|
To print this page, press CTRL+P or the print icon in your browser. Then close this window to return to site. |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Congress Corrects a Big Mistake Recently, Congress reversed an ill-conceived decision it and President Clinton made in 1993 to abandon the study of space-based interceptors for missile defense. As a result, the Department of Defense can now move forward on a study that could provide a roadmap for both a future defense of the United States from ballistic missile attack and a defense of our critical national security space systems. We have made considerable progress in developing a missile defense system in the past 25 years, but we have also created constraints, such as a prohibition on space-based missile defenses, that have left the United States vulnerable to ballistic missile attack by rogue regimes or unauthorized accidental launches from countries like China. President Reagan, who initiated America’s development of ballistic missile defenses 25 years ago, understood that the best way to defend our nation from attack by ballistic missiles was to attack them in space. Space is the ultimate high ground; engaging a ballistic missile from anywhere other than outer space is to engage that missile from a sub-optimal position. We also lack the capability to defend our fragile space systems from attack. This vulnerability has taken on new importance in the last year after China destroyed one of its abandoned weather satellites in low-earth orbit with a ballistic missile. Americans rely on space in virtually every aspect of our lives, whether it’s using a GPS navigator, making a call on a cell phone, counting on food grown with the benefits of satellite-predicted weather patterns, or expecting timely deliveries of food to grocery stores. For our military, space is just as indispensable. From our unmanned aerial vehicles hunting down terrorists in the mountains of central Asia, to Marines who use satellite communications to get the latest intelligence on enemy movements, every aspect of our military dominance depends on space. Our “smart” weapons are directed by precise satellite location of the targets. Our enemies and potential adversaries understand our reliance on space. Leading Chinese military scholars have noted that space represents the “soft ribs” of the United States military, and that for countries with no chance of matching our conventional military superiority, the United States’ vulnerability in space represents the best chance of leveling the military playing field. And it’s not just China. Iran has conducted tests of a scenario in which cargo ships off our coast would launch a ballistic missile into the upper atmosphere; at that point, a nuclear weapon would detonate, creating an electromagnetic pulse that would destroy not just our satellite systems, but also most, if not all, of our electrical systems here on Earth. Our nation’s leading military commanders have repeatedly urged Congress to fund the study of a space-based element to our ballistic missile defense system. Yet, America has done little to defend against these threats. Moreover, the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board recently recommended in a draft report that the United States should “explore the potential that space provides for missile defenses across the spectrum of threats.” Instead, opponents of space-based defenses advocate a space weapons ban treaty to protect our interests. But, such a treaty won’t work. State Department experts have noted that, “the inherent nature of space systems…denies effective verification in any negotiation,” meaning that such a treaty would only amount to “feel good arms control.” This recent action is a welcome step forward that, if fully pursued, will provide the United States and our allies with a missile defense system capable of defending our interests and deterring our adversaries. To paraphrase President Reagan, no country has ever been attacked that took the necessary steps to defend itself. We must insist that the next president and Congress build on the progress of this year and not reverse policy as before. ### |