Star Wars: The Next Generation
By Mark Paustenbach
The Cold War was in full swing. Both the United States and the Soviet Union were
positioning themselves to be the world's one and only great superpower. In 1983,
one side thought that they had come up with a weapon which would give them the
upper hand in the military realm of this ideological conflict. Obe Ron Kanobi
strapped on his cape, headed up to the podium, and announced his plan to slay
the evil Dark Side, or the Soviet Union with the Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI), known then as "Star Wars." "Star Wars" was to be a multi-layered missile
defense system which would protect the United States in case of an attack by thousands
of Soviet warheads. Since 1983, the U.S. has spent more than $55 billion trying
to make Reagan's dreams a reality. This program, once considered abandoned and
a relic of the Cold War, has found itself once again become the center of national
security. Although in the 1980's Americans argued that "Star Wars" protected the
United States from Russia, now Americans argue that "Star Wars" ("National Missile
Defense" (NMD)) protects the United States from missile attacks by "rogue nations."
In February 1996, the Clinton Administration adopted a program known as "Three
plus Three," with the intention of developing a National Missile Defense. Under
the guidelines of the program, a NMD system would be deployed in 2003 if it can
be proven that the United States is threatened with ballistic missiles by its
enemies. More recently, in May of this year, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded
Boeing, a major defense contractor, a $5.2 billion contract to begin development
of a National Missile Defense. However, this move does not even represent a decision
to deploy the system-only a move to build one. The NMD itself will consist of
one hundred hit to kill anti-ballistic missiles, which will be deployed near Grand
Forks, North Dakota. The system also includes a number of infrared tacking satellites
and ground-based early-warning and tracking radar. The scope of the debate has
widened to the inclusion of ballistic missile defenses protect our ground troops
from short and mid-range ballistic missile attacks. These system are otherwise
known as a Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems. The TMD will most likely use
hit to kill interceptor missiles to destroy incoming warheads. The U.S. Army has
also tested an upper tier or "theater-wide" system for defending larger areas
from intermediate-range missiles. The Theater High Altitude Area Defense or THAAD,
will be a mixture of upper and lower tier defenses, able to block warheads in
their midcourse and terminal phases. They are designed to engage the entire range
of tactical ballistic missile threats. The three different systems described above,
the NMD, the TMD, and the THAAD, have congressional support. In the spring of
1998, Senator Thad Cochran, introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate which would have
required the deployment of a ballistic missile defense system by 2003. The bill
had fifty co-sponsors, but only had fifty-nine supporters, one short to force
a vote on the bill. The TMD and THAAD systems have also received on going political
support since their inception. All of these systems receive strong congressional
support and have continued to receive funding because of unfounded fears about
terrorism and not because of the systems' accuracy. The scud missiles launched
by Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War precipitated the supposed need for a stronger
TMD system. The movement for the creation of a National Missile Defense has been
strengthened by the growing power of so-called rogue nations such as Iraq, Iran
and North Korea. Recent terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies abroad have also made
the case for such a system even stronger. However, none of these systems has lived
up to the lofty expectations set upon them. In May of 1998, Lockheed Martin's
THAAD program failed its fifth straight test. Defense Week has even reported that
the Pentagon has begun the program of terminating the company's contract. The
TMD program has also had a problematic history. Thanks to CNN's Gulf War coverage,
many believe that the Patriot, an original TMD system, succeeded in preventing
hundreds of Scud missiles from hitting Israel. However, a study done by the Congressional
Research Service noted that, based on the Army's own evaluation of methodology
and analysis, it was possible that of the 158 Patriots launched, only one Scud
missile was shot down. An independent study done by MIT researchers Ted Postol
and George Lewis argues that the Patriot destroyed no Iraqi warhead. The National
Missile Defense program received its most damning criticism from a former Air
Force Chief of Staff, Larry Welch. Welch and his Pentagon panel which assessed
the viability of NMD depicted the current proposal to move toward the potential
deployment of the NMD as a "rush to failure." The panel concluded that the plan
was beset with flaws in design, fabrication, management, by preflight testing
deficiencies, and by a lack of strict government oversight. Furthermore, according
to most experts, only China and Russia currently have capability to hit the United
States with long-range ballistic missiles. North Korea, which is often cited as
a "rogue nation" which could seriously threaten the United States with missiles,
is more than a decade away from developing such a program. The North Korean government
will also probably face harsh sanctions by the world community if it continues
to develop its program. Not only does the National Missile Defense seem to have
problems in design and overall usefulness, but it may in fact create an international
relations dilemma for the United States. According to Jack Mendelsohn, the Deputy
Director of the Arms Control Association, there are three potential problems that
missile defense systems pose to continuing talks with regards to nuclear disarmament
programs with Russia. The most important problem pertains to the world's major
nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, and how they would respond to provocation
from other actual or potential nuclear powers with the threat of rapid retaliation.
Because missile defenses are designed to undercut a rival's ability to mount a
credible retaliatory attack, then nuclear powers will not agree to further reduce
their arsenals. Although the world may seem like a much scarier place now that
the Cold War is over and slow, calculated moves by Superpowers no longer occur,
we cannot let our emotions dictate military policy. Although all decisions are
left up to Congress, and ultimately decided upon by the whims of the populace,
we should not increase defense expenditures merely in the face of uncertainty.
The National Missile Defense, as well as its counterparts, should be examined
much more closely when decisions are made to continue its production and deployment.
Unfortunately, the budget proposal just passed by Congress, will allow for approximately
$1.2 billion more to go towards the production of the NMD. Although this is a
move in the wrong direction, as long as the Republicans remain in control of Congress,
these types of policies while continue to be implemented.