November 2, 2007

Missile Defense Makes Sense

By Congressman Joe Pitts

The strange irony is that in the first decade of the 21st century the United States and its allies may be more vulnerable to the threat of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles today than we were during the Cold War.  Though there were certainly serious times of raised tensions, the dry logic of mutually assured destruction kept the major actors in the Cold War from ever actually using nuclear armed ballistic missiles. 

Today, rogue nations and non-state terror organizations operate outside the realm of mutually assured destruction.  A terrorist organization has no territory or population it must protect.  Pariah nations that chronically operate outside the realm of the international community, like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, may not follow the same rational logic that prevented the U.S. and the Soviet Union from launching nuclear missiles.

The United States continues to work on non-proliferation measures to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of countries or groups that might use them against the United States and its allies.  However, the global nuclear arms sales network of A.Q. Khan, of Pakistan, was evidence that nuclear weapons can and have been proliferated into the hands of enemies of the United States.    

It would take just one nuclear warhead to destroy an entire city.  The toll in human lives would be massive and catastrophic.  It is an issue that we should not take lightly.  It is a threat that we must address.

The U.S. Department of Defense began deploying long-range missile interceptors in Alaska and California in 2004.  These interceptors would protect the United States from a long-range missile threat from rogue nations in Asia, such as a launch from North Korea.  The United States has ground-mobile and sea-based systems as well that would combat short-range ballistic missiles.

What is currently missing from a global ballistic missile defense is a system that would protect our strategic interests and allies in Europe.  The threat from a potentially nuclear armed Iran cannot be ignored.  I believe we should continue working toward a diplomatic resolution with Iran over the issue of nuclear weapons.  However, we cannot assume such a resolution will take place, and need to move forward in tandem with a plan to provide defense against a nuclear armed Iran.

When President Bush first proposed a missile defense system based in Eastern Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted with strong opposition.  He even noted the possibility of a new cold war.  However, the system the United States has proposed would not be a deterrent to Russia’s large and advanced nuclear arsenal.  President Bush should continue working with the Russians to address their concerns and stress the effort should be cooperative, rather than combative. 

The most concerning opposition to the plan has actually come from Congress, where $139 million in funding has been cut for missile defense in Europe.  Now is not the time to be reducing our investment in missile defense initiatives.

Some critics in Congress contend that the system will not work.  In fact, the military has successfully used interceptors to shoot down offensive missiles in 28 of 36 tests since 2001 and has conducted 18 successful flight tests out of 19 tries since September 2005.

This is a critical time for moving forward with the deployment of missile defense systems for the United States and our allies.  Despite the best efforts of the United States, we may very well see further nuclear proliferation in the future, not less.  We must prepare for the security risk that will result if countries like Iran obtain nuclear weapons. 

###