ALASKA MISSILE DEFENSE EARLY BIRD WEEKLY
Compiled by: Ms. Hillary Pesanti, Community Relations Specialist
Command Representative for Missile Defense
Note: Click on any storyline for more information. Archived editions can be viewed at: http://www.akrepublicans.org/pastlegs/22ndleg/jointarms.shtml - links
SEPTEMBER 16, 2002-SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
ALASKA SPECIFIC NEWS BREAKS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2002
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
ALASKA SPECIFIC NEWS BREAKS #29
SEPTEMBER 16, 2002-SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
BG HOLLY TO SPEAK AT FRIDAY’S CHAMBER MEETING, Delta Wind, September 12, 2002. The Delta Chamber of Commerce general membership meeting will be held Friday, September 13, at 12 noon at the Alaskan Steakhouse. The guest speaker will be BG John W. Holly, Program Director, Ground-based Midcourse Defense Joint Program Officer, who will provide information on missile defense. A short question and answer session will follow. The general meeting, originally scheduled for September 19, was changed to the 13th to accommodate the general’s time schedule. Those who wish to have lunch at the meeting (salad, lasagna, dessert and beverage: $9) should call the Chamber office at 895-5068 by 4 pm today (Thursday, September 12).
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Delta Wind, Sept 12, 2002. To the Community; The school year is off and running with the return of students on August 21. There has been no shortage of challenges since last May. To me it has been “manna from heaven”, so to speak. More students and growth allow us to offer more at all levels, as well as keeping our pupil/teacher ratio as low as possible in the elementary. Looking back two years, we were cutting programs and laying of staff. In my opinion, those difficulties were real problems. Preliminary enrollment figures show that we have 95% more students at the Delta School facility than we did in May of this year, when school ended for the summer. About 30 of those students have transferred from our Correspondence and Alternative programs. There are at least 15 new employees in the District and, as far as I can tell, we have had the most positive launching of a school year that I can remember. Our elementary classrooms have settled to a high of 25 students (upper elementary) to a low of 19 students (lower elementary). High school classes have been balanced out to manageable levels. All of this has been a challenge to our staff as well as the system. Just adding additional elementary classrooms involved adjusting a minimum of four teachers’ schedules. “Hats off” to the staff for making those necessary adjustments. I will guarantee you that the students’ best interest was the decisive factor when making those decisions.
There are more dollars for supply budgets than there has been in several years. Additional dollars are also budgeted for equipment and it was possible to increase compensation for our certified staff. No programs should be cut this year and we are hoping to offer a new vocational program, in collaboration with Alaska Works, next semester. This program would place students in an apprenticeship program with the trade unions. (If you are interested in the new Vocational Program, it will be the topic of discussion at a Special Meeting of the board on Thursday, September 12, at 7 pm at the District Office). The Delta/Greely School District has been able to broaden choices to students and parents over the past couple of years and, with a full-time Guidance Counselor, students are better able to prepare for their future. Some interesting statistics include the following: 57 students in grades 7-12 are currently taking classes offered through the Delta Cyber School; 34 students are enrolled in our Alternative Program; 49 students are enrolled in the Correspondence Home School Program; we anticipate 22 students in our Preschool and, for the first time, it will be possible to include preschool children who would normally not qualify. Calculus is now offered every year and we are also able to accommodate a Calculus II class offering.
The Cyber School has joined a consortium of large districts and Alyeska Central School in a new program called “Alaska On Line”. This will enable students in other districts to enjoy the same benefits our students enjoy with “on line classes”. The District just submitted a $37,000,000 Capital Improvement request to the Department of Education for the construction of a facility to replace both Delta School and Fort Greely School We hope to leverage funds already in place in the Community Impact Funds, provided by Missile Defense, to get appropriations from the Legislature this coming session. We will need community support to make it happen – so get ready to send those POMs. Parental turn-out for the opening of the Elementary was phenomenal. Parent and community involvement make education work. Please sign up to volunteer, show up for activities, and make it a point to go to any even t at the schools to show your support. Through this upheaval and changes to our community and schools, just remember that the glass is half full – not half empty. We need to seize the moment and provide our children with every opportunity. My office is always open to the public. Please stop by if you have concerns or would like to discuss the future of our schools. –Dan Beck, Superintendent
Middle East, ground is being broken at a remote U.S. Army post in Alaska for one of the most controversial military programs in history: an antimissile defense system that could eventually cost taxpayers $200 billion. Supporters claim a national missile defense program is essential to protecting America from an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attack launched by so-called rogue states. Critics argue that September 11th was the grim confirmation that America's greatest national security threat is terrorism--not a missile attack. On Thursday, October 10, at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE examines both sides of the missile defense debate in "Missile Wars." Through interviews with staunch proponents, skeptical scientists, and military and intelligence experts, the one-hour documentary investigates this multibillion dollar--yet still unproven--weapons system, explores the current rationale for missile defense, and probes whether it will protect America from the greatest threats it now faces. "Antimissile defense has been one of the most bitter ideological debates in Washington for decades," says FRONTLINE producer Sherry Jones. "And now the Bush administration argues it is so urgent that the Pentagon has launched a crash program to rush deployment." General Eugene Habiger, former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, says a missile attack clearly is not the greatest threat now facing America. "If I were the military advisor to a Saddam Hussein or the leader of North Korea, and they wanted to know best how to inflict great pain on the United States," he tells FRONTLINE, "a missile would be the last thing I'd recommend."
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich disagrees. "Now that we're getting away from September 11th, the same tired voices are going back to the same sense of 'Gee, this is too dangerous, this is too radical, it's not really that necessary,'" Gingrich tells FRONTLINE. "And all I can say is, one morning there's going to be genuine risk of losing an American city." Gingrich helped revive national missile defense when he included it in his famous "Contract with America." This was of no small concern to the Clinton administration, which some observers say was fearful of appearing weak on defense. An intelligence estimate by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded, however, that the threat of a rogue state being able to deploy an ICBM capable of reaching the United States was at least fifteen years away. Charging that the estimate was the result of political pressure placed on the intelligence community, the Republican-controlled Congress ordered an outside review--a "Team B" exercise--to be chaired by former CIA director Robert Gates. But Gates did not deliver the verdict many proponents of national missile defense were expecting.
"We did agree with the [intelligence] analysts that we were not looking at an imminent, sudden surprise emergence of an operational missile force of any of the countries under consideration," says Janne Nolan, a Gates commission member who now serves as director of international programs at the Eisenhower Institute. "And certainly the least-popular conclusion that Chairman Gates emphasized was that there had been politicization--but it had been in the Congress, not in the intelligence community."
Congress then convened yet another "Team B"--this one chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, a long-time proponent of missile defense. The Rumsfeld Commission concluded that some third-world countries, by collaborating among themselves, cutting corners, and lowering their military specifications, could produce a crude missile of intercontinental range far sooner than the CIA had predicted.
"The thing that came to all of us on the Rumsfeld Commission as the greatest surprise was just how much these bad actors were helping one another and how much help was coming to them from Russia and China--some of it officially sanctioned," says Paul Wolfowitz, who served on the commission and is now Rumsfeld's deputy secretary of defense. Critics, however, say the Rumsfeld panel simply lowered the intelligence bar, altering the standard from what was "probable" to what was merely "possible."
"It raised the specter of fear, of uncertainty, of the unknown, of threats coming from anywhere at any time," says Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "And if that was your threat, who wouldn't want a national missile defense to protect us?" Just one month after the release of the Rumsfeld report, North Korea
test-fired a ballistic missile with a third stage that, if successful, might have given it intercontinental range. Although the third stage fizzled and the test was a technical failure, missile defense advocates claimed vindication.
"When North Korea launched their three-stage rocket, the CIA got caught again off-guard," charges U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa). "They weren't even aware the North Koreans had a capability for a three-stage rocket." Though General Patrick Hughes, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, denies Weldon's charges, the intelligence community did take the unprecedented step of revising its estimate on ICBM threats. Analysts adopted the lowered Rumsfeld standard--what "could happen" as opposed to what was "likely to happen." Gates Commission member Nolan says the adoption of the "could happen" standard was "quite a shock." "Judged against that kind of notion," she says, "there's very little that you could rule out. You 'could' be hit by meteorites."
Despite the intense political pressure, the CIA refused to budge on one point: An attack by an ICBM was still the least likely threat that America faced. Far more likely, the agency said, was an attack by terrorists.
Nevertheless, the Clinton administration reversed course and began moving ahead with plans for a limited, Alaska-based antimissile defense program. Repeated test failures and other technical weaknesses, however, were accompanied by criticism that the tests themselves were not objective measurements of an antimissile system's actual performance. "When the Army wants to test its equipment, wants to test the abilities of its officers, they have maneuvers. In the maneuvers the blue team is not told in advance exactly what the red team is going to do," says Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg. "The [hit-to-kill] tests so far have been like a maneuver in which the blue team is told exactly what the red team's plans are. That's not a serious test of a system." In the summer of 2000, President Clinton deferred the decision on deployment to his successor. With a Republican president back in the White House, however, missile defense has once again been placed on the front burner. "I look at people who doubt our ability to create this and I think, 'What century are you living in?'" Gingrich tells FRONTLINE. "For the last 250 years, humans have been increasingly good at inventing science and technology that accomplished things." But many scientists question whether a missile defense system as envisioned is technologically possible.
"The strongest proponents of national missile defense have no technical understanding at all," contends Dr. Richard Garwin, a physicist who served on the Rumsfeld Commission. Philip Coyle, former director of operational test and evaluation at the
Pentagon, agrees. "Pentagon briefings for national missile defense show Plexiglas domes over the United States, and we imagine that enemy missiles will bounce off this Plexiglas dome like hail off a windshield," he says. "It simply isn't in the cards." Despite the technical hurdles, the director of the missile defense program promises to persevere. "It's all about people in the process, and four
presidents and at least nine Congresses have asked us to do this job," says Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. "There's nothing that I see that says we should stop because it's too hard to do."
PREHISTORIC TUSK UNCOVERED AT FORT GREELY, September 20, 2002. Dr. Gentle-The Ft. Greely MDA site contractor, FLUOR Construction Company, unearthed a part of a tusk that looks to be prehistoric in nature. Mr. George Pursey, DPW FGA Director, was contacted and told them to stop work in the immediate area. A 100ft.X 100ft. area has been roped off until the State of Alaska provides further guidance.
FEW DELTANS FIND JOBS ON GREELY, Fairbanks Daily News Miner, Thursday, September 19, 2002. Much has been said in the community about the number of Deltans--or lack thereof--working at the Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile test bed site at Fort Greely. Last week Fluor officials released local-hire information that shows nearly 10 percent of Fluor Alaska's local staff of 63 is from Delta. That translates into six Delta residents on the Fluor payroll. Another two workers come from the Fairbanks area and seven from Anchorage. Slightly more than 76 percent of Fluor's staff--48 employees--have been brought in from Outside. As far as Fluor's subcontractors are concerned, Delta-based workers make up 23 percent of the total staff of 286. Another 28 percent (80 workers) come from the Fairbanks area and 31 percent (90 workers) from Anchorage. Fourteen percent come from elsewhere in Alaska and 4 percent from outside the state. The figures released also show minority hiring figures. On the Fluor staff of 63, there is one Native, two minority workers and 12 women. The subcontractors, as of the unspecified reporting date, had 52 Natives (18 percent) on their payrolls, as well as 23 minority workers (8 percent) and 41 women (41 percent).
Another report released Sept. 11 includes the Boeing and Bechtel employees and subcontractors. That report shows 450 employees at the GMD site as of that date, not including public works and other workers who were employed at the site before the GMD project began. Of that 450, 174 employees were from the local hire area of Delta, Tok and Paxson. According to the government contracts, the general contractors must meet local hire and minority hiring quotas or face penalties. City council is impatient for funds. While work progresses at the former Army post, federal impact dollars for the community have yet to filter from the federal government to the state government and on to the city. That has some Delta City Council members hesitant about spending more money from the general fund in anticipation of receiving the first installment of more than $9 million for fiscal 2002, which ends Sept. 30. At Tuesday night's city council meeting, the council failed to support a request from city administrator Pete Hallgren for $9,000 for aerial photography of the land that may become the city's new landfill. Hallgren said he relayed the council's concern to the Department of Defense.
"The council is running out of ready cash," he said. Hallgren said it isn't a case of a bureaucrat sitting on money allocated for
Delta Junction. "DOD has not given out community impact funds for 25 years," he said. "It's not like there's an office to hand out funds and these people are asleep at the switch." No challengers' names will appear on the Oct. 1 city ballot. One-term incumbent Councilman Lou Heinbockel and July appointee Ron Beck will run unopposed, barring a write-in campaign. For Heinbockel, who also served as the city's mayor in the 1980s, the lack of interest is discouraging. "I'd like to think it's a vote of confidence, but it's probably a case of the no-cares," Heinbockel said. "In a small community like this, where you always have someone second-guessing everything you do, someone ought to be running." The odds of getting elected to the Deltana Community Corp. board the same day are just as good: three seats, three names on the ballot. Incumbent Pat Schlichting and board appointee Julia Phillips will be on the ballot for seats F and D, respectively. Steve Fields will run for Seat E vacated by Russ Bowdre. A follow-up meeting with parents concerned about scheduling problems at Delta Junior/Senior High School is set for 4 p.m. Friday at the Delta/Greely School District office. Principal Leland Stocker will address concerns of parents, some of whom attended a similar meeting last week with Superintendent Dan Beck. Stocker said he will also use the meeting to further develop his notion of having a principal's council to advise him. "We're going to work through it," Stocker said earlier this week. "Kind of flesh it out as far as how it will work."
Victoria Naegele (naegele@wildak. net) is a free-lance writer who lives near Delta Junction.
GLOBAL NEWS BREAKS #29
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2002
Washington mulls arrows to India…
The debate over Israel’s proposed sale of the Arrow Theater Missile Defense System to India continues to rage in Washington, according to a report in the current (September 5) issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review. New Delhi, which has come out in support of the Bush Administration’s missile defense plans, is seeking the system to protect against Pakistani short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Pentagon planners, who view India as a key international missile defense ally, are eager to approve the sale of the jointly-developed Israeli-American system. But officials in Foggy Bottom are concerned that a green light for the sale will heighten regional tensions and encourage a South Asian arms race. So far, the Bush White House appears undecided on whether to approve the Indian purchase. However, Indian officials are increasingly viewing the issue as a barometer of the emerging strategic relationship between Washington and New Delhi. “What does this new relationship consist of if the U.S. does not deliver in areas of interest to India?” the Review cites one Indian official as asking.
...as Russia waits in the wings
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s upcoming December trip to India is expected to entail a major effort to expand the military relationship between Moscow and New Delhi, the August 28th issue of The Hindu reports. On the agenda, according to the Indian daily, are proposals for the construction of an integrated Indian national missile defense based around Russia’s S-300VM air-defense system. The proposed nationwide program would also integrate India’s indigenous missile projects, such as the “Trishul” surface-to-air missile, the paper reports.
A call to streamline missile defense
An influential policy panel has urged the Defense Department to limit the scope of its missile defense plans, the September 3rd Washington Post reports. The recommendation, made last month by experts affiliated with the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board, calls for the Bush Administration to narrow its current program of multiple simultaneous development projects to just two initiatives: a ground-based missile defense system and ship-based anti-missile platforms. The panel’s recommendations reflect a consensus that “the [White House’s] program needs to get away from the relative comfort of having a wide-open horizon with no defined architecture… It needs to focus on a much narrower set of initial capabilities in order to get something that’s worth fielding,” according to one source familiar with the findings.
Washington blasts Pyongyang proliferation
A top State Department official has spoken out publicly regarding the mounting danger posed by North Korea’s proliferation of missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technologies. In a speech to South Korean legislators in Seoul, Undersecretary of State John Bolton labeled Pyongyang “the world’s foremost peddler of ballistic missile-related equipment, components, materials, and technical expertise” and a top exporter of WMD to “notable rogue state clients such as Syria, Libya and Iran.” According to Bolton, North Korea’s connections with Iran and Iraq, the other countries labeled by President Bush as part of an “axis of evil,” also remain of the utmost concern. “There is a hard connection between these regimes — an axis along which flow dangerous weapons and dangerous technology,” the Associated Press (August 29) reports the Undersecretary as saying.
Israel deploys American Defenses
Against the backdrop of impending U.S. military action in the region, the Israeli government has moved to fortify its nuclear infrastructure. According to the Agence France Presse (August 23), Israel’s air force has deployed units of the U.S.-made Patriot anti-ballistic missile system in close proximity to the Dimona nuclear reactor in the south of the country. The Patriot units are expected to supplement Jerusalem’s existing missile defenses – a unit of the Arrow system already deployed in southern Israel – in the event of retaliatory missile strikes from Baghdad.
Foreign missile tests gain momentum
The Washington Times (August 30) reports that both China and Iran have recently conducted tests of their intercontinental ballistic missiles. On August 28th, following Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s visit to the PRC, Beijing conducted a successful high-profile flight test of its “Dong-Feng-4” ICBM from a facility in the country’s south. China is estimated to have approximately 20 of the 4,340-mile range rockets, which are capable of striking U.S. military assets in the Asia-Pacific, as well as targets in Russia and Europe. Iran, meanwhile, has carried out an unsuccessful test of its “Shahab-3” missile. The failed trial, held in northern Iran last month, reflects ongoing Iranian development of the medium-range rocket, which can strike Israel, Turkey and parts of India
Assessing the Iraq threat
A new report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has provided a sobering glimpse into Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile capabilities. According to “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment,” Saddam Hussein’s regime – despite lacking the capability to produce enough fissile material domestically for military needs – could field an atomic weapon “within months” if it managed to acquire the appropriate fissile material abroad. Iraq also still has considerable stores of biological weapons, the report asserts, and “is capable of resuming BW Agent production on short notice (in weeks) from existing civilian facilities.” The same holds true for Iraq’s chemical weapons capability, which Iraq can reconstitute rapidly from existing stockpiles remaining within the country. And in addition to its small force of short-range “Scud”-type rockets, Iraq also likely has “about a dozen” longer range “al-Hussein” missiles capable of carrying a chemical or biological payload and striking Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait.
Iran branches out
Hot on the heels of a failed test of its “Shahab-3” medium-range rocket, Middle East Newsline (September 9) reports that Tehran has carried out a successful trial of the indigenously developed “Fatteh-110” surface-to-surface missile. The solid fuel rocket, which is believed to have a range of some 110 kilometers, is reportedly based on China’s DF-11A ballistic missile. According to Ahmed Hamidi, director of Iran’s Aerospace Industrial Organization, the new missile “is one of the most precise in the world” and its “large scale” production is expected in the near future.
Israel’s Yediot Ahronot (September 6) reports that Iran has also stepped up international missile cooperation with Bashar Assad’s Syria. According to the daily, Tehran has given Damascus considerable missile assistance, including the transfer of significant solid-fuel technology and help in the construction of an indigenous missile production plant, over the past year. This cooperation has contributed significantly to Syria’s mounting efforts to expand the range and adaptability of its ballistic missile arsenal – a development that might soon reconfigure the balance of power in the Middle East, an intelligence source interviewed by the paper has warned.
PRC unveils fortification of three gorges
Beijing, a major critic of American missile defense efforts, has revealed that it has erected a missile shield to protect the Three Gorges Dam from possible attack. According to a September 4th report by the Probe International news service, the decision for a “double-layer defence shield” was reached after the dam project commenced in 1992. The defenses, entailing missile shields covering both the Yangtze River valley and the Dam itself, have been in place since 1997, the agency reports. The revelation comes in response to reports of a recent simulated military exercise by Taipei, allegedly involving scenarios of a Taiwanese aerial attack on the Dam.
A new threat from North Africa
Freed from international sanctions, the Libyan government is ramping up its involvement in regional missile and WMD development. Citing U.S. intelligence sources, the current edition of Geostrategy Direct (week of September 10) reports that Libya has quietly assumed a leading role in Iraq’s missile and nuclear weapons programs, allowing Saddam Hussein’s regime to continue research and development amid mounting international scrutiny. According to the newsletter, Libya is also believed to have become a “leading training ground” for Egypt’s covert missile and WMD programs, including Cairo’s efforts to develop an intermediate-range ballistic missile derived from North Korean “No Dong” technology.
Pyongyang to extend missile moratorium
Responding to intense international pressure, the DPRK is about to prolong its self-imposed ban on missile testing, the Agence France Presse (September 6) reports. The moratorium, adopted by the North Korean government back in 1999, is set to expire in 2003, raising worries in the United States and Europe that North Korea could resume aggressive testing of its ballistic missiles. On a visit to Tokyo last month, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Vann H. Van Diepen warned publicly that an abandonment of the ban would be “very destabilizing” and could have adverse “consequences” for the North Korean government. Pyongyang appears to be in agreement; according to the news agency, Kim Jong-il’s regime is planning to officially extend the unilateral measure in coming weeks as part of comprehensive discussions with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi regarding the Japan-DPRK relationship.
DECOY REJECTION GAINS PENTAGON’S ATTENTION, Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 16, 2002. The prospect of adversaries equipping ballistic missiles with more sophisticated countermeasures is leading the Missile Defense Agency to initiate development of a more sophisticated kill vehicle and to establish a focal point for developing targets and countermeasures to be used in testing. The potential vulnerability to spoofing attempts has long been viewed as the Achilles' heel of the Pentagon's ongoing missile defense efforts. Military officials have said for some time they would address those weaknesses and the Pentagon is beginning to lay the foundation to do so. Potential countermeasure challenges facing the military include active jammers; IR flares; radar-absorbing materials on warheads and low-observable designs; and heating, cooling or balloon-shrouded reentry vehicles, according to a Draper Laboratory report to the Defense Science Board. One of the centerpieces of the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) efforts to defeat countermeasures is developing a kill vehicle that relies not only on passive, infrared sensors, but one that can also draw on other devices to distinguish a real warhead from a decoy. MDA plans to have Boeing oversee development of the complementary exoatmospheric kill vehicle (CEKV), which would eventually replace the kill vehicle Raytheon developed for the ground-based missile defense system. The Raytheon hardware has been used in all the intercept tests of the ground-based system. The new system should incorporate both active and passive sensors, which essentially means it would add a radar seeker or radar technology to the kill vehicle. The CEKV also would also be used in conjunction with the Navy's ship-based missile defense system. The Standard Missile SM-3 uses a different, smaller kill vehicle. MDA hopes to cut costs by using the CEKV in multiple programs.
Multiple types of sensors could combine information to thwart countermeasures, which are generally focused on either infrared or radar detection techniques. For instance, a decoy made to mirror the infrared (IR) signature of a warhead would still feature a different radio frequency (RF) signature to give it away. Military officials say it is conceivable an adversary could build a decoy that matches a warhead's IR and RF signatures, but note that such a device would be extremely complex. Moreover, it would probably be heavy and significantly degrade the useful warhead payload the ballistic missile could carry. The Draper Lab study recommended "interactive discrimination" approaches, because passive-only solutions are not deemed adequate to handle advanced decoys. An interactive system attempts to create a physical effect in the target to determine if it is a decoy or a warhead. One method could be to apply laser-induced heating to the target and determine from the ensuing temperature change whether it is a warhead or decoy. In tests of the ground-based system, the Pentagon has used up to three decoys. But, those were not designed to spoof the kill vehicle, merely to help gather information to refine discrimination algorithms. "We will be expanding on that test regime as soon as we are confident we understand how the system reacted and whether or not we could build the decoys that are necessary to actually test against," said the MDA director, USAF Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, earlier this summer. Pentagon officials are mum about the number and types of countermeasures their system will be able to defeat. However, Kadish added that the effort "is a never-ending journey
once we have missile defense capability, because it's like anything else in the military world: we have countermeasures and counter-countermeasures that people develop so they could get the advantage." To aid in its countermeasures work, the Pentagon wants to name a contractor in May to oversee target systems. The responsibilities under the $400-500-million annual contract would include system management, development and support efforts. Potential long-term work might be development of low-observable reentry vehicles. Near-term efforts might focus on a clutter dispenser, IR and radar balloons, and developing a generic reentry vehicle.
JOINT STAFF STUDY: UNIFY U.S. TRANSFORMATION, Defense News, September 16-22, 2002. In yet another sign that U.S. military transformation efforts are still too diffuse, a new Joint Staff study said the services need to approach force transformation jointly and integrate their efforts as a unified plan. The Aug. 30 assessment of the services’ transformation road maps was done by the National Defense University’s Center for Technology and National Security Policy, which provides direct research support to the Joint Staff . . . The Joint Staff study puts the transformation road maps in the context of six key operational goals outlined in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The Army’s road map was strong on protecting U.S. bases worldwide, allocating $5.8 billion for same, including $3.8 billion for the PAC-3 Patriot missile system and $1.2 billion for the Medium-Extended Air Defense System . . . The Air Force emphasized base protection using several weapon systems, including the Airborne Laser, the Space-Based Laser and Agent Defeat programs. But the service is too dependent on tactical strike aircraft and not enough on electronic warfare, the study says.
PANEL MAKING PROGRESS ON MISSILE DEFENSE, SOURCES SAY, Aerospace Daily, September 16, 2002. The House-Senate conference committee changed with crafting a final fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill is making progress in resolving differenced over missile defense, congressional sources said Sept. 13. House and Senate conferees have approved modified House language aimed at ensuring that Congress gets enough information about ballistic missile defense programs, sources said. Senate oversight language, which is considered more stringent, drew administration objections and will be dropped. The conference committee, which has been meeting behind closed does, still has to resolve another missile defense issue: nuclear-tipper interceptors. The Senate bill contains a provision designed to block plans by the Defense Science Board to study whether nuclear warheads should be used to destroy incoming missiles. Senate Democrats fear nuclear-tipped interceptors could spread nuclear fallout on the U.S. or its allies, but House Republicans argue that a study of options is prudent.
ISRAELI MISSILE DEFENSES BEEFED UP, The Guardian (London), September 16, 2002. Israel is better equipped to handle any Iraqi counter-attack than it was in the Gulf war when some 39 Scud missiles landed on the country . . . Amos Yaron, the director-general of the defense ministry, has told the newspaper Haaretz that Israel’s new Green Pine radar system gives the country three to four minutes’ warning of any missile fired from Iraq, compared with the 30 seconds its previous system had in 1991 . . . The country has also installed the advanced Arrow system, which can shoot down incoming missiles more effectively than the U.S.-supplied Patriot missiles which George Bush senior hastily supplied to Israel when the Gulf war was already under way . . . Yet the more that officials say Israel faces little danger from Iraq, the more they undermine the case for Israel to join the US attack.
ACTIVIST DISCUSSES SPACE DEVELOPMENT, Cornell Daily Sun, September 13, 2002. Speaking before a group of Cornell students Thursday night, activist Bruce Gagnon condemned the U.S. military’s monopoly on the country’s space program . . . Gagnon, coordinator of the Florida-based Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, spoke as part of a Cornell Forum for Justice and Peace lecture series organized in remembrance of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks . . . He specifically attacked the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) program, which would be “forward deployed” in regions of conflict to knock out nuclear weapons in their boost phase. Such programs would have a tendency to provoke nations rather than promote defense, he said. Richard Huddleston ‘04 -- who held an internship with Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), a group of small companies that did some work for the TMD program -- agreed with Gagnon’s assessment of the program. “Military plays a large role in policy lobbying and in my experience working for SBIR I’ve seen the unreliability of the system, and I’d rather have mutual disarmament,” he said.
DEFENSE WATCH, Defense Daily, September 16, 2002. House appropriators are shifting funds between the FY ‘03 defense and foreign appropriations bills, but Hill aides don’t expect the funding shifts to stick as the bills make their way through the full House for final approval . . . Meanwhile, conferences on the FY ‘03 defense appropriations and authorization bills are expected to continue this week. Both committees have a goal to get the work on the bills completed by the end of the month, so that the bills can move to the floor the first week of October. However, some Hill observers are skeptical that schedule will be met. “Both the House and Senate conferees are committed to getting the bills done, but neither side is ready to cave on issues to do that yet,” one source says.
BACK TO NUCLEAR OVERKILL, The Weekend Australian, September 14, 2002 . . . The nuclear clock -- stopped at a minute to midnight when Mikhail Gorbachev accidentally ended the Soviet Union and the Cold War -- is ticking again. Thanks to policies of unprecedented recklessness by Bush and co, we’ve a growing nuclear danger . . . In a series of staged leaks the Bush administration has proposed developing nuclear weapons for use rather than solely for deterrence. Some are for the provocative Star Wars defense system, others for offensive use . . . Tick-tock, tick-tock on the nuclear clock. William Schneider, chairman of the U.S. Defense Science Board, has announced a renewed study of “nuclear-armed interceptor missiles” as a part of Star Wars. Weinberg warns that problems with this technology that “have led to the abandonment of nuclear-armed interceptors as components in missile defense since the administration of Ronald Reagan” are not slowing down Bush Jr. “How could anyone have confidence in a missile defense system based on nuclear-armed interceptors without tests that involve nuclear explosions in or above the atmosphere?” writes [Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, who has served as a consultant to US agencies on national defense issues]. “We have not carried out even underground tests since the previous Bush administration. And, as is very much in our interests, neither has Russia or China.”
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
CZECH REPUBLIC SEEKS JOINING MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD PROJECT, BBC Monitoring International Reports, September 17, 2002. The Czech Republic will join the United States’ missile defense shield project which is designed to protect the USA and its allies from missile attacks according to its abilities, Defense Minister Jaroslav Tvrdik told reporters on Monday 16 September night in Washington... “I expressed the interest of the Czech Republic to join this program. I offered the United States the opportunity to deploy the missile defense system on Czech soil,” Tvrdik said after meeting U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary as received, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. According to Tvrdik, joining the missile defense program will broaden “the spectrum of (Czech air) defense qualitatively to a new level”. Tvrdik added that he discussed joining the program with a U.S. team in Prague a month ago. Tvrdik did not mention the definite way of joining the program, because negotiations are in an early stage, but the Czech Republic would like to join the project in the area of passive surveillance equipment which it specializes in.
SBIRS LOW TEAM FINALIZES CONTRACT TERMS FOR FIRST PHASE DEVELOPMENT, Defense Daily, September 17, 2002. The contract for the Space Based Infrared System Low (SBIRS Low) program should be definitized before the beginning of next month with all the program partners in place to move forward, industry officials at the Air Force Association conference in Washington, D.C., said yesterday. Last month, the Air Force awarded TRW a $868.7 million contract to begin development of the SBIRS Low. The team members are in final negotiations of the terms of the contract, officials said. The restructured SBIRS Low program put TRW in the lead of an industry team with Spectrum Astro and Northrop Grumman and Raytheon as subcontractors. SBIRS Low team officials said they expect the final contract negotiations to be wrapped up by Oct. 1 for the first cycle of the program that focuses on launch of the first two satellites in the 2006-07 time frame . . . Under the new SBIRS Low teaming arrangement all of the contractors will work on system engineering and algorithms for the system. TRW, in addition to its lead for program management, will work jointly with Spectrum Astro on the SBIRS Low spacecraft and space communications segment. TRW, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman will all work on the ground segment.
NORTH KOREA AMASSES CHEMICAL WEAPONS, Washington Times, September 17, 2002. North Korea has a stockpile of 2,500 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons and is believed to be capable of producing 1 ton of biological weapons annually, South Korea’s Defense Ministry said yesterday. The communist state’s stockpile of chemical weapons consists of 17 different types that can be used to dispense nerve gases, the ministry said in a report presented to the National Assembly. North Korea can produce about 4,500 tons of chemical weapons every year, it said. Pyongyang’s army also has biological weapons involving 13 different lethal germs and viruses, the ministry said . . . [Mike Moody, president of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Washington] noted that the production of an agent does not always translate into an effective chemical or biological weapon. Its effectiveness depends on several factors, including the quality of production, means of dispersal and intended target . . . Under its ruling principle of “army-first politics,” North Korea has produced and deployed long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States and has sold some missiles to Iran and Syria. Experts say the missiles can be fitted with biochemical warheads.
TRUTH TELLER: THE NUCLEAR SCIENTIST THE LEFT LOVES TO HATE, National Review, September 30, 2002 . . . When I visited the 94-year-old [Edward Teller] at his home on the campus of Stanford University, on August 26, the scheduled topic of our conversation was missile defense. The so-called “father of the H-bomb” might also be called the grandfather of missile defense -- a longtime supporter of anti-ballistic technology who introduced Ronald Reagan to the concept more than 15 years before there was a Strategic Defense Initiative. This ought to be a moment of great satisfaction for Teller, who now has both outlived the ABM Treaty and watched the Bush administration proceed with its full-steam-ahead program to develop the capability to shoot down enemy rockets and warheads. Teller is pleased by these recent developments, and he’s happy to say so . . . This was Teller’s final offense: pushing for missile defense, and helping create the conditions for its present success and hopeful future. Teller actually started thinking about missile defense as early as 1945, when he authored a report for the Navy . . . He believed that offensive capabilities would outstrip defensive ones, but still imagined situations in which defensive missiles would be usefully deployed . . . Soon after Reagan became president, Teller began to press the administration to embrace the missile-defense cause . . . He worked with the White House Science Council to produce a report on the technical prospects of missile defense, which was completed in January 1983. That March, Teller . . . rushed to Washington for a meal with Reagan and other leading scientists shortly before the president went on national television to announce the Strategic Defense Initiative . . . Teller doesn’t participate in high-level missile-defense confabs anymore, but he stays abreast of developments. “Missile defense is difficult, necessary, and possible,” he says. “The ABM Treaty was not useful, and President Bush had a good excuse to get out of it.” He scoffs at the suggestion that missile defense is an unwise distraction during the age of terrorism. “That’s an entirely different question,” he says, with some irritation. “Missile defense is for national survival, and it’s more important than defense against terrorism.” He goes on to advocate boost-phase intercepts . . . “Whether it would work against a powerful and determined opponent, I don’t know,” he says. “Today it’s the right way to go. I do not see any opponent powerful enough to be effective against a strong determination on our part.”
THE CONTEMPORARY SECURITY DILEMMA: DETERRING A TAIWAN CONFLICT, The Washington Quarterly, Autumn 2002. The security dilemma, one of the most important concepts in the field of international relations, is currently out of fashion. In the aftermath of September 11, concern that mutual misunderstandings and spiraling mistrust might cause international conflicts seems quaintly naïve . . . Common sense tells us that weakness invites conflict and toughness gets results; wars are not Greek tragedies, they are crime scenes. Deterrence, not reassurance, is the name of the international security game . . . U.S. and Taiwanese efforts to deter such forced unification can easily appear to Beijing as efforts to create protective conditions for Taiwan’s independence . . . Missile defenses provide a good illustration of this problem. Even though systems such as future upper-tier theater missile defenses or U.S. national missile defense (NMD) systems are hardly offensive in nature, Chinese elites consider them a threat for several reasons. First, mobile, ship-based, upper-tier systems, for example, might somewhat protect Taiwan against China’s most potent coercive tool -- short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Second, if developed with Japan, as is currently planned, the ship-based systems might encourage eventual Japanese naval involvement in a Taiwan conflict. Third, if the United States transferred such systems to Taiwan, Beijing analysts believe that this act might restore a quasi-alliance between Washington and Taipei because the Taiwanese systems would not function without sustained peacetime links to the U.S. military intelligence network in the Pacific.
SBIRS LOW DEMONSTRATION TO RELY ON OLD HARDWARE, Space News, September 9, 2002. A pair of satellite platforms and sensors built for a missile-tracking experiment that was killed in 1999 due to cost overruns and technical problems will be used is a similar demonstration now slated for later this decade, according to industry and Pentagon officials. TRW Space and Electronics Group of Redondo Beach, Calif., in August was awarded a contract worth $868 million to build and launch a pair of spacecraft to demonstrate the capabilities of the planned Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Low missile-tracking system . . . The satellite that TRW will use for the upcoming demonstration originally were built for the so-called Flight Demonstration System, a SBIRS Low precursor project . . . The upcoming experiment also will utilize the same Raytheon-built sensors that were intended for the Flight Demonstration System, according to Pentagon and industry officials . . . In a written response to questions, the [Missile Defense Agency] said using previously built satellites for the upcoming experiments is a “low risk approach” to incorporating tracking satellites into its program of missile defense testing.
AIR DEFENSES RELAXED AFTER 9/11 ANNIVERSARY, Washington Post, September 18, 2002. One week after the Pentagon activated a network of antiaircraft missiles to defend Washington against another terrorist attack, the missiles have been removed, defense officials said yesterday . . . The antiaircraft missile launchers were deployed to Washington last week as part of a military exercise, called Clear Skies II, meant to test Army air defense systems . . . The operation involved 300 service members, primarily from the Army and Air Force. Troops operated the launchers and radar 24 hours a day, tracking aircraft from several sites around the Washington area. The missiles were part of a multi-layered approach to air defense, including regular combat air patrols over Washington by Air Force and Air National Guard fighters. The Federal Aviation Administration and federal law enforcement agencies also took part . . . Some military analysts said the time it would take to secure approval to fire missiles might limit the usefulness of the Avenger in a terrorist attack. The value of the missiles might be primarily as a deterrent, they said. "The very fact they're there, and visible, has an effect," said Dana Dillon, a former Army major now with the Heritage Foundation. Other analysts questioned the safety of deploying live missiles in an urban area with commercial jets flying regularly overhead.
CANADA, U.S. DISCUSS BETTER CROSS-BORDER MILITARY CO-OPERATION, The Guardian (Charlottetown), September 18, 2002. Canadian and U.S. military officials met in Washington on Tuesday for another round of talks aimed at increasing cross-border co-operation, including sharing troops . . . Under the scheme, dozens of Canadian and U.S. military planners would be based together to protect North America from global terrorists and respond to natural disasters . . . The planning group is focusing on both land and sea security, Morrell said, including co-operation in monitoring thousands of kilometers of remote coastlines where terrorists could smuggle in weapons . . . "They, at the staff level, have progressed the agenda quite substantially and I applaud them for that," said [Alain Pellerin of the Conference of Defense Associations]. "But the problem is that they're still working in a policy vacuum. "The government has not seen fit to do a foreign policy review and a defense policy review where the issue of continental defense would be addressed." Ottawa has balked at addressing the issue head-on because it will eventually bring it face-to-face with the touchy subject of missile defense and so-called Star Wars technology, said Pellerin.
LOCAL LOCKHEED PLANT GETS NAVY CONTRACT, Baltimore Sun, September 18, 2002. Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Middle River plant has been awarded a $6.5 million Navy contract to upgrade missile launchers on 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The company will develop enhancements to the launch control systems and other electronics on MK-41 Vertical Launching Systems, the Middle River unit's signature product. The work is in addition to a multi-year contract already awarded for new MK-41 launchers. That contract is worth up to $323 million. The Navy is upgrading its Ticonderoga-class ships to extend their lives and improve missile-defense and land-attack capabilities. The upgraded launchers will be able to fire the Navy's newest shipboard missile, the Evolved Sea Sparrow.
A LOOK AT LATEST IN TOOLS OF WAR; MILITARY EXPO ATTRACTS BIG GUNS, THE CURIOUS AND PROTESTERS IN NW, Washington Post, September 18, 2002. On a sprawling carpet in the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, air-to-ground missiles sit like museum exhibits on carefully lighted pedestals . . . Flat-screen monitors reveal that an inscrutable piece of metal behind plexiglass is actually part of a space-based missile defense system . . . The scenes come from the Air Force Association's annual Aerospace Technology Exposition, which challenges the world's biggest defense contractors to join a battle of exhibition booths . . . "At a lot of conferences you just get people . . . in a very specialized division that's being showcased, but here you have everyone from the young enlisted guys just checking things out to the folks who actually pay the bills" [said Chuck Morant, with Lockheed Martin's business development division.]
DEFENSE WHITE PAPER MAY NOT DEFINE N.K. AS 'MAIN ENEMY,' Korea Herald, September 18, 2002. Defense Minister Lee Jun hinted yesterday that a planned white paper on defense policy may not refer to North Korea as the nation's "main enemy," a phrase that had drawn howls of protest from the communist nation. The ministry plans to publish a comprehensive review of the defense policy of the current administration at the end of the year . . . The decision over the issue will be made in consideration of future developments in inter-Korean ties and security conditions. In May, the ministry delayed publishing the biennial defense white paper in a bid to avoid controversy over the phrase, which officials said has unnecessarily provoked the North, hindering progress in the inter-Korean peace process.
AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND: TWO DECADES OF SPACE, Air Force Space Command News (Service Peterson Air Force Base), August 23, 2002. Compared to rest of the Air Force, space is new to the battleground, but it has proved no less essential than any aircraft, ship or battalion. The history of the command is no less vibrant. And it all began just more than two decades ago.
Studies and proposals during the late 1970s acknowledged the need for a change in the Air Forceís organizational structure for space operations. In February 1979, the most important of these, the “Space Missions Organizational Planning Study,” explored future options and offered five alternatives ranging from continuation of the status quo to creation of an Air Force command for space.
On April 17, 1982, Gen. James V. Hartinger, commander in chief of North American Aerospace Defense Command and Air Defense Command, presented a plan showing how the Air Force might immediately create a major command for management of space resources on a par with the Strategic Air Command, Tactical Air Command, and Military Airlift Command. On June 21, with approval from Gen. Lew Allen, the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Air Force officially announced its decision to form Space Command effective Sept. 1 of that year. During activation ceremonies for Space Command, Hartinger, as its first commander, labeled its establishment as “a crucial milestone in the evolution of military space operations,” and predicted the new command would “provide the operational pull to go with the technology push which has been the dominant factor in the space world since its inception.” The command grew quickly in the following year. During 1983, SAC passed to Space Command operational responsibility for a worldwide network of more than 25 space surveillance and missile warning sensors, as well as Peterson, the home of the new command.
In the early 1980s, the Air Force had added a number of systems, such as Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance System, called GEODSS, to the Space Detection and Tracking System network with the intention of enhancing the capabilities of the system. The operational mission of the new command revolved around these systems as well as others transferred from SAC such as the Defense Support Program, the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System and PAVE Phased-Array Warning System (popularly known as PAVE PAWS) radars. DSP, along with the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, were the first satellite constellations operated by the command. In 1985, Space Command was redesignated Air Force Space Command.
From their earliest days, Air Force Systems Command, or its predecessor Air Research and Development Command, controlled most Air Force launch systems and satellites. With a primary emphasis on research and development, Systems Command was not sufficiently operations-oriented to meet the needs of space systems users -- the warfighters. After its formation, AFPSC immediately began to work toward the eventual assumption of the satellite telemetry, tracking, and commanding mission with the opening of the Consolidated Space Operations Center at Falcon Air Force Station, Colo., in September 1985. The process continued in October 1987, when the command assumed responsibility for the Air Force Satellite Control Network from Systems Command, including its numerous worldwide remote tracking stations. Subsequently, the Consolidated Space Operations Center operations facilities gradually took over command and control responsibilities for most Air Force satellites including the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System, the Defense Satellite Communication System, DMSP, the DSP and Milstar. In June 1992, SAC transferred Air Force Satellite Communications, or AFSATCOM, responsibility to AFSPC.
It was not until the 1991 Persian Gulf War that these systems had a major impact on the conduct of military operations. U.S. ground forces used GPS satellite data to easily navigate the nearly featureless desert landscape ñ even at night. DMSP weather satellites provided vital data on sandstorms, surface winds and other conditions that affected our troops and air operations. DSP early warning satellites provided the essential first warning of Iraqi Scud missile attacks on coalition bases and Saudi and Israeli cities. Although delivered via an ad hoc reporting arrangement, this vital “heads up” assisted U.S. Patriot missile batteries in engaging many incoming Scuds. The Gulf War then was the first major conflict in which the American military heavily relied on support from space systems. The demonstrated usefulness of space systems during this conflict and their obvious undeveloped potential for further use would lead to a major rethinking over the next several years of the role of space systems in warfighting.
Two significant additions to the command during the 1990s brought the command to its current operational state. First, on Oct. 1, 1990, the Air Force transferred control of all operational space lift vehicles to AFSPC. Over the next four years, AFSPC assumed launch responsibility for ATLAS E, Atlas II, Delta II, Titan II, and Titan IV missions from Cape Canaveral AFS, Fla., and Vandenberg AFB, Calif. Second, the Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBMs, the only remaining purely strategic Air Force systems, transferred to AFSPC on July 1, 1993, thus aligning these vital assets with the rest of the Air Force space mission. As part of this action, AFSPC took over 20th Air Force, six missile wings, and one test and training wing. Finally, to create a similar organizational framework for the command’s space assets, all missile warning, space surveillance, and satellite control units were organized under 14th Air Force.
Because the new command matured rapidly during the 1980s and ë90s, as did the importance of space to the Air Force, Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Merrill McPeak, officially changed the Air Force Mission Statement, on July 19, 1992, to read: “Defend the United States through control and exploitation of air and space.” In 1992 the Air Forceís Blue Ribbon Panel on Space recommended the creation of an organization to examine the capabilities of space-based systems and their application to warfighting. Dedicated in December 1993, the AFSPCís Space Warfare Center, located at Falcon (later Schriever) AFB, formed to develop and test concepts, applications and procedures to enable the warfighter to more fully utilize the unique capabilities of space-based systems and products. One of the first fruits of the SWC’s efforts was the Attack and Launch Early Reporting to Theater, or ALERT, system, designed to provide theater missile warning using DSP satellite detection capability and created a permanent reporting structure. ALERT reached initial operational capability in March 1995. The SWC quickly grew to include a number of test organizations and a Space Battle Lab. Opened in June 1997, the Space Battle Lab developed innovative operational and logistical concepts employing space systems and capabilities and tested them in a laboratory or operational venues. As the threat of nuclear war with the republics of the former Soviet Union diminished as a result of treaty reductions of weapons and a change in focus among those nations, AFSPC began to pare down the missile warning network to reflect the changing strategic situation.
With much of the former Soviet submarine fleet rusting in port, the threat of a submarine-launched ballistic missile attack against the United States was greatly reduced. Accordingly, AFSPC deactivated the PAVE PAWS radar sites at Eldorado AFS, Texas, and Robins AFB, Ga., in July 1995, which in turn facilitated the much-needed system upgrade to the BMEWS site at Clear AFS, Alaska. Arms control agreements led to reductions in the nationís nuclear arsenal and the inactivation of three of AFSPCís missile organizations, the 44th and 351st Missile Wings and the 321st Missile Group. Another byproduct of the reduction of Cold War tensions was a major wave of cost-reduction measures in the early 1990s aimed at reducing staff and eliminating redundancy. As part of this effort, in 1994 the White House directed the merging of the Air Force and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s weather satellite programs, and, in 1998, AFSPC transferred control of DMSP to NOAA. As AFSPC moved into the 21st Century, the outlook for space operations and systems continued to improve. New initiatives and systems, such as the Space-Based Infrared System DSP follow-on, would soon change the way the command did business.
Also on Jan. 11, 2001, the Space Commission, chartered by Congress, issued a report recommending significant organizational realignment and increased space responsibilities for the Air Force. On May 8, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced a major national security space management and organizational initiative and designated the Air Force as the Department of Defense executive agent for space. Subsequently, on Oct. 1, 2001, the Air Force reassigned Space and Missile Systems Center from Air Force Materiel Command to AFSPC. This realignment gave AFSPC control of the planning and requirements development for all technological aspects of USAF launch vehicles, spacecraft and missiles. On the same date, AFSPC activated the 460th Air Base Wing to manage Buckley AFB, Colo., an installation transferred to the command from the Colorado Air National Guard one year earlier. Since its birth in 1982, Air Force Space Command has progressed from being a promising new command to a command that, as Hartinger predicted 20 years ago: “Provides the operational pull to go with the technology push which has been the dominant factor in the space world since its inception.” There’s no limit to what the next 20 years holds for the command.
NO NUKES NORTH : INT’L DAYS OF PROTEST TO STOP MILITARIZATION OF SPACE, space4peace.org
IRAN TEST-FIRES BALLISTIC MISSILE, Washington Post, September 7, 2002. Iran successfully test-fired a new ballistic missile, news reports said yesterday, and experts said it might be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. State-run Tehran television said the Fateh 110 A missile was “one [of] the most accurate surface-to-surface missiles manufactured in the world.” The report did not say when or where in Iran the test was conducted, nor did it reveal the missile’s range. Doug Richardson, editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, said the Fateh 110 A missile may be based on the Chinese DF-11 A missile, which has a range of 186 to 248 miles and is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. If that range is accurate, Iran would be able to fire the new missile well within the borders of Iraq and Turkey to the west or Afghanistan to the east, but not Israel.
MISSILE DEFENSE MONEY PIVITAL FOR HOUSE AND SENATE CONFEREES, Congressional Quarterly Weekly, September 7, 2002. The ongoing war on terrorism has fostered a more hawkish tone in Congress, giving President Bush the upper hand with Democrats - at least for now - on defense issues facing the House and Senate conferees putting together authorization and spending bills for fiscal 2003. The most obvious result of this altered atmosphere is that the nearly two-decade debate over creation and deployment of a nationwide missile defense system clearly has shifted from “whether” to “how.” To be sure, Congress likely will shuffle some of the $7.8 billion that Bush requested for missile defense in the next fiscal year among other missile projects. But lawmakers are expected to give Bush the full amount he sought, and these bookkeeping changes will pose no obstacle to the Bush administration’s top priority: deployment as quickly as possible of a rudimentary defense against a potential attack from North Korea. “They want to spend a lot of money and they want to have something on the ground by 2004,” says Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization that doubts whether the program can work. “If that’s winning the missile defense debate, they won.”
The changed political environment also has persuaded many Democrats to abandon their usual strategy - dating to the Reagan administration - of delaying enactment of the defense appropriations bill until Republicans agree to increase funds for domestic programs. This year, citing the war on terrorism, Bush and the Republican leadership have demanded repeatedly that Congress put the defense bill at the top of the appropriations list. House Democrats agreed, making the defense spending bill (HR 5010), and a separate bill that would fund military construction (HR 5011), the first two appropriations bills the House passed. The Democratically controlled Senate also moved expeditiously, passing its version of the defense bill Aug. 1. (CQ Weekly, p. 2131) Now, Republicans are demanding early action to complete a defense appropriations conference report, and House Democrats again may be willing to comply. This tug of war predates the current dispute over when the House will consider the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill (HR 5320). (Appropriations, p. 2298)
“The American people are not going to like it if they see the Congress playing politics with the defense bill when we’re at war,” Bush said Sept. 5 during a speech in Louisville, Ky. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, played down the timing question. “I’m not convinced any of that makes much difference. I don’t much care when defense goes,” he said. But others argue that the Democrats have little choice in the matter if Bush forces the issue. “This may be a situation where we have to do defense first,” says Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. While the political climate has given Bush an advantage on defense issues, it has not given him carte blanche. Critics of the missile defense program promise to continue close scrutiny of projects on technical and budgetary grounds, an approach that some defense specialists of both parties already are pursuing. Another contentious issue facing conferees on the defense authorization bill (HR 4546) pits a broad bipartisan coalition against the administration over liberalizing disability payments to military retirees. The White House strongly opposes this congressional initiative, largely based on its cost.
Some key Democrats may not be ready to drop the political leverage of holding the defense spending bill until domestic spending measures pass. When the House deferred a scheduled Sept. 5 vote to appoint conferees on the defense bill because the required Senate paperwork did not show up, House Appropriations Committee Chairman C. W. Bill Young, R-Fla., suggested that his counterpart, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., was stalling. “His plan has been to hold the defense bill until the end,” Young said. But a Senate committee spokesman said there was no deliberate effort to delay the bill. Instead, he said, aides had not had a chance to work on the bill during the August recess and had not had time to file the Senate bill until after the end of House business Sept. 5. In any case, Republicans insist that broader political forces are on their side. “There has been a significant shift since Sept. 11 because the public is very supportive of defense,” House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said Sept. 4. Committee staff aides have been informally discussing some of the less contentious of the hundreds of issues on which the House and Senate are at odds. However, before the conferees can make much headway on the major issues, they will have to settle the question of how much money to spend.
For the appropriations conferees, the issue is a $9 billion dispute between the House and Senate over the total amount that Congress will appropriate - and Bush will accept - for discretionary spending in fiscal 2003. The Senate versions of the 13 appropriations bills would provide $768 billion - $9 billion more than the $759 billion that Bush has set as the spending ceiling for fiscal 2003. (Appropriations, p. 2298) As for the defense bills, the House and Senate are not far apart. The Senate version would provide $355.4 billion - $693 million more than the House version. But much of the Pentagon’s budget is locked into fixed expenses and major programs. A difference of several hundred million dollars, while only a small fraction of the total, represents a significant amount that the committees will have to cover for members’ additional projects. Moreover, if Bush forces the Senate to accept the lower discretionary spending total, there could be strong pressure to siphon money from defense to pay for domestic programs.
For conferees on the authorization bill, Bush’s request for a $10 billion contingency fund to pay for future counterterrorism operations adds to the uncertainty over how much to allocate for defense.
The Senate version of the authorization bill would provide the $10 billion as a lump sum, as Bush requested. But the House measure would authorize the fund in a separate bill (HR 4547) that earmarked $3.3 billion for costs that members of the House Armed Services Committee insisted were a result of the war on terrorism and thus should come from the fund. By shifting those costs to the contingency fund, the House thus freed up $3.3 billion within its version of the authorization bill to pay for congressional initiatives.
Further complicating conferees’ work on the authorization bill is the fact that, in drafting the Senate bill, the Armed Services Committee made more than $1 billion in across-the-board cuts to make room for members’ add-ons. Among those reductions were $850 million intended to reduce the amount spent on consultants and $400 million in cuts for information technology.
In 2001, before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Senate Democrats had launched a broad effort to rein in Bush’s missile defense program. Over vehement opposition from the Republican minority, the Senate Armed Services Committee drafted a fiscal 2002 defense authorization bill that would have slashed $1.3 billion from Bush’s $8.3 billion missile defense request and would have required congressional approval for any missile flight test that would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. (2001 Almanac, p. 7-3) After the attacks, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., dropped those proposals to avoid a divisive, partisan battle on a major defense issue while the country was girding for war. But Democratic critics of Bush’s missile defense initiative insisted they were only delaying their challenge, not abandoning it.
Indeed, they argued, the terrorist attacks had vindicated their argument that Bush was spending too much money and concentrating too much effort on defending against a ballistic missile attack when it would be easier for terrorists and rogue states to strike the United States with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons delivered by less sophisticated means. “All of us now know that there’s a much greater likelihood of [a weapon being delivered in] a container on a ship pulling up to a pier at 2 mph,” said Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., a member of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. By June, however, when the Senate took up the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill, Bush had withdrawn from the ABM Treaty at no political cost, and it was clear that a Democratic effort to slice $814 million from Bush’s $7.8 billion missile defense request would fail, so the effort was abandoned. “It’s not easy to figure out how you rejoin this issue,” Dorgan said. “It’s a difficult time. We’re at war.”
On the other hand, Dorgan and other critics say the administration itself may be reassessing the relative importance of the ballistic missile threat compared with other menaces. “You hear less about national missile defense and more about other homeland security issues which, I hope, over time will lead us to a more centered position,” Dorgan said. In the authorization conference, Democrats are digging in to support Senate provisions that would require the Pentagon to continue setting cost estimates, performance goals and schedules for missile defense programs. Critics say decisions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to streamline administration of the programs would have eliminated some of the data that Congress needs in order to keep tabs on those programs. (CQ Weekly, p. 2064)
On the authorization bill, Bush faces a bipartisan effort - backed by intense lobbying from dozens of veterans organizations - to end or liberalize a more than century-old law under which the pensions of disabled military retirees are reduced dollar for dollar to offset their disability payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Senate bill would eliminate the ban on “concurrent receipt,” which currently affects about 700,000 retirees. The House bill would phase out the limitation over five years for about 90,000 of the most severely disabled retirees. Administration officials have threatened to veto any bill that repeals the current law, insisting that the cost would be prohibitive at $78 billion over 10 years. (CQ Weekly, p. 1681) But many lawmakers and lobbyists are betting that Bush would not veto a defense bill over a veterans’ provision, given their political clout and the fact that 90 percent of the House and 83 percent of the Senate have cosponsored legislation to liberalize the restriction. “With 90 percent co-sponsorship, our members expect concurrent receipt to be addressed,” said Steven P. Strobridge of The Retired Officers Association.
DOD SAYS SENATE CUTS WILL GUT SEA-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE, Inside Missile Defense, September 18, 2002. A proposed $40 million cut to the Pentagon’s sea-based missile defense program, coupled with an $80 million spending shift recommended by Senate appropriators, would have devastating consequences for the Missile Defense Agency and Navy effort, the Defense Department told Congress last week. The proposed moves would also place a U.S.-Japanese cooperative project on “life support” and could force up to 400 layoffs of engineers not tied to ship-based radar work, DOD said . . . “The Senate reduction will delay deployment of any capability to the fleet with no commensurate lessening of the threat,” DOD said . . . The Senate also made a cut of $95 million -- the total amount requested -- to the midcourse defense common system engineering and integration project . . . If the Senate’s cut is sustained, the move will cripple two separate projects: a counter-countermeasures effort and the Complementary Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle, which may produce a kill vehicle for both the ground- and sea-based programs, DOD said . . . DOD also told conferees the Senate’s proposed $43 million cut to the Space Based Infrared System Low program would “result in a three- to five-month delay of the currently planned first satellite launches.”
SENATE PUTS PRESSURE ON PENTAGON TO TEST PAC-3 AGAINST REAL SCUDS, Defense Daily, September 19, 2002. Senate defense authorizers are pushing the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Army to test the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) against actual Scud targets before fielding the system to protect U.S. troops and allies, particularly if the U.S. takes action against Iraq. MDA, however, insists tests of the Lockheed Martin built PAC-3 against actual Scuds cannot be done at this time because of environmental safety concerns associated with flying Scuds at the available test ranges. The Senate defense authorizers in a classified annex to their version of the FY ‘03 defense bill included $30 million for the MDA to test the PAC-3 against Scud rockets, industry and congressional aides told Defense Daily. The Senate authorizers specifically want to see the PAC-3’s performance against a Scud prior to any possible use in the Persian Gulf as the situation with Iraq heats up . . . MDA to date has not flown the PAC-3 against an actual Scud target. While MDA officials said they not opposed to including Scuds in future tests, they contend they cannot conduct those tests at this time due to due to test range safety concerns at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. “The PAC-3 flight test program may utilize Scud targets in the future, but current range safety restrictions at White Sands Missile Range do not allow for the launch of longer-range Scud targets for safety reasons,” MDA spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Rich Lehner told Defense Daily.
PENTAGON LETTER PROTESTS SENATE’S BUDGET CUT PROPOSALS, DefenseNews.com, September 18, 2002. The U.S. Defense Department is protesting a number of proposed funding cuts by Senate lawmakers to missile defense research and development projects included in President George W. Bush’s 2003 defense budget request. In these so-called heartburn letters outlining its position on the 2003 defense appropriations bill, the Pentagon protested Senate changes to the Ballistic Missile Defense Technology program. While senators increased the request from $121.8 million to $145.5 million, they directed that $81.3 million of the funds be spent on 15 special interest projects “that are not an integral part of the Missile Defense Agency’s technology program,” according to the Sept. 12 Pentagon document. The move would eliminate advanced technology development programs required for future ballistic missile defense capabilities and affordability improvements, the document states . . . The Senate zeroed the Midcourse Defense Segment Common Systems Engineering and Integration program with a reduction of $95 million. The cut would delay or eliminate missile defense developments against emerging threats and increasingly advanced countermeasures, according to the appeal.
STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE POTENTIALS REDUCTION TREATY TO BE DISCUSSED, TASS, September 19, 2002. The first meeting of the Russo-American Consultative group on strategic security will be held in Washington on September 20. Heads of the Russian and US foreign policy agencies Igor Ivanov and Colin Powell, as well as chiefs of the defence agencies of the two countries Sergei Ivanov and Donald Rumsfeld will take part in the meeting of the Consultative group, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko announced here on Thursday . . . Yakovenko said it is planned to discuss questions related to the treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive potentials, the problem of anti-missile defence, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and regional problems. He said the Russian side expects that regular meetings of the Consultative group “will become an important channel for a trusting dialogue between Russia and the United States and aimed for a more effective implementation of the arrangements reached between the two countries at the summit level.”
CSIS ANNOUNCES U.S. UNIFIED KOREA POLICY, Chosun Ilbo, September 19, 2002. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) announced Thursday a report titled “Blueprint for US Policy in a Unified Korea” compiled by a research team of Korean and American specialists on the Korean peninsula. The team analyzed aspects of a unified Korea based on various unification scenarios, then researched desirable US policies for their analysis . . . [The report said] The US must expand the application limits of the mutual defense treaty in order to focus on the maintenance of peace and security in the East Asian region. The US must also encourage Unified Korea to join the missile defense network within East Asia and provide nuclear umbrellas to Unified Korea and Japan in order to prevent an arms race in the East Asian region. The US must supply large-scale aid to Unified Korea to support its efforts to rebuild its politics and economy. The US should initiate the development of small-scale multilateral talks among East Asian countries after unification of the Korean peninsula.
U.S. SUPPORT FOR TAIWAN STILL STRONG, Taipei Times, September 19, 2002. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks allowed China an opportunity to mend its relations with the US, which had deteriorated over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and the EP-3 incident. Chinese President Jiang Zemin has met twice with his U.S. counterpart, George W. Bush, and Hu Jin-tao’s visit to the U.S. also went smoothly, building direct contact between the high-level leaders . . . However, the continuing improvement in U.S.-Russian relations will limit China’s chances of building an anti-US alliance with Russia. It will also make Beijing an even more lonely opponent to the U.S.’ missile defense program. The Bush administration is hastening the deployment of the missile defense system and views it as a powerful weapon for countering terrorism, possible regional hegemonies and the proliferation of “weapons of mass destruction.” Even though Beijing has promised not to export missile technologies, it will still increase the accuracy and number of its missiles in order to deal with the impact of aggressive U.S. testing of the missile defense system . . . Even though Bush “does not support Taiwan independence,” he lists Taiwan as a “good friend” of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region. He has also made it clear that “America will remember our commitments to the people of Taiwan. And to help protect the people of this region, and our friends and allies in every region, we will press on with an effective program of missile defenses.”
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
BUSH TO OUTLINE DOCTRINE OF STRIKING FOES FIRST, The New York Times, September 20, 2002. On Friday, the Bush administration will publish its first comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. The strategy document will also state, for the first time, that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the cold war. In the 33-page document, Mr. Bush also seeks to answer the critics of growing American muscle-flexing by insisting that the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage “free and open societies,” rather than seek “unilateral advantage” . . . The document, titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States,” is one that every president is required to submit to Congress . . .It sketches out a far more muscular and sometimes aggressive approach to national security than any since the Reagan era. It includes the discounting of most nonproliferation treaties in favor of a doctrine of “counterproliferation,” a reference to everything from missile defense to forcibly dismantling weapons or their components . . . The new document . . . celebrates his decision last year to abandon the ABM treaty because it impeded American efforts to build a missile defense system.
MDA’S HIGH-ALTITUDE AIRSHIP DEMONSTRATOR TO HAVE MULTIPLE MISSIONS, Inside the Army, September 16, 2002. Missile Defense Agency officials are preparing to launch an advanced concept technology demonstration of a high-altitude airship that could play a role in both homeland and missile defense. This concept – approved in July as a fiscal year 2003 ACTD – has piqued the interest of a number of players with the Defense Department and enjoys joint funding from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Missile Defense Agency, the Army, ad the North American Aerospace Defense Command, an MDA official said in an interview with ITA last week. “In classic ACTD fashion, there are several different organization that have similar enough needs to justify this ACTD,” the official said . . . Designed to fly unmanned and un-tethered at an altitude of about 72,00 feet, the airship will consist of the structural platform itself as well as a sensor payload, the makeup of which will depend on user requirements . . . Potential missions for the airship involve relaying early launch information to ground air defense systems about ballistic and cruise missile threats in various locations around the world.
TOP GENERAL SAYS RUSSIA MAY COOPERATE WITH UNITED STATES ON MISSILE DEFENSE, Associated Press, September 18, 2002. A top Russian military official said Wednesday that Moscow was ready to cooperate with Washington on building a shield against ballistic missiles. [Yuri Baluyevsky, first deputy chief of the Russian General Staff], who was accompanying Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov heading to Washington, said that Russia and the United States would make sure that any data on missile defense they may exchange “never get into the hands of third nations.” He added such cooperation may help Russia develop technologies in which the United States has an edge, while some Russian know-how may advance U.S. works in the field. At the same time, Baluyevsky expressed skeptisicm about the U.S. ability to build reliable defenses against ballistic missiles. “I don’t think a strategic missile defense system capable of intercepting at least a separate nuclear warhead with a 100-percent guarantee can be created before 2010-2015,” Baluyevsky said. Baluyevsky said that the United States was struggling with “fundamental technical problems” while trying to develop such system, such as “direct interception of targets and selection of targets, that is identifying the actual warhead from fake ones.”
BOEING TO GET FOLLOW-ON WORK FOR COMMON MISSILE INTERCEPTOR, Inside Missile Defense, September 18, 2002. The Missile Defense Agency announced last week that Boeing will get additional work under a contract it has to develop a common kill vehicle that could be used on both sea-based and ground-based missile defense interceptors. Called the Complementary Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle, the program “will use the latest technology to provide improved counter-countermeasure performance that: exploits all available information; incorporates new active and passive sensor technologies; introduces new fusion and discrimination algorithms; and balances load between on-board and off-board sensors and processors,” according to a Federal Business Opportunities notice posted by MDA . . . In June, MDA Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told reporters what the agency finds so attractive about a complementary EKV. “Given that we no longer have the constraints of the [1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile] treaty and the way the services have put together operational requirements documents that kind of isolate these systems, I think it is now possible to think and actively pursue commonality that makes sense and a common interceptor with a common type of kill vehicle,” he said. “As much as practical, given the basic modes differences here, [it] makes a lot of sense and we’re going to spend a lot of time working on it.”
LOCKHEED AWARDED $2 BILLION SBIRS HIGH CONTRACT MODIFICATION, Inside Missile Defense, September 18, 2002. The Air Force announced last week that Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $2 billion contract modification for a troubled space-based missile-warning program key to the Bush administration’s plan for missile defenses capable of protecting the United States . . . The newly released funds are needed to restructure the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the Space Based Infrared Sensor High program, according to a Defense Department announcement. Key to the restructuring is the elimination of the Total System Performance Responsibility clause, which allowed prime contractor Lockheed Martin to weigh certain requirements against costs.
FOCUSING THE MISSILE DEFENSE EFFORT, Washington Times, September 20, 2002. The recently reported recommendation of the Defense Science Board to narrow the focus of the administration’s approach to ballistic missile defense is right on target. The national missile defense program has suffered since its inception from being spread too thin, trying to develop all kinds of technologies. As a result, the program has lacked a clear focus on the primary goal of deploying a defense of the nation . . . The goal is to put operational defenses in place. The midcourse missile defense being built in Alaska should advance from a test facility with five interceptors to a deployed national missile defense with 100 or more. And the work needed to give sea-based defenses at least some continental defense capability should be accelerated. Other technologies that are far in the future, such as a space-based laser, would better be deferred to allow available funds to be spent on things that can be deployed in the next few years. What the missile defense program needs now is an architecture with clear objectives for the companies and engineers working on various parts of the effort. The architecture should integrate and focus their work on the goal of a deployed missile defense for the nation that can be grown into a worldwide missile defense network . . . What is most important is to get something deployed that can protect the country as soon as possible, but which can be improved and enhanced in the future. James T. Hackett is a contributing writer to The Washington Times based in San Diego.