Asked about the chances our ballistic missile defense had to
shoot down the North Korean ICBM launched on July Fourth President
Bush said, “I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting it
down.” He added, “Our anti-ballistic missile systems are modest,
they’re new, they’re new research, we’re testing them. And
so…it’s hard for me to give you a probability of success.” Mr.
Bush — not a big fan of the Keller Kidz’ leakathon — was probably
struggling to remember if that aspect of the ABM system was
classified. He erred, as he should, on the side of protecting
classified information. And so shall we.
But we can say — as open sources have — that our ship-borne
ABM (the “Standard” missile series carried aboard Aegis-equipped
destroyers and cruisers) are rated at .5, while the ground-based
interceptor missiles are rated at .6. Translating from engineering
to English, that means the ship-borne system has a 50-50 chance of
success, and the other has a 60-40 chance. Twenty-three years ago,
Ronald Reagan proclaimed our intent to protect ourselves from the
threat of nuclear missile attack. He said, “Wouldn’t it be better
to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of
demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities
and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting
stability?…Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM
treaty and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our
allies, I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research
and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of
eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles….We
seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only
purpose — one all people share — is to search for ways to reduce
the danger of nuclear war.”
That was March 23, 1983. So why, twenty-three years, three
months and twenty-eight days later, don’t we have a ballistic
missile defense that gives us better than a 60-40 chance to protect
ourselves? Better ask Senator Carl Levin.
Though Teddy hung the “Star Wars” label on it to ridicule it as
science fiction, Levin has been the most dedicated opponent to
ballistic missile defense since President Reagan announced it.
First objecting to its costs, next as a defender of the ABM Treaty
long after the other principal party to it ceased to exist, and
last as a sarcastic unbeliever in its science, Levin has served as
the brilliant general of the liberals determined to leave America
defenseless. Steadfast in opposing any ballistic missile defense,
Levin has thrown roadblock upon roadblock in its path, and slowed
the program from a rush to a crawl.
North Korea has given us a free lesson. The tuition for the kind
of lesson we should learn from its missile launches last week is
usually paid in lives. Before we define what we learned, we must
add a few more data points.
First, North Korea is held more dangerous as a proliferator of
missiles and nuclear weapons than as a direct aggressor. Second,
its nuclear weapons program would not have reached its current
success without the technology delivered by Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan
and the support of Beijing. Third, without our direct intervention,
and that of our allies, North Korea — or, more importantly, anyone
with enough money to buy them from North Korea — will have ICBMs
capable of hitting American and allied targets with nuclear
weapons. Eventually some apocalyptic madman or some dictator
convinced of some worse alternative will launch a nuclear-armed
missile at us. The lesson we must take from the July 4th North
Korean failure is that we must do whatever it takes to finish
developing and deploying a comprehensive ballistic missile defense
because we can no longer live without it.
The title of a July 7th Washington Examiner editorial
asked, “where are [the] Star Wars critics now?” A better question
is, “Where are the missile defense advocates?” They are nowhere to
be seen. Republicans should be pressing for an immediate crash
program to complete development and deployment of a complete,
multi-layered ballistic missile defense system. And, at the same
time, they should be trumpeting the history of Cozy Carl and the
disarmers. But they are, as usual, asleep at the switch. Why all
the pusillanimity?
Two reasons. First, as usual, Republicans have forgotten the
Gipper’s art of argument and politics. Complaisance in power has
numbed the mind. Second, they are scared of the bow wave that is
about to swamp their pork-barrel skiff.
For more than a decade, we haven’t been buying now what we know
we’ll need soon. By 1996, defense experts were forecasting a “bow
wave” of essential spending that would soon swamp the military
budget. Known essentials were ignored during the Great Period of
Neglect (a.k.a. the Clinton glory) and haven’t been bought in the
first six Bush years. Before 9-11, the Pentagon was too preoccupied
with force transformation to battle Congress on accumulating
problems. After 9-11 neither the Pentagon nor the White House has
wanted to get into the zero-sum game of military budgeting that had
lasted through the 1990s. Republican pork-barreling fed on itself,
and the bow wave grew. Just how big is it? If you add up things
like Air Force and Navy aircraft, replacing Navy combatant ships
and other priorities, the number you quickly reach is about half a
trillion dollars. If you add what’s needed to build a real
ballistic missile defense, you can plan on a round trillion over
the next five years.
No one in the Republican Congressional leadership or,
apparently, the White House is willing to wade into the bow wave.
Republicans need to face up to the fact that massive federal
spending cuts are essential to pay for what we need. You can buy
three new tanker aircraft for the money we waste every year on the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Spare me the “he wants to kill
Big Bird” baloney. We need to buy birds that can carry people, fuel
and weapons, not pay the salaries of those that can sing and
spell.
Someone — maybe Sen. Tim Coburn or Rep. Mike Pence — could
take the lead in demanding decisive action on ballistic missile
defense and the budget cuts to pay for it. They, almost alone, have
the budget-cutting credentials to take on their comrades and Carl
Levin too. One source told me yesterday that North Korea is likely
to launch another Taepodong-2C on about July 16th. This one, the
source said, is expected to fly its whole ballistic arc unless U.S.
interceptors destroy it in space. If our defense succeeds, one
lesson will be taught. If it fails, the lesson will be quite
another.
The Dems — especially the Clintonoids — always say their
latest spending boondoggle is “for the children.” Why don’t we hear
them — or any Republicans — say our children deserve to be
defended? As you go to bed next Saturday, night, think about those
60-40 odds.
TAS contributing editor Jed Babbin is the author
of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are
Worse Than You Think (Regnery, 2004) and, with Edward
Timperlake, Showdown: Why China Wants War With the United
States (Regnery, May 2006 — click here to obtain a free chapter).
