What you need to know about missile defense: we're not there yet

Missile defence needs such capabilities to stay ahead of our enemies' game.

Question: Are we really at risk of missile attack?

Yes. Millions of Americans are at risk of attack from a growing number of states as well as non-state terrorist organizations. Today, there are nine states in the once-exclusive nuclear club, and Iran--with its hostile regime and its long record of supporting terrorists--is knocking at the door. Moreover, there are growing concerns that anti-American Islamist radicals in Pakistan might seize control of the government and its nuclear weapons.

In addition, 28 countries have ballistic missile capabilities. Some, with help from other states, are rapidly improving their arsenals. China has shown that it is capable of targeting U.S. satellites with ballistic missiles, destructive lasers, and EMP warheads. North Korea has over 1,000 missiles and is selling missiles and technology to other countries. It has tested over 25 missiles with ranges of up to 1,200 miles that could hit South Korea and Japan. It is working on a Taepodong-2 with a range of 3,000 to 3,700 miles that could one day hit Alaska and some parts of Hawaii if it functioned at its full capacity. As this paper is being written, many in Washington worry that North Korea may launch a long-range missile toward Hawaii on July 4th.

We know that Iran is one of North Korea's biggest customers for long-range ballistic missile technology. Tehran, which has tested over 35 missiles since 1998, has one of the largest ballistic missile inventories in the Middle East. Its last successful test this past May was of a multiple-stage surface-to-surface missile that could not only target Israel, but also reach parts of Europe. The U.S. Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center recently predicted that, at this pace and with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be able to threaten the United States with a missile strike by 2015. It also is test-launching missiles vertically from ships in harbors, suggesting that it might try to detonate a weapon in space to cause a destructive EMP attack.

The threat of an EMP attack is worrisome. As the EMP Commission reported in 2004, some countries "employ EMP as the primary or sole means of attack. Indeed, as recently as May 1999, during the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, high-ranking members of the Russian Duma, meeting with a U.S. congressional delegation to discuss the Balkans conflict, raised the specter of a Russian EMP attack that would paralyze the United States." The commission also has pointed out that, because the U.S. is so heavily dependent on electronics and modern technology, EMP attacks may be more appealing to terrorists and state actors who possess relatively unsophisticated missiles. The need to be able to shoot down any ballistic missile that threatens America or its allies is vital and increasing rapidly.

Question: What missile defences do we still need?

The U.S. Constitution obligates the President and Congress to provide for the common defence. To fully protect America and its allies from missile attack, we need to continue expanding and restore and fully fund the Missile defence Agency's budget. We need to continue improving our current ground-based, sea-based, and air-based capabilities. And we need to invest in current and future space-based technologies such as STSS and directed-energy weapons such as ABLs.

To protect our allies in Europe against Iran's long-range missiles, the Administration should fully implement our 2008 agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland as soon as their parliaments ratify them. We should also consider additional foreign sites for missile defence deployments to protect our allies, which would require additional funding from Congress.

Question: Do missile defences really work?

Those who want to constrain missile defence spending until we can prove that systems "work" are implying that they do not now work. This is wrong. Since the December 2002 decision to pursue missile defence, the U.S. military has had a 97 percent testing success record. Of its 38 complete tests of current ground-based, sea-based, and air-based defensive systems, only one resulted in a "miss." In 2008, we tested the system in a real-world scenario: We destroyed a malfunctioning satellite in space before it could come crashing down to earth.

Missile defence not only works, but works well. Our "hit-to-kill" systems using non-explosive interceptors can hit a missile within inches of where they are aimed. According to General "Trey" Obering, "we've gotten beyond being able to hit a bullet with a bullet. We are now able to hit a spot on a bullet with a bullet."