UPDATE (1/29): Portions of this post have been revised to add additional detail and clarity.

Regular readers of the blog will remember that last October we flagged the following rosy proclamation from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta about U.S. missile defenses: “But you know, we really do have a very remarkable defense system set up to deal with that challenge [i.e. the missile threat to the U.S. homeland].” [emphasis mine.]

Two new reports suggest Panetta ought to be a little less effusive in his praise.  The reports demonstrate that the currently deployed missile defense systems are still unable to reliably intercept and destroy incoming enemy warheads...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense (all tags)

Tauscher acknowledged there are people within the Russian government who will “never trust us” -- and still have concerns about “offense and defense.”

She also suggested vestiges of a Cold War-era mentality could be a contributing factor, and ran through a potential scenario: “I’m sitting, you know, in one of their Seven Sister buildings ... trying to figure out how to get my [Ministry of Defense] money, and I’ve been doing it the same old way for 25 years. Now all of a sudden somebody says, 'We're going to be friends with those people. You don’t have to worry about it,' ” Tauscher said. “[I’m] sitting there thinking, what does that mean? … I need an enemy … I have to have somebody that I’m going to say: ‘This is their most recent picture on their Internet, I need to now counter this.' Because that’s what I’ve done for 25 years."

"I understand this," Tauscher continued. "And every once in a while, you can imagine that these people kind of gin up their administration.”

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher, speaking to reporters about the ongoing travails of NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation talks, January 12, 2011.

For  our take on the state of the missile defense impasse, see here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, quote of the day, missile defense (all tags)

Ulrika Grufman and I just published a piece on the status of NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation talks over at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation website.  They're not going well.  We write:  

The current impasse is particularly frustrating given that the planned European missile defense architecture is not a threat to Russia’s deterrent (at least not yet). Meanwhile, the technical and financial foundations of the system are dubious at best. As four experts aptly put it: “The tragedy, if this confrontation results in a breakdown of relations between Russia and the West, is that almost nothing that anybody claims to be worrying about is real yet.”

We conclude that despite the lack of progress to date, the two sides must try to continue to work through their differences on this issue even if not much is likely to be accomplished in 2012 given Presidential elections in both the U.S. and Russia.

Read the whole thing here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, Russia, Congress (all tags)

On October 12, Michael McFaul, the nominee for US Ambassador to Russia, stated at his confirmation hearing that the negotiations between the U.S. and Russia on missile defence cooperation have stalled. Less than a week later, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher, although using a more optimistic tone, conveyed a similar message.

McFaul mentioned in his opening statement at the hearing that tensions between the US and Russia remain on issues such as Georgia, Syria and human rights. When asked about the prospect of an agreement on missile defence cooperation before the NATO Summit in Chicago May 2012, McFaul stated:

“We'll continue to talk to them about -- it's -- after all, a lot of this is about physics. This is not about perceptions. And, you know, we'll see what we have as we prepare for the summit next May. I'm not optimistic right now, but we're going to continue to work this issue.”

He went on to say this work could take years instead of months.

Read more

missile defense, nukes on a blog (all tags)

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG LAMBORN (R-CO):

...

Well, then, as a follow-up, do you believe there are now an adequate number -- I think it's too limited of a number, but do you think there's an adequate number of ground-based interceptors both to counter the threat to our homeland and to provide for testing?

SEC. PANETTA: You know, I've had the chance to visit NORAD and STRATCOM as well, and I had a chance to really look at our capabilities. I mean, I think -- I think we're in good shape with regards to our ability to respond. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to upgrade. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to look at other ways to try to -- you know, to expand that capability. But you know, we really do have a very remarkable defense system set up to deal with that challenge.

Exchange between Rep. Doug Lamborn and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, House Armed Services Committee hearing on The Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11, October 13, 2011.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, quote of the day (all tags)

Turkey has officially agreed to house a U.S./NATO radar as part of the NATO missile defense system in Europe.   Despite their love affair with missile defense, two Republican Senators may try to obstruct the deal.

The Senators, Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill), have already criticized the plan in a July 12 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.  The letter outlined four ill thought out conditions.

Condition 1: That the radar is deployed in a location “that will ensure the best defense of the United States against the Iranian long-range ballistic missile threat.”

Senators Kyl and Kirk proposed Georgia or Azerbaijan as alternative sites because in a meeting with a senior Missile Defense Agency representative they were advised that placing the radar in Georgia or Azerbaijan would be advantageous U.S. despite the fact that neither Georgia nor Azerbaijan is a member of NATO.

Moreover, given Georgia’s recent war with Russia, Moscow would see a radar in Georgia as a deliberate provocation and evidence that missile defense is aimed at Russia.  Additionally, while the Senators consider Turkey’s delicate relationship with Iran to be problematic, they express no concern with Georgia’s pro-active pursuit of stronger relations with Iran.  

Finally, by endorsing Azerbaijan, the Senators are simply repeating former Russian Prime Minster, Vladimir Putin’s Azerbaijan proposal, which President Bush rejected.  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Turkey, Missile Defense, Kirk, Kyl (all tags)

"These contractual mistakes and screwups happen far too often,” Senator Levin said in an interview that addressed the [ground based midcourse defense] test failures and construction issues in Alaska. “Taxpayers are pissed off and we’re pissed off."

Sen. Carl Levin, August 3, 2011.  Unfortunately the Bloomberg Government story from which the quote is taken is subscription only.  It's a stellar read.    

UPDATE:: Check that here's an open link, courtesy of Yousaf Butt.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, quote of the day (all tags)

Senator Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) defense aide(s) appear to have some explaining to do.

At a June 15 Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 defense budget, Sen. Shelby alleged that an ongoing Defense Science Board report concludes that the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) “plans to achieve an early intercept capability as part of the phase-adaptive approach are simply not credible.”

The Defense Science Board is now completing a review on Science and Technology Issues of Early Intercept (EI) Ballistic Missile Defense Feasibility as a concept to enhance missile defense.  Early intercept refers to hitting a ballistic missile before it releases its payload.  Boost phase intercept refers to hitting a missile soon after it is launched while its boosters are burning.  

The fourth phase of the phased adaptive approach is slated to have an early intercept capability against limited ICBM threats such as those posed by Iran.

According to Shelby the Defense Science Board report “is disturbing…since the MDA’s promise [sic] to develop by 2020 an early intercept capability for the SM-3 Block IIB was the central justification…to cancel the third site in Europe and to kill the KEI boost phase defense program. Now it looks like the nation may be left…with an inadequate defense in Europe and no boost phase intercept capability.”

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz pointed to Sen. Shelby’s disclosure of the report to question the Obama administration’s competence on missile defense policy – something he has done with increasing regularity as of late.

Shelby and Gertz have their facts mixed up.  In a July 6 letter to the Washington Times, report co-chairman Admiral William Fallon, report co-chairman and Defense Science Board vice chairman General Lester Lyles, and Defense Science Board chairman Paul Kaminski stated that the Defense Science Board did not conclude that the phased adaptive approach or the SM-3 family of interceptors were flawed.

Either Sen. Shelby and his staff misunderstood the contents of the report, or they deliberately twisted it in an effort to score political points...

UPDATE 1/25/2012: Turns out I may have been too harsh on Sen. Shelby. Having read the Defense Science Board's final report, there are some real questions about the credibility of early intercept in defeating enemy missiles before they release decoys or countermeasures, though the report claims that the success of the phased adaptive approach in defending Europe and the benefits to homeland defense provided by interceptors forward deployed in Europe hinges less on the success of EI per se and more on critical enablers such as fast interceptors and the ability to discriminate. For more see here. I still think Sen. Shelby is wrong about the rationale for the cancellation of the Bush administration's plans for missile defense in Europe.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense (all tags)

Recently, former C.I.A. director R. James Woolsey warned of  President Obama’s underhanded attempts to purchase Russian cooperation on missile defense with sensitive U.S. missile defense technology. Mr. Woolsey argued against ceding critical defense secrets and operational “red button” authority to an unpredictable rival at a time when the United States faces a heightened threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Of course, the Obama administration has no intention of giving Russia such red-button rights.

U.S. negotiations with Russia on missile defense cooperation have centered largely on the potential sharing of early warning data on missile launches from other states such as Iran. Under discussion is a Joint Data Fusion Center, which would mitigate the risk of false alarms or miscalculation and allow NATO officers to access early-warning data on missile launches from Russian radar sights along the Iranian border.

Mr. Woolsey’s anxiety about any kind of missile defense cooperation with Russia is surprising in light of the more geopolitically astute assessment he offered in 2009, as one of twelve members of the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States:

“For more than a decade the development of U.S. ballistic missile defenses has been guided by the principles of (1) protecting against limited strikes while (2) taking into account the legitimate concerns of Russia and China about strategic stability. These remain sound guiding principles. Defenses sufficient to sow doubts in Moscow or Beijing about the viability of their deterrents could lead them to take actions that increase the threat to the United States and its allies and friends . . .

. . . Cooperative missile defense efforts with allies should be strengthened and opportunities for missile defense cooperation with Russia should be further explored.”[emphasis mine]

Though only Woolsey can explain his change of heart, we can only assume that at some point between 2009 and 2011 bilateral cooperation became a zero-sum game and the Russian Federation degenerated into the “evil empire” of 1983...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Missile Defense, Russia, R. James Woolsey (all tags)

"It is not credible to promise better relations with Europe—and then stun Poland and the Czech Republic by abruptly abandoning plans to build missile defense bases there."

Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, June 21, 2011

"And let's be blunt: The third site in Europe was not going to happen, because the Czech government wouldn't approve the radar....And so if it was going to happen at all, it would've taken years longer [than the Phased Adaptive Approach] and we still hadn't negotiated the required agreements with the Poles in terms of the interceptors."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 15, 2011.

Also of note from the hearing was outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen's comments on the prospects for giving the SM3 Block IIB a boost phase capability:

I've been around missile defense for the last 15 years. And the whole issue of boost-phase intercept is an extraordinarily difficult technical challenge. And at least if someone's broken through on that, I haven't seen that. It doesn't mean we shouldn't seek it, but I've seen an awful lot of efforts go after that and I was very supportive of the program adjustments that we made -- particularly with respect to that, because I thought -- my view was I thought we were throwing good money after bad.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, Congress, quote of the day (all tags)