Dominant Logistics
The Coming of Age of Missile Defense
It's a sad day when those who claim to support the military cannot even acknowledge when the DOD does something right, but this is the case today with missile defense. Under the collective noses of the world, the Pentagon has orchestrated what is arguably the greatest advance in the art of war in decades, and yet this advance is dismissed out of hand as propaganda and fraud. We are but a few years away from an effective and reliable missile defense capability and yet most claim the entire thing to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
A Brief History of Missile Defense
Ironically, the idea of missile defense predates the existence of what we commonly refer to as missiles. In World War I, shotguns were used to destroy incoming rifle-fired grenades in what was the first modern example of countering enemy fire with defensive weapons fire. The concept of missile defense was born, even if the modern equivalent of missiles wasn't.
World War II saw the birth of the modern missile and the first application of defensive fire to take these missiles out. While success was limited, it proved that legitimate ends can be achieved by intercepting incoming enemy fire at safe distances. Whether it was German rockets over England or Japanese kamikaze fighters in the Pacific, many lives were saved by intercepting these rounds, even if we were far less than fully successful.
The Cold War saw the development of air defense missiles armed with nuclear warheads to take out ICBMs as well as masses of enemy aircraft. To this day, Moscow is protected by nuclear-tipped air defense missiles while similar systems in the United States arsenal have been retired. This expansion of the use of nuclear weapons led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty which reeled in advances in this field. The ABM treaty did not end the field of missile defense but it did place stringent limits, especially on the critical guidance capabilities such as high powered radar.
The Reagan era saw the first major attack on the ABM treaty with the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars, program. With SDI, the concept was reborn into what we now call missile defense. It combines networks of sensors and weapons to intercept incoming rounds of various types. The importance of this technology was once again demonstrated in the first Gulf War as Iraq fired numerous tactical ballistic missiles against coalition forces and Israel. Finally, the current Bush administration pulled the United States out of the ABM treaty so that we may be able to pursue Reagan's dream of defense against missile attacks on America.
Understanding the Need
Contrary to popular belief, missile defense is a critical technology for the defense of the United States. While it is common to dismiss missile defense as an unnecessary Cold War notion, missile and warhead capabilities are more prevalent today than at any time in history. While it is unrealistic to believe that any given nation would outright fire on the United States, it is not at all unreal to believe that accidental fires or even terrorist actions could result in a nuclear tipped missile being fired into the U.S. or one of our allies. There are literally thousands of nuclear tipped missiles out there and each makes a very inviting target for any terror group with a grudge.
Unlike other hyped up scenarios, like chemical or biological attacks, a true nuclear strike could have devastating consequences in the United States. Millions could be killed and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage could be inflicted in under an hour. Yes, missile defense is expensive, but it is a fraction of the cost of New York or Los Angeles. Does it really matter that defending against a missile costs far more than firing the missile? Isn't defense supposed to be about protecting ourselves and our assets? The total cost of missile defense would still only be a fraction of the damage inflicted by a single, well-targeted nuclear warhead.
Recent Advances
With really no acknowledgement from the media at all, missile defense has made tremendous strides in recent years on all levels. Yes, there are still marginal concepts out there like the AirBorne Laser program, but other programs are experiencing impressive success. But to hear the military reformers of the world talk, it is all just a bunch of propaganda and one big con job.
The reality is that in actual war, the PAC-3 variant of the Patriot missile system had incredible success in Iraq. There are still some problems to address, like the firing of missiles on friendly aircraft, but in the anti-missile role, the PAC-3 showed huge gains over the original Patriot and proved that the hit-to-kill concept is viable. It also demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that the overall infrastructure of the system (kill vehicle guided in flight via datalink to remote powerful sensors) works effectively. Every missile engaged was shot down; those missiles deemed harmless did not hit valuable targets. The big picture of modern missile defense was thus proven - and yet nobody seems to care. Except, of course, those nations that are now lining up to purchase the PAC-3 systems from us because they can see success, even if our own so-called experts cannot.
Another success story has been the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL. THEL is a joint project with the Israelis to knock out smaller incoming rounds including artillery shells, mortars, and small rockets. While it is still in the early stages, THEL has performed exceptionally well throughout testing and is already being expanded into other roles. What was originally conceived as a fixed point defense against short range ballistic rockets has been expanded into a mobile, solid-state system with greater range and versatility. It has been proven against rockets, including multiple engagements, and has also been demonstrated as an effective ordnance disposal system. Plans are already in the works to develop a naval version to replace CIWS and a mobile ground system with 5-mile range is scheduled to begin testing in 2007, less than 12 years since the program was first formally conceived. By any real measure, this is a huge advancement and yet is dismissed out of hand by many who claim to be military supporters.
And lastly, we have the now infamous National Missile Defense system. While highly successful in testing, many have decried the program as being rigged in order to justify larger defense budgets. They call it a waste of money on a failed concept because the DOD used beacons on the targets to guide the kill vehicles. While this would appear to be rigging the test, we must consider all the factors involved, and in particular what was ACTUALLY being tested. NMD is designed as an expanded version of the Patriot system in that it uses external sensors to provide initial guidance and target identification while the kinetic energy missile provides final lock-on and the kill. The "rigged" tests were to determine if the exoatmospheric kill vehicle could engage in lock-on and pull off a true kinetic energy kill (hitting a bullet with a bullet). In this respect, the tests were extremely successful. Criticisms about the use of beacons are absurd in that recognizing decoys and getting the missile within lock-on range is the job of external sensors that do not yet exist. The ABM treaty banned development of these sensors that are now being created. The beacon was nothing more than a method to fill in for the missing sensors. As a test of the kill vehicle technology, we have once again achieved tremendous success only to have the so-called experts dismiss it as fantasy.
Call a Spade a Spade
At some point, we need to recognize when the DOD gets things right and by any real measure, that is happening here. Not everything within the missile defense paradigm is a bed of roses, but we have some huge advances here that must be recognized and acknowledged. This is critical technology that can radically alter the art of war forever and yet many are not just critical of the ideas, they are outright attacking them.
The Pentagon is clearly not without fault and deserves much of the criticism they receive. That having been said, it defeats our own goals when we ignore those occasions where the DOD gets it right. It is like dealing with a child that is often bad but occasionally good - if our desire is to change the bad behavior to good, we must recognize and acknowledge the good to show the child what is expected behavior. If you beat the kid regardless of his actions, why should he do anything right?
The same is happening today at the Pentagon. If they plan for a war, as is their job, they are accused of trying to instigate war. If they engage in psychological operations, as many insist they should, they are accused of lying to the public and incompetence. If they limit testing on a system to save costs, they are accused of rushing to production without ensuring the system works. If they fully test a system, they are accused of wasting time and money to fill contractor pockets. At some point, we need to quit beating the kid and say, "Hey, this is going pretty good here. Nice job and hopefully we can see this kind of progress in other areas." Missile defense is one area where this recognition is deserved.