Review of the Missile Defense Factsheet from Congress
June 22, 2009
Review of the Missile Defense Factsheet from Congress
Enclosed is a Missile Defense Factsheet, from Loren Dealy of the
House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Ike Skeleton
dated June 16, 2009 which reflects the decisions made by the Committee
on Missile defense allocations and policies, as part of the overall H.R.2647,
National Defense Authorization Act, passed by the House.
1. The Number of Interceptors in Alaska and California is Enough
to Protect Us
2. Military Commanders Actually Vetted These Missile Defense
3. Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Must be Made
4. Combatant Commanders Need Increased Theater Missile Defense Capabilities
5. Decision to Cancel Troubled Missile Defense Programs is Well
6. European Missile Defense Must Respond to Real Threat
7. The United States is Not Undercutting its NATO Allies
It appears that after holding their hearings last week the Committee
decided not to pursue any further plans for the Missile Defense
System in Europe, in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The subcommittee, the Strategic Forces, chairwoman Ellen Tauscher,
stated, "The committee permanently extends the prohibition of
deployment of long-range missile defense interceptors in Europe
until DOD (Dept. of Defense) certifies...and for Poland and the
Czech Republic to ratify agreements...
The committee does provide DOD the authority to develop an
integrated defense alternative to the proposal to base long-range
missile defense interceptors in Europe. The new proposal should
evaluate what system will best address emerging threats, which are
primarily from short and medium-range missiles."
In other words the committee does not consider a threat of a
long-range missile attack from Iran as as serious concern today.
"The authorization for fiscal year 2010 includes appropriately
$36.4 billion in strategic programs, including $9.3 billion for missile
defense, approximately $11 billion for military space programs,
and $14.3 billion for Department of Energy Defense Activities,
excluding nuclear non-proliferation programs."
H.R,2797, the NATO First Act Bill sponsored by Rep. Turner and
Marshall is not mentioned in the summaries of the new FY2010,
H.R.2647, National Defense Authorization Act, http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr2647_armedsvc.pdf,
Refer to my last post for details of H.R.2797 as it relates to Missile
Defense and Nuclear Weapons in Europe.
Discussions were held last week in the HASC. We see that three programs
involved in missile defense were eliminated, by Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates. Plans are to be made to add on to defense increasing to 30
the missile interceptors and
"H.R. 2647 supports the President's request to increase funding for the
deployment of proven missile defense sustems like Aegis BMD and the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) by $900 million
over the FY 2009 funded level"
and "Over the next five years, Aegis Standard Missile-3 interceptor
inventory will grow from 133 to 329 missiles, and THAAD interceptor
inventory will grow from 96 interceptors to 287."
While we are increasing military defense missile development
we are also holding discussions with Russia on START, and
nuclear non-proliferation, hoping to reduce nuclear warheads and
It appears the U.S. is traveling on two parallel roads at the same time
on defense and militarization. That is, the reduction of nuclear weapons
and the increase in conventional weapons and power. Also, the cost is
$550.4 billion FY2010 for Defense Appropriations,
probably the most expensive military budget of any nation in history.
In order to realistically work towards creating a peaceful world with
security for everyone, we need a much better foreign policy which
includes much more diplomacy and disarmament, while reducing
the military budget, giving us more funds for social services and
other needed expenditures.
This would reduce the ability of the military industrial complex to
continue to grow and expand while fostering increased roles of
peacemaking groups and agencies in the government and in
We deserve to feel proud of our efforts both here, in the U.S. and abroad
in Europe, especially the role of the Invisables from the Czech Republic
and groups from other nations opposing MDS in Europe. At the same
time we need to remain vigilant against further military buildup while
promoting more diplomacy, disarmament and peacemaking worldwide.
The Missile Defense Factsheet gives us a very good comprehensive
picture of the various aspects of our missile defense program.
Well worth a careful review and study.
arn specter, phila.pa. usa
For immediate release:
Loren Dealy (HASC) 202-225-2539
Missile Defense Fact Sheet
H.R. 2647, the FY10 NDAA
Prepared by the HASC Staff
Overall, the 110th Congress, controlled by Democrats, provided more than $20 billion for missile defense programs. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 authorizes the full administration request of $9.3 billion for missile defense programs.
The Number of Interceptors in Alaska and California is Enough to Protect Us:
H.R. 2647 provides over $1 billion for research, development, testing, deployment and sustainment of long-range Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors based in Alaska and California.
In the near term, North Korea could only launch, at most, one or two long-range ballistic missiles at the United States at any one time, and Iran has not yet tested a missile capable of reaching the United States. These threats are unlikely to change dramatically in the next five years.
The 30 GMD interceptors deployed under the President’s plan are more than enough to counter this threat.
North Korea’s recent actions add to the urgency of ensuring the effectiveness of the GMD system, but they do not change the fundamental calculation of the number of interceptors that are needed to meet military requirements.
There is no validated military requirement from our commanders to support the 44 interceptors proposed by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress.
H.R. 2647 supports the administration’s plan for 30 operationally-effective GMD interceptors to counter emerging threats from rogue nations.
Military Commanders Actually Vetted These Missile Defense Priorities:
The requirements for the missile defense recommendations made by Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have been thoroughly vetted by our military commanders.
General O’Reilly, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), testified before the Subcommittee that the budget request this year was the first since the establishment of MDA, in 2002, in which key DOD stakeholders such as the combatant commanders played the primary role in developing the requirements for the missile defense budget.
Looking back to 2002, General O’Reilly also testified that MDA’s projections of the threat from long-range ballistic missiles from rogue nations was off “by a factor of 10 to 20.”
These projections were made without review by military commanders, and MDA’s initial decision to deploy 40 (and then later 44) GMD interceptors was never validated by DOD’s requirements process.
Setting the goal of 30 thoroughly-tested, operational GMD interceptors is an appropriate approach to defend against these emerging threats.
H.R. 2647 also fully funds continued development of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA interceptor. This will provide the Aegis BMD system the capability to counter long-range ballistic missiles like the North Korean Taepo Dong II.
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Must be Made Operationally Effective:
The 26 currently-deployed GMD interceptors provide a basic capability, but these systems continue to experience a number of technical challenges that impair operational effectiveness.
Earlier this year, the Department of Defense was forced to remove several GMD interceptors from their silos for unscheduled maintenance because unanticipated problems were discovered.
Given the real threats we face, our priority must be to ensure that the GMD system will work in an operationally effective manner.
H.R. 2647 authorizes over $1 billion to test, sustain and improve the existing GMD system, including a provision that requires the Department to develop a long-term sustainment and modernization program.
H.R. 2647 ensures that we have a missile defense system that actually works.
Combatant Commanders Need Increased Theater Missile Defense Capabilities:
The most significant ballistic missile threat to U.S. interests, deployed forces, and friends and allies comes from short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
The U.S. Intelligence Community estimates that the total number of ballistic missiles other than those held by the United States, NATO nations, Russia, and China is over 5,900. Short- and medium-range ballistic missiles represent 99% of that total.
Over the past several years, combatant commanders have called for increasing our theater missile defense capabilities to counter this threat.
Theater missile defense was not a priority of the previous Administration. Last year, Democrats refused to allow the Bush Administration delay the deployment of several THAAD fire units, a top priority of our commanders for theater missile defense. Republicans were silent on this issue.
H.R. 2647 supports the President’s request to increase funding for the deployment of proven missile defense systems like Aegis BMD and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) by $900 million over the FY09 funded level.
Further, under the President’s current plan, our theater missile defense capabilities will continue to grow beyond FY10.
Over the next five years, Aegis Standard Missile-3 interceptor inventory will grow from 133 to 329 missiles, and THAAD interceptor inventory will grow from 96 interceptors to 287.
Decision to Cancel Troubled Missile Defense Programs is Well Grounded:
H.R. 2647 supports the President’s decision to cancel three troubled missile defense programs – the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the second Airborne Laser prototype aircraft.
All three of these programs have faced serious technical, operational, and affordability challenges.
As Secretary of Defense Gates stated in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on May 13, 2009: “The security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs that…in terms of their operational concept are fatally flawed, or research programs that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars.”
European Missile Defense Must Respond to Real Threat:
The Administration is currently reviewing the decision to expand the GMD system to Europe.
The proposed GMD Site in Poland would provide no protection against Iran’s existing inventory of short-and medium-range ballistic missile that currently threaten our NATO allies in Southern Europe.
Any future missile defense system deployed in Europe must be part of a comprehensive approach that addresses the most likely threats on a prioritized basis.
The United States is Not Undercutting its NATO Allies:
NATO did not request that the United States deploy long-range missile defense interceptors in Europe.
This was a U.S. proposal pushed for and advocated by the Bush Administration.
While NATO has acknowledged the potential contribution of the proposed European Site, it is not a fully endorsed NATO program, and NATO has not pledged any financial support for the proposed deployment.
The previous administration initially tried to bypass NATO altogether and only sought its support after Congressional Democrats voiced concerns.
Congressional Democrats passed legislation last year requiring both the Czech Republic and Poland to ratify the agreement before systems could be deployed.
Given that the Czech government recently collapsed, it is unclear if the Czech Republic will ever ratify the agreement.
Poland has made clear that its prime objective is improving overall strategic cooperation with the United States, not missile defense. Missile defense is merely a means to reaching a desired end-state.
(202) 225-9077 2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: