Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Did Romney Just Endorse Space-Based Weapons?

In his speech on defense and foreign policy at South Carolina’s Citadel Military Academy on October 7, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said: “I will begin reversing the Obama-era missile defense cuts and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic-missile defense system.” If conservatives hold him to this promise, it will be a significant step towards fulfilling the goal of making nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete” that Ronald Reagan laid out in his famous March 1983 “Star Wars” speech.

The key word that Romney pronounced, which heartened missile-defense advocates and almost certainly disturbs the opponents of such defensive systems, is “multilayered.”

Once launched, a long-range missile such as an ICBM creates three basic opportunities for a missile-defense system to knock it out. The first and most important is the “boost phase,” just after launch, when the missile is firing its rocket engines and giving off a large amount of easily detected heat. The second targeting opportunity is the “mid-course phase,” when the missile has deployed its warheads and its decoys. This is the most difficult targeting problem that a defense system must solve. It is also the phase during which our currently deployed interceptors, the ones in Alaska and California, are designed to work. The third and final phase is called the “terminal phase,” when the warhead enters the atmosphere and dives toward its target. This is the second-hardest missile-defense problem to solve, because the warhead may maneuver as it approaches its destination.

A multilayered missile defense will use a variety of different systems to try and kill the missile and its warhead during each of these phases. Obviously, if a missile is caught and destroyed during the first phase of its flight, the result is better for all concerned. During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, this goal led to the so-called Brilliant Pebbles program of space-based heat-seeking interceptors, designed to hit missiles in the boost phase. The program was canceled by Bill Clinton and Les Aspin in 1993. At the time, Aspin reportedly said that he was going to “take the stars out of Star Wars.”

Since then, there have been several efforts to develop a non-space-based boost-phase interceptor system. None of them have been satisfactory, since they all require the interceptor to get as close as possible to the target missile and then chase it after it has been launched. As they used to say in the days of sailing navies, “a stern chase is a long chase.”

From orbit, however, an interceptor does not have to follow its target; instead, it dives onto it. Brilliant Pebbles relied for its effectiveness on the law of gravity, not on having a bigger rocket engine.

George W. Bush never revived Brilliant Pebbles, as the arms-control establishment, liberals in Congress, and the forces of inertia inside the Defense Department successfully blocked any attempt to restart the program. Bush was content to fund the Clinton-designed, ABM Treaty–compliant National Missile Defense mid-course intercept system, which is what we have now. If Romney is elected, and if he is serious about defending the homeland from missile attack, he will have to be ready to spend considerable political capital, as well as time and money, to make it happen.

One promising program, the Miniature Kill Vehicle (MKV), which was intended to be launched in large numbers from the ground, was killed by the Obama administration. But a space-based version of MKVs, which are about the size of a loaf of bread, could make space-based missile defense a reality within the first term of a Romney presidency.

Earlier this year, Rep. Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) persuaded the House Armed Services Committee to allocate $8 million for the Defense Department “to conduct a study examining the technical and operational considerations associated with developing and operating a limited space-based interceptor capability.” It is doubtful that this will survive the legislative process, and even if it did, the forces inside the Pentagon that have long opposed space-based missile defense will fight hard to ensure that the results of the study will be negative. Still, the mere fact that a few gutsy members of Congress have not given up on effective missile defense shows that if Romney wants to fight this fight, he will not be without allies.

Make no mistake: If Mitt Romney is serious about a multilayered national missile defense, he is going to have a major struggle ahead of him. He will have to be prepared to junk Obama’s National Space Policy on January 21, 2013, and will have to fight hard against the arms-control establishment, the liberals, the Russians, the Chinese, and probably also the Europeans. (Officially, the EU is terrified of a so-called and much-hyped “Arms Race in Space.”)

Even before the election, Romney will come under serious pressure to promise not to deploy weapons in space, which means conservatives will have a chance to see how he stands up under liberal assault. This should be interesting.

— Taylor Dinerman is a senior editor at Hudson New York.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   18

EXPAND  

   10/09/11 09:54

Romney is playing Super-Hawk to the Evangelical base as a diversion from his Mormonism and Massachusetts pedigree.

Coincidentally, Romney's "money-is-no-object for Empire" schtick must have the Neocon cabal smiling broadly.

Even though the country is flat broke...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 10:17

This comment just brought about a laugh.

Sort of like reading a recent offering from the once worthy Mr. Hayward who is now sinking bringing Powerline downward - sad to see.

All the stereotypes are played above, "Neocon", "Pedigree",
"Evangelical", "Super-Hawk", etc.

It is all quite amusing, even puts "cabal" in the game for good measure. Really impressive nonsense.

Strong defense is essential, that is why Conservatives embrace it wisely. Reagan's strong National Defense was powerful, successful, and should never be ignored.

Romney just seems to be smart, hardly a "ploy", just common sense - another good sign.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 11:45

Re: "Reagan's strong National Defense was powerful, successful, and should never be ignored.

It's also obsolete, was debt funded and currently unaffordable.

Conservatives may "embrace it wisely", and then get hammered in the general election by the war-weary, (and Empire weary) 80% of everybody else.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Job
   10/09/11 21:26

I agree. There is no need for defense. History proves that everyone will love us if we just "unclench our fist."

Was that Obama or Ron Paul who said that? I forget.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
wpa38
   10/09/11 10:10

None of the older NORAD or the newer Star Wars technology did any good at all on 9/11.

Unless Romney thinks that Putin wants to bring back the Cold War EXACTLY as it was under Brezhnev, this is completely pointless.

But Putin isn't going to do that, because he doesn't need to. America has been committing national suicide since 1989, and Putin doesn't need to speed up our death spiral.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Job
   10/09/11 21:23

Was your goal to write a post in which every sentence was wrong in one way or another?

If so, well done.

PS: I'll bet that a lot of people who died on 9-11 ate right and exercised regularly. They died anyway. Does that mean it is a bad idea to eat right and exercise?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 10:11

Again, more sound offerings from Mr. Romney...

No doubt about it, right now, the best for the job in the field.

Very impressive.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 10:13

Hey, Mitt, Bill Kristol is going to vote for you anyway. You don't have to buy him off with Brilliant Pebbles. Just send him a box of Fruity Pebbles. It's a lot cheaper.

Bizarre.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Quaker on the Moon
   10/09/11 10:32

Mitt will need space based weapons to protect his pizza parlor he plans to put on the moon - yes, Mitten has plans for his Domino's' pizza to be served on the moon.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 10:44

The sensing capabilities necessary to do targeting (SBIRS Low) are years away...SBIRS High is many hundreds of billions in the red and years late. They may get #3 up there soon. The ability to let Isaac Newton help you shoot presumes you have the stereoscopic sensing capabilities. Which we don't. I'm not saying we shouldn't have these capabilities, but there needs to be a more thorough explanation of the costs. The "internal resistance" at the Pentagon often comes from We've Heard it Before staffers who know that the gold plated promises come with a diamond studded price tag...and that what gets delivered fails to live up to the gold plated promises despite pawning grandma's wedding ring. And then there is the schedule.

Oh, and Obama shut down the sensors in Poland that we needed too. Just so we are clear...there is a lot more to this problem than this contributor suggests, and the costs are enormous. Now, I'm sure we will hear the old "how much will it cost to replace LA?" argument. But there are other forms of deterrence. Go read the GAO reports on SBIRS High, and ask yourself whether we can get a Low system done.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Tom
   10/09/11 11:07

"SBIRS High is many hundreds of billions in the red and years late. "

You're half right. SBIRS High is certainly late but the cost overruns are no where near hundreds of billions of dollars. Heck, even with the cost overruns the total project is not even close to $100B. Total costs are expected to be aroubd $10B.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 21:07

Thanks, got a little carried away. I worked AEHF too, which was also billions over budget/schedule (and they almost lost the first one which is drifting slooowly to final altitude with the Hall thrusters).

How much over budget is SBIRS High?

Original cost: $4.1B. Current cost: $10.4B. Our nuclear aircraft carriers (e.g. CVN-76, Ronald Reagan) cost about $4.5B to build...for an aircraft carrier.

SBIRS Low is much harder, and more satellites (about 30, like GPS). The GAO report on SBIRS-Low is typically entertaining fare.
External Link 

A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 11:46

"If conservatives hold him to this promise, it will be a significant step towards fulfilling the goal of making nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete” that Ronald Reagan laid out in his famous March 1983 “Star Wars” speech."

Nonsense. A system that worked effectively would make ICBMs obsolete, not nuclear weapons.

Which would merely promote the development of alternative delivery systems.

Anybody care to discuss nuclear weapons smuggled in via shipping containers, or concealed in ships in our harbors? How about launched via short range surface to surface missiles from 12 miles offshore? Or from subs? Or low-flying cruise missiles? Chicago would probably be safe from such attack, but not Washington, NY or LA.

An ICBM attack allows for something in the vicinity of 30 minutes to react and defend. The "response time" for the attack types I mentioned above varies from zero to probably less than 5 or 10 minutes, a huge difference.

Taking ICBMS out of the equation is probably still a good idea, as their use is the only way to effectively launch a massive first-strike attack in sufficient force to destroy the enemy's capability to retaliate. Which removes much of the incentive for a first strike.

Elimination of ICBMs would probably benefit Russia more than the USA, as the USA's population and infrastructure is located on average MUCH closer to the vulnerable coastline.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
complete curmudgeon
   10/10/11 11:22

What Sherman Logan is saying is simple: Since there are a lot of vectors to this threat, let's not protect against this one in specific.

Even as Iran tests missles and China rattles its sabre.

This is a complex question yet ultimately we have to prioritize our defense spending.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mark Turner
   10/09/11 11:55

"It's also obsolete, was debt funded and currently unaffordable."

...perfect description of the whole Solyndra mess!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
robertjamis
   10/09/11 12:43

What purpose is this ridiculous weapons system supposed to serve? How long do we have to justify these ridiculous, vestigial Cold War measures?

I fail to see why our current military technology is not sufficient to win what is more a war of ideals fought against insurgents using RPG's, IED's, and devices that don't hold a candle to American military technology. Are these satellites going to be responsible for ferreting out sleeper cells?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/09/11 13:44

I'm pretty sure Romney is not serious about this. He just needs to look tough. So, while he is pretty good on fulfilling his campaign promises, this one he will probably break, or at least not try very hard to carry out.

As far as whether or not it's even a good idea, that is a tough question. Getting an orbit based system in place could be done, but it will take a while and a lot of money. Also, designing missiles that can avoid it is also possible, and probably cheaper. And then there is the question of what will happen once the security against global war, that MAD provides, is gone.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/10/11 01:44

Hopefully Romney also understands the importance of modernizing the nuclear weapons enterprise and the triad. We need advanced R&D to remain on the forefront of all things nuclear. The US is also losing expertise and the ability to build ICBMs and SLBMs.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact