MISSILE DEFENSE: DO OR DIE

Reading the article below will cause any serious minded person to pause. It speaks to the dangers and threats that exist in the world around us. To ignore that reality is simply ignorant and foolish.

Only those who care not for the future of the nation will downplay the significance of the spread of high technology in a world with access to WMD from a variety of sources. Not getting this message is to not understand human nature. And not to have learned the lessons of history. And not to know that life requires facing up to and dealing with reality, regardless of what one wishes, hopes or feels.

Americans are a peaceful people by nature. We here are not warmongers. When forced to fight to defend ourselves, our allies or our way of life, we will not only fight but we will battle hard. But given our choice, we would prefer the world to be a happy place, where everyone gets along and where, if there is a dispute of some sort, those involved sit down together and work out a solution acceptable to both sides. Americans want to be deal makers, not war makers. We like to share the advantages that we enjoy with the rest of the planet and we desire the ideal of a peaceful world into perpetuity.

The problem is, what we want and the reality of this life are very, very different. Human nature is not all hearts and flowers. The bad news: it appears that although virtually everything else has changed since humans first emerged from caves, human nature has remained the same. There is little prospect that it will change in the foreseeable future. Thus it has been observed that history illustrates that those periods of world peace enjoyed in the past have simply represented the lulls between wars. Humans, by their nature, have a proclivity for war. We can all wish it were not so, but it is and has always been.

Although anti-war sentiment represents a fine and noble goal, hope has no substance while history records the hard truth. Facts, not feelings, will underlie the history of our times. We can all hope and pray for peace but we had better, all the while, prepare for attack from those who wholly dislike, even hate, who we are and what we stand for in this world. Remember what those who fight have testified to for a very long time, "Only the dead have seen the end of war".

All of which brings us to our current circumstances. Candidate Obama ran on an anti-war, anti-military funding, anti-missile defense platform. He received wide support from his supporters for that stance. Many believe he will implement this portion of his platform once he is in office. Yet, as explained below, the threat is real and the potential outcomes of that threat are both frightening and unacceptable. So where are we?

Since becoming President-Elect, one of Obama's new daily routines is a complete national security briefing. He is now privy to the same information that is provided to George Bush as to the state of the world. Such briefings are not a matter of theory or hope. They represent a regular snapshot of the hard reality of a dangerous, threatening and, in some instances, hostile world.

It is not the catchy sound bites common to campaigning. It is not the mesmerizing rhetoric of hope or change. It is what Obama will have to deal with as POTUS, each and every day, beginning on the afternoon of January 20, 2009. On that day, the opportunity for finger pointing will have passed and from that time forward the proverbial buck will stop with him.

Expect that there will be a decided difference between Obama the campaigner and Obama the President. When the responsibility for the welfare of a nation with over 300 million people falls upon his shoulders alone, it will have a very sobering effect. We are at war and will be when he assumes office. That will continue to go forward, although Obama may adjust the priorities.

Terrorists will continue to target our homeland, our people, our allies and our overseas interests. The new President will have to continue on with most all of the things we do now to protect all of those interests. He may initiate and follow through on a promise of more contact with our enemies, but that will not change the threats in the near future or the hard realities of the world.

Missile defense? What Obama will choose remains to be seen. But we can all take some solace in the fact that as President he will receive far more detailed and harrowing information than this article presents. At the end of the day, it is hard to believe that a President Obama will leave American society open to and vulnerable to utter destruction.

We hope! It is a matter of do or die.


What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.
By BRIAN T. KENNEDY

As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.

Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us.
And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:

First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.

Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.

Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.

Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts.

Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.

The current controversy over Iran's nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in 2005: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."

Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam's goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples -- first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.

The only solution to this problem is a robust, multi layered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.

An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.

Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense

Sphere: Related Content