|
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Riki
Ellison, Chairman and President of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
(MDAA) http://www.missiledefenseadvocacyalliance.org
has developed a White Paper that analyzes the recent missile defense decision
by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The White
Paper states that the protection of our homeland population is a risk we are
facing with the new missile defense plan. Ellison has shared the White Paper
with members of Congress, and it is detailed below: Background On September
17, 2009, President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
unveiled a shift in missile defense policy abandoning the "Third
Site" in Europe, outlining a "new missile defense
architecture" for the protection of Europe primarily focusing on the
development, evolution and deployment of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), which
will be both sea- and land-based. These will protect our forward deployed
troops, friends and allies in Europe from the Iranian short- and medium-range
ballistic missile threat. The "new missile defense architecture"
does not address or replace the protection from Iranian long-range ballistic
missiles that the "Third Site" in Europe would have provided.
Findings
-- This "new missile defense architecture" is a step forward and
will better protect our forward deployed troops, friends and allies. It is a
positive move towards a future global missile defense system that is
adaptable, integrated, interoperable and will offer cost-sharing
opportunities with our allies. -- The "new missile defense
architecture" does not address or replace the protection of the U.S.
Homeland from Iranian long-range ballistic missiles that the "Third
Site" in Europe addressed until 2020 with a nonexistent, untested and
unproven version of the SM-3. -- The "Third site" in Europe was
positioned for long-range ballistic protection for the U.S. Homeland and two
early warning missile defense radars in Thule, Greenland and Fylingdales,
England as the current and future deployed Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) in
Alaska and California are dependent on these two fixed radars sites to
protect the U.S. Homeland from long-range missiles from Iran. -- Due to the
geographic distances from Alaska to the Southeastern and Eastern regions of
the U.S. Homeland, a long-range ballistic missile attack from Iran would not
yield the same protection and multiple-shot doctrine (Look-Shoot-Look) as the
rest of the country now has with the current missile defense system, thus
increasing the risk of success and lowering the confidence of the systems
capability to defend the Eastern and Southeastern regions of our country. --
The proliferation of short- and medium-range missiles from Iran is the main
driver for this "new missile defense architecture." The placement
of short- and medium-range Iranian missiles on sea-based platforms against
the U.S. Homeland needs to be equally addressed as Iran has demonstrated this
capability. -- Iran's successful launch of the Safir space launch vehicle
that placed a satellite in orbit on February 2, 2009 and the Iranian 1,200
mile solid fueled two stage missile launched on May 20, 2009 coupled with
their continued proliferation of short- and medium-range ballistic missile
tests demonstrates their technical proficiency in developing an ICBM. It is
of note that the former U.S.S.R. took six months from its first successful
satellite launch in 1958 to develop an ICBM that could reach the U.S.
Homeland. -- As of yet, there has not been a credible solution or realistic
alternative offered by the President or the Department of Defense to replace
the protection of the U.S. Homeland and the radars in Greenland and England
that the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic would have done, nor has
there been a "hedge" solution introduced against sea-based short-
and medium-range missiles threats against the U.S. Homeland in the announced "new
missile defense architecture." Analysis The White House announced that
it is reshaping American missile defense policy with a stronger emphasis
toward the short- and medium-range missile threat from Iran. This change
entails abandoning plans to build ten Ground-Based Interceptors in Poland and
a long-range radar system in the Czech Republic. Instead, President Obama
proposed implementing a multi-phased plan to create a "new missile
defense architecture." The first phase consists of deploying SM-3 Block
1A missiles, launched from Aegis ships, to Europe while pursing options for
land-based deployment of the same system, "Aegis Ashore." Under the
final phase of the plan, the White House anticipates the deployment of SM-3
Block 2B to Europe by 2020 to have the capability to intercept long-range
ballistic missiles -- eleven years from now. The previous plan to build GBIs
in Europe aimed to protect our European allies, our troops deployed, and most
importantly, our homeland. Because SM-3s are designed to intercept short- and
medium-range missiles, the change from GBIs to SM-3s will provide
insufficient coverage against long-range ballistic missile threats for our
country and the two fixed radars in Greenland and England for the next eleven
years. The new proposal covers the second and third priorities of our missile
defense doctrine as outlined by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Cartwright, protecting our allies and our troops, but it does not
fulfill the first and most important priority, outlined in the plan for
missile defense: "the defense of our homeland." Under the plan, the
SM-3 Block 2B missiles, the plan's solution to long-range missile threats,
are not slated to deploy until 2020 if the technology is proven. Eleven years
without missile protection for the East Coast is too long to put "at
risk" the American public. While MDAA supports the President's vision
for a "new missile defense architecture," we must call attention to
the inadequate protection that the East Coast and Southeast will receive under
this plan and the lack of a missile defense "hedge" for sea-based
short- and medium-range missile threats to our Homeland. The United States
invested tens of billions of dollars over the last seven years to produce
defense against long-range, medium-range and short-range missile threats.
From this labor and the tens of billions of tax dollars spent, the U.S. has
created a technically capable and deployed answer to ballistic missile
threats, but still needs a policy solution from the Obama administration to
provide equal protection for the U.S. Homeland. Riki Ellison is available for
on-the-record interviews about our nation's missile defense program. Call 602
885-1955 to arrange.
|