Costly and Troubled Missile Defense System Finally Intercepts Test Target

June 23, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka

Testing, testing - “The nation’s trouble-plagued missile defense system registered a success Sunday when a ground-based interceptor fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base destroyed a mock enemy warhead launched from the Marshall Islands,” writes David Willman in the Los Angeles Times. “Sunday’s test flight carried high stakes for the nation’s Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, called GMD, which was deployed a decade ago and has so far cost about $40 billion.”

--“In each of the system’s three most recent tests, a rocket-interceptor fired from Vandenberg, on the Santa Barbara County coast, failed to collide with and destroy a mock enemy warhead launched from an atoll in the Marshall Islands, 4,900 miles away. Before Sunday, the Missile Defense Agency had conducted 16 tests of the system’s ability to intercept such a target; half failed.” Full story here. http://lat.ms/1nuSMxL

Hyped threat - “In 2004, President George W. Bush began fielding the Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) system that is in place today, composed of 30 interceptor missiles in Alaska and California, intended to counter a possible long-range missile attack from North Korea or Iran,” writes Tom Collina in Arms Control Now. “Ten years later, it is all-too clear that the prototype system was rushed into production before the technology was ready, to address a hyped threat that has advanced but still not materialized.”

--“The American taxpayer is now stuck with a $40 billion ‘defense’ on which no leader can depend—it has a dismal test record that is actually getting worse with time… There are important lessons here. Don’t rush a complex weapon system into production while it is still a prototype. Don’t base plans on exaggerated threat assessments. And above all, don’t compound the problem by rushing a system to address a hyped threat.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1uXrG5f

Getting serious - “The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has scheduled a long-delayed, $200-million missile defense test for this Sunday, June 22. It is just shy of a year since the last failed test of the problem-plagued Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) anti-missile system,” writes Laura Grego in All Things Nuclear. “Over the last decade, the system has failed eight of 15 intercept tests, including the last three in a row, despite the fact that the tests were highly scripted. That means the GMD system operators knew ahead of time where and when the target would be launched, and exactly what it looked like. Fixing the problems uncovered by recent failures will cost more than $1.3 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).”

--“Whether or not Sunday’s test leads to an intercept, the result should be the same. The Obama administration and Congress should subject the missile defense program to oversight that is at least as rigorous as that required of all other major weapons development programs. Reducing the nuclear threat is serious business and calls for an equally serious approach.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/T34cPS

Missile defense revamp - “The Pentagon is restructuring a $3.48 billion contract with Boeing Co for management of the troubled U.S. homeland missile defense program,” writes Andrea Shalal in Reuters. “U.S. defense officials, lawmakers and outside experts agree the GMD program - projected to cost $41 billion - must be changed, even if Sunday's test succeeds. Under discussion is additional funding for maintaining interceptors and improving their reliability, more testing of components and the entire system, and upgrades to improve the system's ability to tell actual missiles from decoys. There will also be different fee structures to provide Boeing with incentives for improvements in quality rather than cost-cutting.” Read the full piece here. http://reut.rs/1lKQHPS

Tweet - @tparsi: Quick Thoughts: Trita Parsi on the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations http://bit.ly/1puLwmT

Concrete advance - “With one month to go until a July 20 deadline, the odds of a high-stakes nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers appeared finely balanced, with senior diplomats saying this week's talks had shown ‘progress’ but warning that gaps may prove too wide to resolve,” writes Laurence Norman in The Wall Street Journal. “After five days of discussions in Vienna, top Iranian and U.S. officials demanded major concessions from the other side and there was no pretense of any sudden breakthrough.”

--“However, the negotiating teams departed Friday with a working document in hand—the first concrete advance in months. Diplomats said all sides appear committed to reach an accord and they left with plans to return July 2 for a mammoth negotiation session that could run through July 20.” http://on.wsj.com/1q1d0UQ

Snap inspections - “Iran may allow snap inspections of its nuclear facilities as part of a final agreement with world powers on its contentious atomic program, an Iranian official said Monday. In 2003, Iran accepted the so-called ‘additional protocol’ of snap inspections for two years, but parliament never ratified it. ‘The government may accept the additional protocol based on its expediency and progress in the nuclear talks, but the Iranian parliament makes the final decision,’ Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman for the atomic energy agency, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news service.” Read the full story from AP here. http://abcn.ws/1m5cUE7

Gridlock is political - “The Iran nuclear talks present a rare opportunity for a major American diplomatic victory,” writes Ryan Costello in the Huffington Post. “If negotiators from the P5+1 and Iran bridge the remaining political gaps, they will resolve a major national security threat -- a potential Iranian nuclear weapon -- without a shot being fired. Ostensibly, the talks have reached an impasse over technical issues surrounding the size and scale of Iran's enrichment program. While this is the issue on which each side has chosen to make a stand, the challenge is political, not technical.”

--“Neither side can forget that this issue is about more than centrifuges. For Iran, it helps determine whether forces of moderation or recalcitrance guide the country in a pivotal period for the region. For the U.S., it is clear that this will be a legacy issue for President Obama. But it is also a litmus test for American diplomacy. After the George W. Bush administration demonstrated the fallacy of relying wholly on force to achieve American objectives, a successful Iran nuclear deal would remind America that peaceful alternatives are not just worth exploring, but capable of delivering major national security victories.” Full article here. http://huff.to/1lHD8kg

Impractical weapons - Twenty-three years after President George H. W. Bush decided to retire almost all the tactical nuclear weapons operated by the U.S, “only one type of tactical nuclear weapon remains in the U.S. inventory: the B-61 gravity bomb,” write Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh in Foreign Affairs. “The United States currently deploys around 180 of them in Europe... Originally intended to prevent Soviet forces from penetrating Western Europe, the planes could travel as far east as Russia. But owing to their slower speed and lower altitude, they would be much more vulnerable to Russia’s ground-based air defenses than would longer-range strategic bombers and missiles.”

--“Such impractical plans are remnants of the Cold War, when the conventional forces of the United States and its allies were thought to be so inferior to those of the Soviet Union that NATO tried to deter Moscow by threatening to use nuclear weapons first… If tactical nuclear weapons had little military value during the Cold War, they have even less today.”

--“As U.S. and European defense budgets continue to shrink, it makes little sense to spend such large sums on an outdated strategy. Particularly in light of recent events in Ukraine, Washington and its European allies should invest that money in other military capabilities that would actually help defend the interests of NATO members. U.S. allies would be far better off if Washington allocated its scarce resources to maintaining effective conventional and strategic nuclear forces rather than a decaying vestige of a bygone era.” Full article here. http://fam.ag/1i5Y9G6

The B61 and NATO - “Earlier this month in Warsaw, President Obama proposed a $1 billion ‘European Reassurance Initiative’ to support NATO allies in Central and Eastern Europe in response to Russian actions in Ukraine,” writes Steve Andreasen in the Star Tribune. “The new money would support additional exercises and troop rotations in Eastern Europe; additional U.S. naval deployments in the Black and Baltic seas, and steps to build the capacity of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova so they can work with NATO and provide for their own defense.”

--“A step in the right direction? Yes. But if Russian actions in Ukraine are truly a game-changer in Euro-Atlantic security, $1 billion over the next year isn’t going to change the game. In order to successfully navigate the current crisis, prevent the next, and build a foundation for a safer and more stable Europe, Washington and its NATO allies must think and act more boldly on both defense and diplomacy.”

--“So where will the United States and NATO find the money? The most sensible answer is for Washington and its NATO allies to move now to reduce the staggering costs associated with a planned $13 billion modernization of the U.S. B61 nuclear bomb now stored in European bunkers and to decisively change the nuclear component of NATO’s defense posture… American tactical nuclear bombs that provide no modicum of deterrence beyond that already provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the United States, Britain and France are a heavy weight around NATO’s neck.” Full piece here. http://strib.mn/1puC1Eb

Sharing the burden - “On June 15, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance ‘must adapt to the fact that Russia now considers (NATO) its adversary,’ while he said there are no plans for NATO military involvement inside Ukraine. In light of the ongoing situation in Ukraine, it is clear NATO is reassessing its defense strategy in response to recent Russian aggression. Increased reliance on U.S. tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Europe should not be part of NATO’s adaptation.”

--“The Obama administration is reassuring U.S. commitment to NATO and simultaneously wants more defense-spending from NATO members. It is time to address the elephant in the room‑‑the lack of a burden-sharing plan to pay for modernizing U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe. The United States should insist our allies pay for part of the cost rather than dumping the entire cost on U.S. taxpayers.” Read the full article by Eric Tamerlani in The Hill. http://bit.ly/1rqcoFR

Increased oversight - “India said on Monday it was ratifying an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to expand oversight of its civilian nuclear program, in a move aimed at unblocking a major nuclear partnership with the United States,” writes Douglas Busvine in Reuters. “Yet critics say the pact fails to address concerns that India could as a result get its foot in the door of a club of countries that trade in nuclear materials, without first signing a treaty that seeks to curb the spread of nuclear weapons… India, which first tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That means its military nuclear program is not subject to inspections by the IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog.” Full article here. http://reut.rs/1qEsG0n

Cleanup planned - “A comprehensive cleanup plan for the disabled Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico is expected by month's end, the Santa Fe New Mexican reports. The newspaper quotes Energy Department spokesman Ben Williams as saying that officials would provide the document, along with more information about the extent of the site's radioactive contamination, before the end of June. The atomic-waste dump has been essentially inoperative since a mid-February leak in a stored waste barrel rendered a portion of the underground caverns off-limits to workers.” Full story in Global Security Newswire. http://bit.ly/1iz7VRe

Quick-hits:

--“Diplomats Bound for Geneva with Differing Aims for Mideast WMD-Ban Talks” by Elaine Grossman in Global Security Newswire. http://bit.ly/1stHJvA

--“U.S. denies any agreement allowing Sri Lanka to import Iran crude oil via third parties” by Ranga Sirilal and Shihar Aneez in Reuters. http://reut.rs/1qEuOFt

Events:

--“Retrospective Illusions? Nuclear Lessons from French Memory.” Discussion with Benoit Pelopidas and Garrett Martin. June 25 from 11:00-12:30 at the Wilson Center, Fifth floor, Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1lLu7bp

--“PONI Breakfast with Kirk Donald.” Breakfast discussion with former National Nuclear Security Administration Deputy Administrator Kirk Donald. June 26 from 9:00-10:30 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1616 Rhode Island Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1owrOLA

--“Toward a Comprehensive, Effective Nuclear Deal with Iran?” Discussion with Daryl Kimball, Greg Thielmann, Kelsey Davenport, and Frank von Hippel. June 26 from 10:00-12:00 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Choate Room, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1p9kz8a

--“Aegis Sea-Based Missile Defense: Present Status and Future Recommendations.” Discussion with John James, Rear Adm. James Kilby, Ron O’Rourke, Henry Cooper, and Robert Soofer. June 26 from 12:00-2:00 at SVC 201-00, Capitol Visitor Center. RSVP by email to Polly Parke at pparke@ifpa.org