This week's column

The wrong defense

The late 1980s was a turning point in global security: worldwide defense spending peaked, along with the number of men under arms and arms sales. During these last great years of the Cold War, the Pentagon spent an average of $4 billion annually on missile defense.

That level of spending continued throughout the 1990s, only to double in the Bush-Cheney administration. As leading missile expert Joseph Cirincione notes in the current issue of Foreign Policy, President Bush's current budget request would elevate missile defense spending to roughly $12 billion, "or nearly three times what the United States spent on antimissile systems during any year of the Cold War."

Read on at Scripps Howard.
Read on at KnoxNews.

Once again, I liked the headline I submitted better. It was: Missile threat: not worth the bet.

Update: KnoxNews ran my headline. It was Scripps Howard who changed it ;-)

Comments

[Louis Heberlein]

It is generally accepted that the Star Wars and 'bring back the battleships' type programs of Reagan involved a strategy to use expensive military programs (with little chance of causing war by panic) to finally bankrupt the USSR. As a side benefit, many of the communications, electronic and computer technology found other practical military uses.

Todays constant missile defense and nuke development dialogue and game playing involves Iran. Its current 'leadership' reacted in ways leading to economic difficulty during a time when oil prices are high and Iran has no war or threatening neighbor to suck up its economic resources. Another Tsk Tsk.

[outback71]

What the hell....it's only $12b. Drop in the bucket as far as R&D money goes. I wouldn't get too ramped up over that amount of cash in a 3 Trillion dollar federal budget.

If it fails, the cost is manageable. If it succeeds we have a whole new layer of protecting not just ourselves, but all of the Core nations...especially from non-state actors in the Gap.

[Wiredman]

I believe in keeping our military the best in the world, keeping it a hyper-power, if you will. But, I think we need to get our government spending under control even more. There is no doubt in my mind that each department in the federal government can sustain a 15% cut in expenditures and we would still get more government than we need.

In a time of war, I believe the Defense Department my not have to give up 15% of it's budget, but I'll bet 10% is doable. Then consider other departments could give up a third of their budgets or be eliminated completely, and would could easily reduce government spending by 15%.

If you don't like 15% then pick a number, 5% or 10%. Families, individuals and companies often have to reduce spending by 5% or 10%, is it too much to ask our government to do the same?

[Anonymous]

outback: right. the $12B isn't a problem unless you hold it up against the needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. the Army's breaking itself. we need more transport capability. etc.

Wiredman: nice idea, but bureaucracies and legislatures still find ways to screw it up. take Defense: they'd cut 15% we really do need to save pork or largess somewhere else.

[stuart abrams]

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONSISTS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATION AND IS PROBABLY THE RAVINGS OF A CRACKPOT.Is it possible that the neocons' goal is to make nukes the weapons of the 21st Century? The lesson of the 20th Century is that nukes are not usable. MAD works - the only time nukes were used was when one nation had a monopoly on them.Missile "defense" systems make little sense from a defensive standpoint. In the most optimistic scenarios I have seen, they have a far less than 100% success rate, and they are easily outfoxed by decoys and launches of overwhelming numbers of missiles by an attacker. Since even a few nukes getting through the "defense" can cause catostrophic damage, it is impossible to rely upon missile "defense" systems if your goal is simply to create an effective defense against a nuclear attack. And again, you don't need missile "defense" systems for defensive purposes anyway because MAD works.However, suppose you shift the focus and assume that the country building the missile "defense" system really has the goal of achieving first-strike capability. Now the system makes sense. You could assume that a first strike might knock out 75% of the target's retaliatory capability, and now, your missile "defense" system could actually be successful at eliminating the remaining 25%. A nation having a reasonably effective missile "defense" system could actually achieve first-strike capability and render MAD inoperative.I have always felt that the neocons are not entirely happy with the fact that notwithstanding the power of the American Leviathan force to be able to defeat the military of any other country, that force is still of limited utility if your goal is to achieve unilateral global military dominance, as Iraq has demonstrated. What's the alternative? Make nukes usable.

[Cuffy Meigs]

Yet another successful missile intercept yesterday of this "unproven" system, coinciding with North Korea's decision to throw in the nuke towel.

It was the 29th of 30 successful hit-to-kill intercepts since 2005 --- 97% success rate.