Disarming America
Obama's plan to make America less safe
By CHRISTOPHER JONES
October 2008
In a campaign advertisement widely circulated on the Internet, Barack Obama appears seated in front of an American flag and expounds upon his plans for the future of the American military. Pledging to “end misguided defense policies,” Obama gives his boilerplate promise to end the war in Iraq. He then delivers a long list of military programs that he wishes to eliminate, including most modernization programs for the U.S. Army, unmanned vehicles, missile defense, nuclear weapons and space-based weapons. Not once does he propose a program to modernize or strengthen the U.S. military. It’s little wonder this video is primarily being circulated unedited by anti-Obama groups. It’s an amazing self-indictment of Obama’s dangerous ideas about defense policy.
Obama has supported cutting funding for “unproven missile defense systems.” His campaign website states that “past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective.” This blanket statement overlooks the fact that there are many layers and methods of missile defense, and most systems are already operational.
Obama ignores the reality that the United States already fields several missile defense systems that have been proven both in tests and in combat. Missile defense is divided into three segments based on the point in the missile’s flight path that is being targeted. The first segment is the Boost Defense Segment, which occurs right after takeoff. At this point, a missile is fighting against earth’s gravity and is at the slowest speeds of its flight trajectory, making it vulnerable. The challenges of hitting a missile at this stage are very short warning times and the long range required to hit it when still over enemy territory.
The second segment is the Midcourse Defense Segment, which occurs as the missile reaches apogee and begins its descent towards its target. Hitting a missile in this phase requires long range and precise targeting over long distances.
The third and final segment is called the Terminal Defense Segment, which occurs after the missile reaches apogee and begins its descent towards its target. This segment has the longest warning time, but the target is traveling at the highest speed. A full missile defense system will target all three phases to provide a layered defense in case a missile gets through the first or second layers. The U.S. military currently has no system targeting the boost phase of a missile launch but is developing two systems to serve as a first line of defense: a ground-based high speed missile and an aircraft-based laser.
The United States currently fields two mid-course defense systems: the Ground Based Interceptor system and the SM-3AEGIS ship-launched missile. The SM-3 is based on the SM-2 Standard surface to air missile which has been used by the U.S. Navy since the 1960s. According to the website GlobalSecurity.org, the SM-3 missile has successfully intercepted its target in 11 out of 12 tests, and in February 2008 a SM-3 missile successfully shot down a malfunctioning spy satellite.
The Ground Based Interceptor is a “kill vehicle” which intercepts a long range missile in space and destroys it by using the kinetic energy of the impact. The kill vehicle is launched on top of a large missile based in a silo. The system was first tested successfully in 1999, and despite some early setbacks has achieved nine successes in 15 tests. Of the six failures, three failed because the already proven technology of the interceptor rocket failed to launch, and only three failed through fault of the kill vehicle. The system was declared operational in 2006.
The best known terminal defense system is the Patriot missile. Made famous in the 1991 Gulf War despite never scoring a hit against an Iraqi missile, the Patriot was upgraded to the PAC-2 and PAC-3 variants in the 1990s. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Patriot PAC-2 destroyed all nine missiles it intercepted, and according to GlobalSecurity.org the PAC-3 missile has achieved a 90 percent success rate during tests.
A second system with longer range, the Theater High Altitude Air Defense system (THAAD), passed its final testing phase with flying colors earlier this year and has been declared operational. What all this shows is that Obama is stuck in the debate of the 2000 election rather than the debate of 2008. Rather than being an unproven and unfeasible system with myriad test failures, most missile defense systems are a proven and working reality.
The remaining area to solve is that of the boost segment systems, which are still several years from being fielded. Completion of these systems will give the United States a three-tiered layer of defense against the threat of a missile attack from a rogue nation such as Iran or North Korea. Cancellation of these systems will leave the United States without a robust missile defense capability.
Obama has pledged to “not weaponize space,” and his campaign website calls for a worldwide ban on anti-satellite weapons. This is obviously aimed at China’s test of an anti-satellite missile in January 2007. This is attempting to put the genie back in the bottle; once something has been invented, it cannot be un-invented. What’s more, military innovation has driven technological invention throughout history, and the space race was no different. The truth is, space is already weaponized and will be as much as is militarily feasible.
The space race was driven by the development of long-range missiles for military purposes. Today the American military relies on satellites for communications, photographic intelligence, electronic spying, navigation and guiding munitions. Given the American reliance on military satellites, it is not surprising that other countries wish to develop anti-satellite missile systems. Countries such as China, whose armed forces have less reliance on satellite systems, would have little reason to agree to a mutual ban on anti-satellite weapons. The true solution is not in futile attempts to convince another side to cede the position of military strength, but in developing countermeasures to protect our military’s vulnerable space-based assets.
Obama’s calls for the elimination of programs are not limited to missile defense and space-based weapons. Despite stating that he wants to provide our troops “with the first-rate equipment, armor, training and incentives they deserve,” he has also called for slowing the development of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program. Future Combat Systems is an umbrella for every current modernization program of the United States Army, consisting of four main components: new manned ground vehicles, new unmanned ground and air vehicles, the Future Force Warrior infantry combat system and the FCS Network. The manned vehicle component of the FCS program involves developing a family of tracked vehicles which are far lighter and more easily transportable than existing tanks and armored vehicles. These vehicles will have around 70-80 percent commonality in parts, making maintenance easier and less expensive. They are all expected to weigh less than 20 tons, making them air transportable by a C-130 aircraft. Currently, a Stryker Mobile Gun System weighs 20.5 tons, an M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle weighs 25 tons and an M109 self-propelled artillery piece weighs 27.5 tons. These vehicles can be flown only one at a time on the largest cargo aircraft, so in order to be moved in large numbers they must travel by ship. The FCS manned vehicles will mean that the military will be able to respond more rapidly to crises around the world by transporting a sizeable armored force by air.
Several types of robotic ground and air vehicles are being developed, including a large wheeled vehicle for reconnaissance missions, backpack-portable remote controlled aircraft and small remote controlled systems weighing less than 30 pounds, which can be carried by a single soldier. Early versions of such systems have been used for scouting and explosives disposal in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have undoubtedly saved many soldiers’ lives.
The Future Force Warrior infantry combat system is the successor to the Land Warrior program of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It aims to provide a comprehensive upgrade of the individual soldier’s fighting capabilities. Soldiers will be equipped with “smart” uniforms that monitor vital signs such as heart rate, body temperature and blood pressure and provide this information to medics through a networked system. Night vision and thermal sensors will be integrated with the soldier’s helmet rather than carrying around bulky goggles. Uniforms will have their own climate-control system for extremely hot or cold environments. Unmanned ground vehicles will accompany infantry squads to carry equipment and provide recharging stations for batteries.
The most important part of the FCS program is the backbone of the entire program: the FCS Network. This system represents a wholesale leap in the way war is fought. It will integrate all military communications in a single decentralized computer network, linking every unit to every other unit with no central hubs that can be destroyed by the enemy. Commanders will be able to know where all their men are at any given time and give orders accordingly. Medics will be able to view information about wounded soldiers as they are en route to give aid. Tank commanders will know where all friendly units are in their area, preventing friendly fire incidents.
This is part of the U. S. Military’s 21st century doctrine of “network-centric warfare,” which seeks to use distributed network communications to gain an informational edge on the enemy and use it against them. Obama’s plan to scale back the Future Combat Systems program will not only hobble the Army’s modernization, it will hamstring its application of the latest advances in military doctrine and leave our military stuck in the 1990s, unable to take advantage of the latest technology.
Opposing the development of new weapons systems is one thing, but reducing current capabilities is another matter entirely. Obama wishes to cut America’s existing arsenal of nuclear weapons, as well as ban the production of fissile material, take American nuclear forces off of “hair-trigger” alert in conjunction with Russia and eventually eliminate all stockpiles of nuclear weapons. This is pure naiveté. Once again, once something has been invented, it cannot be un-invented. The proliferation of nuclear weapons cannot be stopped, only slowed. Even if every nation were to eliminate their nuclear stockpiles immediately, the knowledge to build such a weapon would still be in existence.
America’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons have already been drastically cut to 14 missile submarines, 20 B-2 bombers and 450 land-based Minuteman III missiles. Cutting them further threatens to permanently cede nuclear superiority to Russia, and given the recent belligerent attitude of the Russian government and military towards the West, this might not be in the United States’ or the world’s best interest. Balance in nuclear forces prevents one side from acting too aggressively towards the other side, due to the risk of igniting total war and mutual destruction.
Obama believes he can lessen the likelihood of a total nuclear war erupting because of a misunderstanding or accident by taking American and Russian nuclear forces off of “hair-trigger alert.” In fact, “hair-trigger” is somewhat of a misnomer, as firing a nuclear weapon is a complex process requiring launch codes and direct authorization from the president and secretary of defense. Regardless, taking nuclear forces off of high alert would at first glance seem like an excellent way to reduce the risk of total war. What this would actually accomplish is to eliminate the United States’ ability to respond to a nuclear attack.
The only thing that kept the Soviet Union from flattening the United States during the Cold War was the knowledge that as their missiles were detected in flight, American missiles would be launched before the Russian missiles hit their targets. With this capability removed, the United States would be wide open for a first strike attack by any other nation with a nuclear arsenal. Such an attack could destroy dormant nuclear bases in one salvo, leaving the U. S. with no ability to launch a response.
Not all cuts in military procurement are a bad thing. The military has on occasion wasted fantastic sums of money on unfeasible or misdirected projects. For example, in 2005, after years of development, the Army cancelled the XM-8 rifle from the Future Force Warrior program once it became obvious that the weapon was no better than existing M16 rifles.
The problem is when programs are cut wantonly without considering how they will affect our armed forces. Programs such as the Future Combat Systems, which are implementing lessons learned from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and are part of wholesale changes in U. S. military doctrine, are needed in order to maintain our military’s technological superiority.
Obama shows his ignorance of military matters by criticizing missile defense systems, most of which are already operational. He also shows his naiveté by expecting other nations to negotiate themselves to a position of inferiority on space warfare and by offering to give up America’s second-strike capability to respond to a nuclear attack.
These reckless proposals stem from a complete lack of experience in military matters. Obama has never served in the military in any capacity, and throughout his adult life he has not held any position or gained any experience regarding military matters. Hence, it is not surprising that Obama’s defense proposals are both naive and dangerous to America’s national security. Indeed, it is what one would expect.