Missile Defense Plans: The Good, the Bad and the Costly

On the radar: 14 GBIs to Alaska, Phase IV scrapped; Investing in a broken system; Canceling the non-existent; Navy dumps nonstrategic nukes; One-on-one, tit-for-tat; Keeping the South non-nuclear; and Japan’s post-war nuclear considerations.

March 18, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Alyssa Demus

Plans - The Department of Defense announced two major developments in U.S. missile defense on Friday - it will spend $1 billion to add 14 new ground-based interceptors (GBI) to missile defense sites in Alaska. It will also scrap development of the SM-3 block IIB interceptor and cancel phase 4 of the administration’s European missile defense plans. The Pentagon said the new GBIs were intended to counter North Korean threats, while technological and budgetary problems lead to cancelling the SM-3 IIB.

--The decision to scrap phase 4 has implications for negotiations with Russia, some experts say. Moscow has long opposed missile defense - and the SM-3 IIB specifically - due to suspicions that the program could undermine its nuclear deterrent. Desmond Butler of AP has the story. http://owl.li/j9B6F

The good - "The Obama administration’s decision to cancel the fourth phase of its missile defense plans in Europe is a prudent move given that the technology involving the Standard Missile 3-IIB is not ripe and given the fact that the Iranian long-range missile threat has yet to materialize," write Tom Collina, Daryl Kimball and Greg Thielmann of the Arms Control Association. http://bit.ly/143gXgu

The bad/costly - Putting additional interceptors in Alaska is "unlikely to significantly increase the defensive capability" of the system, notes Kingston Reif at Nukes of Hazard. The Pentagon spent $39 billion on the system since 1996. The system still "lacks fundamental features long known to maximize the effectiveness of a midcourse hit-to-kill defense capability against even limited threats," wrote the National Academy of Sciences last year.

--Recommendation: "The United States should not spend money to deploy additional GBIs until they are demonstrated to be effective and suitable in successful, operationally realistic tests," writes Reif. http://bit.ly/134mWm4

Admin statement - "By shifting resources from this lagging program to fund the additional GBIs as well as advanced kill vehicle technology that will improve the performance of the GBI and other versions of the SM-3 interceptor, we will be able to add protection against missiles from Iran sooner while also providing additional protection against the North Korean threat," said Sec. Chuck Hagel in his announcement on the missile defense changes. Full statement here. http://1.usa.gov/ZDHPhJ

Early Russian reaction - "We feel no euphoria in connection with what was announced by the U.S. defense secretary and we see no grounds for correcting our position," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted as saying. AP has the story. http://bit.ly/YjWMai

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip or feedback for the editor? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Non-nonstrategic Navy - The U.S. is retiring its nuclear Tomahawk Land-Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM/N), and, as of 2013, the NAVY is no longer responsible for being able to deploy them. "More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, and tens of millions of dollars and countless of navy personnel hours wasted on retaining the TLAM/N, the weapon has finally been retired and the navy is out of the non-strategic nuclear weapons business altogether," writes Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.

--"The unilateral elimination of naval non-strategic nuclear weapons is an important milestone in U.S. nuclear weapons history that demonstrates that non-strategic nuclear weapons have lost their military and political value." Full post here. http://bit.ly/119Iigp

Pooling funds on SM-3 - Raytheon is floating the idea of pooling procurement of SM-3 interceptors with the Netherlands and Germany. Andrew Chuter at Defense News writes that the idea sparked interest in NATO and among European Navies. The small problem of the bill: “We love the capability but just don’t have the money,” one European military official told Defense News.

--EW Editor's note: A similar pooling arrangement with Italy and Germany has kept the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) on budgetary life support, despite broad congressional support for canceling the troubled program. Defense News story here. http://bit.ly/WxPmB5

Tweet - @Cirincione: Researching an article for @FPNatSec, I found this 2008 Hill hearing. Great testimony on limits of GMD. http://bit.ly/XkVbOn

Dealing with Iran - Iran might be ready to reach a deal on its nuclear program. To take advantage of the moment, the U.S. should “begin negotiating directly, and put on the table the prospect of lifting sanctions, one by one, as bargaining chips,” writes Vali Nasr in The New York Times.

--“And rather than offering only vague promises that serious concessions might be rewarded someday by dropping all the sanctions as a package, Washington should offer to do away with specific sanctions, piece by piece, in exchange for specific Iranian concessions.” http://owl.li/j9Rlc

South safer sans nukes - In response to recent North Korean provocations and Pyongyang's third nuclear test, "some influential South Koreans have urged that the South develop its own nuclear arsenal." Seoul is also "pushing the [US] to let it reprocess spent nuclear fuel," a move which could make it easier to develop nuclear weapons, as terms of a new US-South Korean nuclear cooperation agreement.

--A South Korean nuclear weapons program could undermine international efforts against Iran and North Korea and further destabilize the region, says a New York Times editorial. A nuclear armed South Korea "will not make [the country] safer…There is also every reason to believe that adding the threat of nuclear weapons from the South would inflame the situation, not calm it." Full editorial here. http://owl.li/j9HHm

Tweet - @globalzero: Need the facts about the UK's Trident program? Check out this new website by @cnduk. http://owl.li/ja1Vv

Events:

--P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom and United States) technical experts continue talks with Iran on its nuclear program. Istanbul. March 18-19.

--"Globalizing Reagan’s INF Treaty: Easier Done Than Said?" David Cooper, U.S. Naval War College, March 19, 9:00-10:30 a.m. @ George Washington University, Lindner Family Commons, 1957 E. St., NW, 6th floor. RSVP here. http://owl.li/iVGMM

--”Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Forces on a Tight Budget.” Barry Blechman, Russell Rumbaugh, Tom Collina, and Daryl Kimball. March 19, 9:30-11:00 a.m. @ Carnegie. Details and RSVP. http://bit.ly/XUNrVs

--”What Should Obama do on North Korea?” Victor Cha, CSIS; Gen. Walter Sharp, former Commander, U.S. Forces Korea; and Joseph DeTrani, former Special Envoy for Six Party Talks with North Korea. March 21 9:00-10:30 a.m. @ CSIS. Details here. http://owl.li/j9ZzX

--"2013 Public Policy and Nuclear Threats Winter Conference.” Linton Brooks, former administrator, NNSA, and 18 other speakers. March 22-23. @ Univ. of California Washington Center. Details here (pdf). http://owl.li/iVIvo

--”The Impact of Sanctions on Tehran’s Nuclear Calculations.” Bijan Khajehpour, Atieh International; Reza Marashi and Trita Parsi, National Iranian American Council. March 26, 12:00-1:30 p.m. @ Atlantic Council. Details here. http://owl.li/iWWtD

--”Nuclear Priorities 2013.” Anita Friedt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Arms Control Verification and Compliance, Department of State. March 27, 12:30-1:30p.m. @ The American Security Project. Details here. http://owl.li/ja0JS

Dessert:

History lesson - Newly declassified documents show the Japanese government considered a nuclear weapons program in the years following World War II. The Telegraph has the story.http://owl.li/j9PSF