OWEN GRAHAM: COUNTERING THE GROWING MISSILE THREAT
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10461,css.print/pub_detail.asp
America faces a growing missile threat from abroad — along with the prospect of huge defense cuts. Something’s wrong with this equation.
Speakers at the annual Space and Missile Defense Conference in Huntsville, Ala., outlined the extent of that threat and agreed that robust missile defenses are crucial. But with the tight fiscal environment and defense programs on the chopping block, this task will be difficult.
According to Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency, more than 32 countries possess ballistic missiles. He raised concerns about the proliferation of anti-ship missiles and an increase in ballistic-missile production facilities.
Anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) pose a threat to U.S. Navy warships and to international freighters traveling through strategic “chokepoints” such as the Strait of Hormuz. ASBMs move considerably faster than conventional anti-ship missiles and are far tougher to kill. They can be fired from stationary sites or road-mobile units miles away from shipping lanes.
O’Reilly said ASBMs had been “tested” and “ships had been sunk.” He was almost certainly referring to Iran’s successful test of an ASBM — a Fateh-110 with improved guidance. It marks a step forward for Iran, yet lacks the sophistication of China’s new ASBM, the DF-21D.
The Pentagon’s latest annual report on China’s military progress says the DF-21D is meant to prevent the U.S. from operating effectively in the western Pacific. The report also says China is improving its strategic missile forces and may be developing a new multi-warhead “road-mobile ICBM.”
Then, of course, there’s the potential missile proliferation arising from upheaval in the Middle East. According to Uzi Rubin, an expert on Iran’s ballistic missile program, hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles are in Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen. And, he warned, Venezuela could join that list.
Another threat we can’t afford to ignore is an electromagnetic pulse attack. An EMP is produced by a nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude. This underscores the need for missile defense — a ballistic missile is the most effective means of delivering an EMP weapon. A successful attack could decimate America’s electrical infrastructure.
A missile delivered to produce an EMP wouldn’t have to be launched from 5,000 miles away. Short-range missiles can be placed on cargo vessels off the U.S. coast to launch a missile at the homeland.
In 2004, a congressionally mandated commission found that an EMP attack is “one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold our society seriously at risk and might result in defeat of our military forces.” Despite this, there has been bipartisan failure to address this threat — and virtual silence from the Obama administration.
An EMP strike could be followed by a cruise missile attack. A cruise missile could be fitted with a biological or chemical spray unit. If these missiles have terrain-mapping capabilities, they can be guided around like an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.
Then there’s Russia. It just unveiled the Club-K, for sale on the international market. This cruise missile is hidden in a “shipping container” that disguises the transporter-erecter-launcher for the missile. Iran and other state actors are potential customers. It could also fall into the hands of terrorists.
The U.S. needs a comprehensive missile-defense system to counter these existing threats and stay ahead of emerging ones. The administration’s approach of funding “just enough” missile defense may be too little, too late, especially if further cuts lay ahead.
Let’s turn this wrongheaded equation around.
Family Security Matters Contributor Owen Graham is research and operations coordinator of foreign policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in the articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office.
Comments are closed.
