CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
May 31, 2009 – 3:49 p.m.
Using North Korea to Make the Case for Missile Defense
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
North Korea’s latest round of saber-rattling will be front and center in the coming national debate over missile defense, perhaps prompting some lawmakers to think twice about the Obama administration’s plan to reshape the military.
After the hermitic Stalinist country set off a nuclear device and test-fired several short-range missiles this week, conservative lawmakers and former officials linked the event to their decades-long drive to increase funding and support for a worldwide missile “shield” designed to detect and destroy ballistic missiles fired at the United States or its allies.
These advocates need all the help they can get to fight Obama’s plan to cut several components and reduce funding for the Pentagon’s largest program, which received over $12 billion last year. Proponents believe that by portraying Obama’s plan as weakening America’s defenses in the face of North Korea’s aggressiveness, they can convince the public and some Democrats to oppose the changes.
“North Korea’s brazen act of aggression should strengthen our resolve for a multi-layered missile-defense system capable of protecting our nation and our allies,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio.
Other officials and experts, however, are downplaying the relationship between North Korea’s nuclear brinksmanship and the American missile-defense program.
“The joining is happening in our heads, not on the ground,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution.
A worldwide missile-defense system, they add, is simply not an effective way to fight North Korea’s missile development.
“People want to create this aura of omnipotent missile defense,” said O’Hanlon, “But if they were right, then a country like North Korea shouldn’t be bothering in the first place,”
Criticisms of the Missile System
Experts point out several problems with relying on the missile-defense system to protect the United States from an attack by North Korea.
The administration’s oft-repeated claim that the system has a “high probability” of being able to shoot down an incoming missile from North Korea is empty, they say, because proper testing just hasn’t been done to determine the system’s capabilities.
“It’s really a bluff, hoping to deter North Korea, which of course it isn’t doing,” said Philip Coyle, a fellow at the Center for Defense Information who served as the Pentagon’s top weapons tester during the Clinton administration.
North Korea’s launch of several missiles this week shows it could overwhelm the U.S. missile-defense system by firing more missiles than the system could handle, said Coyle.
Such an attack wouldn’t be likely, because it would provoke a massive U.S. retaliation that would end the North Korean regime.
“Does anyone really believe North Korea would be suicidal enough to attack us with a ballistic missile?” Coyle asked.
But some experts argue that Obama’s plan will hurt diplomatic efforts to restrain North Korea.
“Reducing the funding commitment to our missile-defense system by $1.4 billion, as the Obama administration has done, sends the signal that we do not take the threats of rogue regimes seriously,” former Sen. William S. Cohen, R-Maine (1979-1997), Defense secretary during the Clinton administration, wrote in the Washington Times on May 28.
Redirecting Defense
The administration, represented by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates , argues that its proposed changes to missile defense are geared toward rogue nations, namely North Korea and Iran, instead of what appeared for many years to be a focus on China and Russia.
One program that would be terminated, the Multiple Kill Vehicle, “was designed to deal with a more complex threat that would have come potentially from either China or Russia,” Gates told the House Armed Services Committee on May 13. This directly contradicted both Bush and Obama’s policies stating that China and Russia were not the targets of the system, Gates said.
Gates also rejected the argument put forth by many lawmakers that Obama’s plan to limit the number of missile interceptors stationed in Alaska and California to 30, down from a previous plan for 44, would weaken U.S. defenses against a North Korean attack.
“At the level of capability that North Korea has now and is likely to have for some years to come, 30 interceptors in fact provide a strong defense against North Korea in this respect,” Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 14.
The administration is also concerned that, if left unchanged, the Bush administration’s plans to expand missile defense into Poland and the Czech Republic could undermine the fragile effort to renew relations with Russia. Obama will decide later this year whether to move forward with building the Eastern European sites.
Russian leaders indicated this month that if Obama moves forward with the sites, Russia might back out of talks to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia, which expires in December.
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are threatening to fight the ratification of a new treaty if Obama yields to Moscow’s warning, which they made known in a private meeting with Gates this week, according to GOP Senate aides.
GOP Plans
Nevertheless, many lawmakers will point to North Korea’s increasing blustering as a reason to continue expanding missile defense.
“North Korea’s continued efforts to build and launch nuclear weapons . . . underscore the critical importance of fielding robust missile defense to guard against rogue nations who wish to do us harm,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby , R-Ala., who pledged to use his Senate Appropriations Committee seat to fight for more funding.
Missile-defense advocates in the Senate lost a champion when the former ranking Republican on Senate Appropriations, Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, lost his 2008 election. But his replacement, Sen. Mark Begich , D-Alaska, is picking up the slack.
“I was committed to the program before North Korea’s recent activity, and this puts an exclamation point on the discussion,” said Begich, adding that missile-defense components at Fort Greely, Alaska, are critical parts of the system. “Now is not the time to compromise that system,” he said.
GOP lawmakers in the House are promising to fight hard to increase spending on missile-defense and save the components targeted for elimination when the fiscal 2010 defense authorization and appropriations bills get written and debated next month.
“Pointing out the provocative actions of North Korea is going to be a big part of our approach,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn , R-Colo., a member of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which oversees missile defense.
The ballistic-missile threat is so great, they say, not building the system as quickly as possible is reckless.
“Even if there’s no deterrence, I don’t think it’s worth gambling millions of American lives,” Lamborn said.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: