CLW Sends Community Letter to House Members on Missile Defense

June 15, 2009

Dear Member of the House Armed Services Committee:

We urge you to oppose amendments offered to the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill to restore funds for missile defense programs that the Pentagon has recommended cutting.

Our authority for supporting these reductions is no less than the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency.

These three military leaders have made it clear that while they support missile defense systems that they suggest enhance American security, they have cut back or terminated programs that are a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the point quite clearly: “I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs that can -- that operate -- in terms of their operational concept are fatally flawed, or research programs that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars.” (House Armed Services Committee, May 13, 2009)

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, describing the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, added: “Decisions to curtail or eliminate a program were based solely on its relevance and on its execution.” (Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, June 9, 2009)

Secretary Gates explained the decision to terminate the second airborne laser plane while using the first plane for continued research: “I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program [airborne laser] should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire.” (House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, May 20, 2009)

Admiral Mullen added: “I'd only say I've been in and out of missile defense since the mid-90s, and we've made a lot of progress on the near-term threats, where this investment goes. The challenges that we have in boost phase, specifically in boost phase, are enormous. I've felt ABL's been a flawed concept for years, quite frankly, because it made no sense, number sorties, and I think the investment there to get at the high energy laser, and that aspect of it, is really critical.” (House Armed Services Committee, May 13, 2009”

The Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, gave clear reasons for his agency’s decision to cut the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program: “The original KEI mission grew from a boost phase only mission to a boost and mid-course mission. The development schedule grew from 5 1/2 years to 12 to 14 years (depending on spirals), program cost grew from $4.6B to $8.9B, and the missile average unit production cost grew from $25M to over $50M per interceptor. Technical issues delayed the first booster flight test date (established in 2007) by over a year and we assess the probability of this flight test occurring this year as very unlikely. Affordability and government requirements growth, not contractor performance, was the main contributor to KEI's execution problems. Given the above and that 15% of the $8.9B worth of work on contract till 2018 has been accomplished, the KEI program was terminated.” (House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, May 21, 2009)

Secretary Gates described the decision to terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle: “Multiple kill vehicle is -- was intended for a much more capable missile threat than is posed by rogue states. It was designed to deal with a more complex threat that would have come potentially from either China or Russia. The reality is, U.S. policy with respect to missile defense under the current administration and under its predecessor was that our missile defense was intended to deal with rogue threats, not a threat from China or Russia. This system, frankly, was incompatible with the policies of both administrations. And that, in addition to various technology and acquisition issues associated with it -- fundamentally, it was contradictory to the policy of both administrations.” (House Armed Services Committee, May 13, 2009)

Secretary Gates clarified the decision to request no additional funds for the proposed third missile defense site in Europe: “We took the money out for the third site in the FY '10 budget because we have enough money left over for this purpose in the '09 budget to be able to cover any potential costs to go ahead and begin construction on both the radars and the interceptors, the radars in the Czech Republic and the interceptors in Poland.” (House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, May 20, 2009)

Finally, Gates gave reason for refusing to add any interceptors for the ground based midcourse missile defense system in Alaska and California: “I think the judgment -- the program, as you suggest, was to grow from the 30 interceptors that we have now, to 44. And the advice that I got is, first of all, that system really is only capable against North Korea, and that 30 interceptors at the level of capability that North Korea has now and is likely to have for some years to come -- 30 interceptors in fact provide a strong defense against North Korea in this respect. And that budget also includes robust funding for continued development and improvement of those ground-based interceptors.” (Senate Armed Services Committee, May 14, 2009)

Bottom line: the missile defense programs that the Administration has trimmed do not affect the United States ability to deal with the nascent Iranian and North Korean long-range ballistic missile efforts, but are instead, as the Secretary of Defense said, “essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars.”

Sincerely,

David Culp
Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Jenefer Ellingston
Delegate
National Green Party

Lt. Gen. (USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr.
Chairman
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

William D. Hartung
Arms and Security Initiative
New America Foundation

Amy Isaacs
National Director
Americans for Democratic Action

John Isaacs
Executive Director
Council for a Livable World

Lorelei Kelly
National Security Program Director
Progressive Caucus Foundation

Daryl Kimball
Executive Director
Arms Control Association

Terri Lodge
Director of Government Affairs
Ploughshares Fund

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee