breakthroughs. How patient have people been with the failures and setbacks? That depends on whether they have wanted the project to succeed or fail.

 

(Snip)

 

There is opposition to SDI, yes — but much of that has melted. Most people accept that missile defense is desirable, in one form or another. Two years ago, a pair of Obama defense officials began an op-ed as follows: “Ballistic missile defenses have matured from a Cold War idea to a real-world necessity. Threats today from ballistic missiles are real, present and growing.”

 

Reagan used to quip that you knew his economic program was working: They no longer called it “Reaganomics.” You don’t hear “Star Wars” very much these days either. Neither do you hear Democrats cry against “militarizing the heavens.” The Mondale-talk is pretty much dead.

 

(Snip)

 

We are a broke nation — $16.7 trillion in debt — and it may not seem the right time to go full-bore into missile defense. To “go full speed on Star Wars” (quoting Buckley again). But there is such a thing as spending priorities. This is true of individuals, families, and governments alike.

 

Let me quote from the Reagan speech: “Isn’t it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.” Reagan was an idealist, yes, and he had a utopian streak. But you don’t have to have that same idealism, or that same streak, to see what he is saying, and agree with it.

 

(Snip)