For fellow fans of The West Wing like myself, this election season seemed to draw a number of (intentional?) parallels with the show. From the unlikely successful candidacy of a young Congressman (Matt Santos or Barack Obama?) against a veteran Senator…

Katie Mounts and I published this article through MinutemanMedia.org a few weeks ago. Enjoy!

European Missile Defense is a Loser
By Katie Mounts and Travis Sharp
October 15, 2008

The Bush administration has tried for years to build support for a long-range missile defense system in Europe. White House officials claim that the system will protect America’s allies from an Iranian missile attack. Unfortunately, the proposed system is plagued with budgetary, technical, and political problems, and actually poses serious risks to American security.

The Pentagon organization responsible for missile defense, the Missile Defense Agency, estimates the European system will cost $4 billion over the next five years. There is reason to suspect that this estimate is grossly underestimated, however, due to the Agency’s method of building weapons.

This method is known as “spiral development,” a process where development and production unfold simultaneously. It is equivalent to Ford or Chevrolet assembling a new car and letting people drive it around town without first completing engineering blueprints or testing the design. This haphazard approach inevitably results in multiple changes during production. Each time the Pentagon goes back to the drawing board, it costs American taxpayers millions of dollars.

If the only problem with European missile defense was that it was experimental and expensive, perhaps it could still be acceptable. After all, no price is too high to pay in order to protect American lives and those of our allies. The Missile Defense Agency, however, has a very risky secret: The system is based on shaky technical assumptions and is not yet ready for real-life combat scenarios.

The system proposed for deployment in Europe, a two-stage interceptor, has never been tested. The Bush administration claims that since it is based on a three-stage design that previously has been tested (albeit in unrealistic conditions), there is nothing to worry about. Two stages are clearly less than three, so the European design has to work, right?

Not so fast. A 2007 report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the office that verifies the readiness of defense programs, concluded that the effectiveness of the two-stage interceptor “cannot be assumed,” and that at least three flight tests are necessary before the system is deployed.

Moreover, the system currently is unable to overcome decoys designed to distract radar systems such as balloons, debris, or other radar-absorbing materials. A 1999 National Intelligence Estimate determined that any country sophisticated enough to develop a ballistic missile would have the technical means to produce these decoys. In other words, the European missile defense system is unable to do what it was designed to do. This explains why Philip Coyle, former director of the Defense Test and Evaluation Agency, calls the system “a scarecrow defense.”

There are political consequences to building missile defense in Europe. Russia is opposed to the system, believing it is really aimed at Moscow and surrounds Russia with new American weapons and bases. While experts debate whether or not the system would threaten Russia’s nuclear arsenal, the threat of aggressive Russian action in its near-abroad is very real.

Former Russian President Vladimir Putin and current President Dmitri Medvedev have already threatened to respond to the placement of missile defense interceptors in Poland. If Russia’s recent actions in Georgia are any indication, these are not empty threats.

Ignoring Russian objections also may lead to an arms race, elements of which are already developing. Russia has now withdrawn or threatened to withdraw from two key treaties – the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – that have placed a ceiling on nuclear weapons stockpiles since the Cold War.

In December 2009, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is set to expire. Unless a continuation or replacement to this treaty is negotiated soon, the United States could lose the ability to oversee and verify Russian disarmament activities.

Now is not the time for Russia and the United States to stop working together on issues like Iran, terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and energy. There is simply too much at stake in the months and years ahead.

Last week was crazy, so my apologies for not posting this sooner:

OVERALL: 20 wins, 8  losses, 3 undecided.

WINS:
John Adler (NJ-03 – Republican held open  seat)
Jason Altmire (PA-04 – 1st term incumbent)
Kathey Dahlkemper  (PA-03 – upsets Phil English)
Donna Edwards (MD-04  – defeated Al Wynn  in Dem primary)
Bill Foster (IL-14 – won special election for Hastert’s  seat in March)
Alan Grayson (FL-08 – upsets Ric Keller)
John Hall (NY-19  – 1st term incumbent)
Jim Himes (CT-04 – upsets Chris Shays)
Steve Kagen  (WI-08 – 1st term incumbent)
Dan Maffei (NY-25 – open seat race to replace  Jim Walsh (R))
Betsy Markey (CO-04 – upsets Marilyn Musgrave)
Eric Massa  (NY-29 – defeats Randy Kuhl (R))
Patrick Murphy (PA-08 – 1st term  incumbent)
Glenn Nye (VA-02 – upsets Thelma Drake)
Gary Peters (MI-09 –  upsets Joe Knollenberg)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01 – open seat race to replace  Tom Allen)
Joe Sestak (PA-07 – 1st term incumbent)
Carol Shea-Porter  (NH-01 – 1st term incumbent, top Republican target)
Nikki Tsongas (MA-05 –  won special election to replace Meehan last fall)
John Yarmuth (KY-03 – 1st  term incumbent)

LOSSES:
Sam Bennett (PA-15 – loses to Charlie  Dent)
Darcy  Burner (WA-08 – Burner trails conceded over the weekend)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD-01 – lost Republican primary)
Nick Leibham (CA-50)
Ashwin Madia  (MN-03 – loses in open seat race to replace Jim Ramstad (R))
Jon Powers  (NY-26 – defeated in Sept. primary)
Victoria Wulsin (OH-02 – defeated by  Jean Schmidt)
Linda Stender (NJ-07 – open seat race to replace Mike  Ferguson (R))

UNDECIDED
Charlie Brown (CA-04 –  open seat race to replace John Doolittle)
Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15 –  open seat, Kilroy trails Lance by a slim margin)
Tom Perriello (VA-05 – Perriello holds a narrow lead, Rep. Goode may call for a recount)

 

…living in a defense wonk’s paradise. (Cross posted from Iraq Insider) A lot of people think the election of Barack Obama is a gift from above. I wouldn’t disagree with that point of view, although I have a very different reason for feeling excited t…

Cross posted from Iraq Insider Marc Lynch pointed out yesterday that of the 10% of voters who thought Iraq was the most important issue in Tuesday’s presidential election, 59% supported Obama and 39% supported McCain. Now, this statistic may be somewha…