President Obama has chosen to slash funding for ballistic missile defense programs just when the threat of missile attacks is skyrocketing, a pro-missile defense group asserted.
Those funding cuts and program eliminations are inexplicable, given that they come after Iran launched a satellite using technology similar to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), and after North Korea launched a long-range missile arcing over Japan and said it will restart its atomic bomb program, proving it mastered the art of using multiple missile stages.
That was the argument of Riki Ellison, chairman and co-founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.
The budget plan for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, includes buying no more planes for the Airborne Laser missile defense program, no more interceptors for the National Missile Defense system, a paltry $51 million that permits no construction of the European Missile Defense program, and elimination of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor missile defense program.
In all, missile defense outlays are cut by a total $1.2 billion to $7.8 billion for the upcoming fiscal 2010 budget year.
“With the increase of ballistic missile and nuclear proliferation from rogue nations since the beginning of this year, highlighted by Iran’s satellite launch on Feb. 3, failure of diplomacy and international sanctions including U.N. security resolutions to prevent North Korea from launching a long range missile or space vehicle, North Korea’s successful three-staging of a long range missile on April 5, North Korea’s opening up of their nuclear program and Iran’s continual uranium enrichment programs, why is the United States not increasing its missile defense resources,” rather than cutting them? Ellison asked.
With the National Missile Defense program, also called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the budget would cap the number of interceptors in Alaska and California at 30, rather than 44. And another 10 interceptors won’t be provided for the European Missile Defense system, since that isn’t being built in the Czech Republic (radar) and Poland (interceptors in ground silos). The Boeing Co. [BA] leads the Airborne Laser, National and European programs.
Less than six months ago, the Department of Defense said a total of at least 50 interceptors were required for the National and European systems, and now the budget appears to cap the number at 30.
Did the threat of missile attack suddenly decrease to warrant reducing the number of interceptors by 40 percent? Ellison asked. No, he continued, the threat rose.
“Missile defense is about our nation, and … protecting our homeland from current and future threats … should always be a high priority,” Ellison asserted.
The administration argued that money not spent on the defenses against long-range enemy missiles — programs that are being cut — will be transferred to other missile defense systems that combat short- and medium-range enemy missiles. But why should this zero-sum win-lose game be imposed on programs protecting the public? Ellison asked.
“To sacrifice or reduce the long range missile protection of our nation for short and medium range missile defense capabilities should not be the choice,” he argued. “All should be supported.”
He added, “The threat continues to grow and we cannot afford to be the only country with capabilities to ensure protection, deterrence and dissuasion against rogue nations,” Ellison continued, saying allied nations should create missile defense systems as well. “A global problem requires a global solution,” he urged.
The United States needs to have a robust missile defense capability, so that it isn’t limited to just a few responses to missile attacks, such as complaining to the United Nations, or using diplomacy, or using military force.
Without missile defense, rogue nations will go nuclear, building atomic bombs and the missiles to carry them, he warned.
Ellison asked why the overall defense budget for fiscal 2010 would rise 4 percent, but Obama at the same time has missile defense funding plunging 13 percent amidst a worsening threat.