SIRIUS: The Strategic Issues Research Institute
Benjamin C. Works, Director
1515 Jeff Davis Hwy  #408 * Arlington, VA  22202
703 415-1191; www.siri-us.com;
E-mail: Benworks@AOL.Com
--Speak the Truth and Shame the Devil--

To Unsubscribe, send a terse e-message to benworks@aol.com

A formatted report may be viewed at:  http://www.siri-us.com/issues.html


SIT-REP 01-07-16; July 16, 2001

Missile Defense: It's only Rocket Science
By Benjamin C. Works
(Mr. Works broadcast Iraq's 1991 Scud missile attacks on Israel and Saudi
Arabia for CBS Radio Network.)


It worked.  The US "hit a bullet with a bullet" 144 miles up in space, high
over the Pacific, at a range of 5000 miles. July 14th's strategic missile
defense test was a success.  So, too, are most of the recent tests of other
missile defense systems: Patriot, the ground-based laser and the US-Israeli
Arrow in particular. And these systems will work better after the US strikes
terms with Russia, reshaping our 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. All this
is more to the dismay of our own Arms Control elite in Washington, than to
our Russian peers.

There will be some diplomatic theater before we get to a full agreement with
Moscow. At the same time, there will be more test "failures" and partial
successes. But missile defense is not a theoretical problem of physics, it is
an engineering challenge. It is only rocket science, not a new phenomenon.
Over the next 4-10 years, the American people, our troops, allies and
friends, will get protection from enemy missiles carrying Nuclear, Biological
or Chemical warheads.

Arms Control theorists wish we would not build an effective multi-layered
missile defense system within our overall national defense strategy; but
there is a credible threat of missile attack -a clear and present danger.  In
early 1996, during a crisis over Taiwan, Communist China's Defense Minister
Chi Haotian threatened the US with the loss of a major city:  "The US won't
trade Los Angeles for Taiwan," he sneered -and was not fired.

A layered missile defense system is possible and we need to protect our own
country and our friends from a range of potential threats.  North Korea,
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and India have committed to missile attack
technology.  It gets complex, quickly.

Israel faces threats from Syria, Iraq, and Iran; but Iran faces other
potential threats, too. Saddam shot hundreds of Scuds into Iran's cities,
killing some 2000 people.  Iran also opposes the Taliban fundamentalist
movement in Afghanistan-Pakistan, and if that group ever got its hands on
Pakistan's missiles and nuclear warheads --well, it would lead to a greater
range of threat analysis.

India needs to defend itself from China and Pakistan; Pakistan needs to
protect its people from India's weapons.  It does not take much thought to
see that Russia will have customers for its missile defense systems, and we
shall have ours.

Constitutional and moral arguments

Missile defense is only a part of our national defense strategy, which is
defined by threats posed against the United States by rival powers and rogue
states.  Opponents won't admit it, but the US is also developing defenses
against cruise missiles and spends some $12 billion per year to prevent
terrorists from bootlegging in those "suitcase bombs" they like to scare us
with in high-tech movies.

Missile defense is a no-brainer and should be bipartisan -even non-partisan.  
Yet, for the last eight years the Democratic leadership has fought a
rear-guard action against it, creating a partisan struggle.  But they could
not kill it because Israel has a very real need for missile defense, too.  So
Democrats slowed down the program. Now, we can expect to see resistance
crumble even as Bush negotiates with Russia and as more tests demonstrate
paths to effective defense systems.

It is a fundamental right and obligation of humans and societies to defend
themselves and to preserve life; this right-duty is embodied in the
Constitution and Bill of Rights' 2nd Amendment.  Specifically, the Preamble
states the government must "provide for the common defense." Must. In 1999,
Congress passed a law requiring we build missile defenses as soon as
"technically feasible."

Diplomatically, the 1972 ABM Treaty with Russia restricts strategic missile
defenses to keep both countries in checkmate, facing annihilation under the
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) doctrine of the age of "Fail-Safe" and
"Dr. Strangelove."

President Putin has indicated, though, in remarks to the western press, that
he is open to negotiations --but he wants "respect."  To negotiate a new
design for living between the two countries is the preferable approach, so
that both presidents can build political support for positive change.  If
need be, the ABM Treaty also provides that the US can vacate the treaty on
six months' notice.  That should not be necessary, and the two presidents
have four more meetings this year to demonstrate progress, step-by-step.

The question now becomes one of morality.  If attacked by China, Iraq or
North Korea, MAD requires retaliation and the President would have to wipe
out 10 million or so foreign nationals in a blind retributive rage.  Mass
murder is hardly a moral doctrine.  In fact, it is genocidal to wipe out
millions of Iraqis or tens of millions of Chinese.

Better to build ever-more-reliable missile defense systems to prevent
warheads from landing on our cities, our forces abroad, or on our friends.
The highest morality -the highest duty of governments- is to protect and
preserve human life. Missile defense does that and threatens to kill no human
being.  

Other anti-missile defense myths:

This is only rocket science and is inexpensive, relative to our overall
defense expenditures. Mr. Bush has requested $7.3 Billion for the Ballistic
Missile Defense Office's missile defense research, development, testing and
evaluation (RDT&E) in 2002. There will be more tests, including partial
failures; we learn from failures as well as successes.

The US may invest as much as $9 billion for a few years to purchase
launchers, missiles and radars.  But that represents less than 3% of the
defense budget; less than half of one percent of our $2000 Billion federal
budget.  The US may invest as much as $30 per year, per citizen, to build
missile defense systems --what you spend on one printer cartridge.

In fact, the defense contractors and the chiefs of our armed services view
missile defense budgets as small potatoes, secondary to their greater
interests in larger weapons programs such as the F-22 stealth fighter.

Will this lead to an arms race? That depends on your definition of "arms
race." China and those rogue states are already building up their missile
arsenals and weapons of mass destruction.  At worst, this has already started
a defensive systems race. We can sell our systems, Russia will sell rival
systems.  This will reduce the threat of a mini-nuclear holocaust in the
Third World.

Environmental activists invariably oppose nukes and oppose missile defense as
well; a perverse element of their apocalyptic faith in man's
self-destruction.  But the ultimate environmental holocaust would be a major
nuclear exchange between two enemies.  Nukes endanger all species. And then
there is that old fear about "nuclear winter," which the Left tried to hype
in the 1960s, before global cooling, before global warming.

America is developing land, sea and space-based missile defense systems,
exploiting missile and laser technology, to provide multi-layered protection
against a wide array of short, medium and long range weapons threats. And
many of our systems can also knock down aircraft, barrage rockets or cruise
missiles. We will develop these layered defenses -a coordinated "system of
systems"- that will be effective; giving the US a credible fourth leg to its
preventive efforts: Diplomacy, Denial of technology to Rogues, Deterrence,
and soon, Defense.

So remember, it will work because, after all, it's only rocket science. And
there is a threat.

© Copyright 2001 by Benjamin C. Works - SIRIUS www.siri-us.com
Recipients of this report may re-post it, in whole or in part, to Internet
web sites and address lists, so long as the copyright notice is included, and
"for fair use only."