Council for a Livable World

Political action to reduce nuclear threats

  • Elections
    • Senate Candidates
    • House Candidates
    • Political News and Notes
    • Political Analysis
    • Who We’ve Helped Elect
  • Legislation
    • Key National Security Legislation
    • National Security Legislative Calendar
    • Legislative Analysis
    • Legislative Achievements
  • Take Action
    • Issues
    • Join Our Email List
    • Become a Member
  • About
    • Staff
    • Press
    • Newsletter
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Blog / Cruz Amendment Calls for Expanded Missile Defense

May 24, 2016

Cruz Amendment Calls for Expanded Missile Defense

Cruz Amendment Calls for Expanded Missile Defense

 

In the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the annual defense authorization bill, Sen. Ted Cruz successfully offered an amendment designed to change present U.S missile defense policy from defending against “limited” threats by striking the word “limited” – i.e., to permit missile defenses against large scale attacks from Russia and China.

The official U.S. missile defense policy, adopted in a 1999 National Security Presidential Directive, states: “It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).”

Cruz would take out the word “limited.”

In a press release, Senator Cruz boasted that his amendment “removes a flawed statutory constraint on U.S. missile defense policy” that would permit the Pentagon to “consider and plan against the full spectrum of ballistic missile threats.”

However, it makes no sense to expand a missile defense system that remains inadequate to defend against a limited attack from Iran and North Korea.

 

Present missile defense system remains deficient

A February 2016 GAO report concluded, despite extensive testing and decades of trying, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) “has not demonstrated through flight testing that it can defend the U.S. homeland against the current missile defense threat.” In other words, after spending many billions of dollars, the interceptors may work, or may not, but no President of the United States should rely on it.

 

Test results of long-range missile defenses has been spotty

According to the Missile Defense Agency’s generous reckoning, the National Missile Defense system has had nine successful tests out of 17 since 1999. That count includes three misses in the most recent four attempts, showing that the GMD system continues to be unreliable. Moreover, these were highly scripted tests, never tested in an operationally realistic environment, never with a full range of decoys and countermeasures that North Korea or Iran might use, and never tested against an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

 

Attempts to build a limited missile defense system have been expensive; costs of an expanded system could be astronomical

Since World War II, the U.S. has spent approximately $250 billion on all forms of missile defense without coming up with a reliable national missile defense system. To address the new threats incorporated by Sen. Cruz’s amendment would require an expansive, layered missile defense system.  A 2003 study titled “The Full Costs of Ballistic Missile Defense” estimated that the lifetime cost of a layered nationwide missile would be between $1.04 trillion and $1.56 trillion (when adjusted to FY16 dollars).

 

Missile Defense does not deal with terror threats from ISIL and other groups

A trillion dollars spent on missile defense is money not spent addressing the threat of non-state actors or other defense or national priorities.

 

Expanded missile defense could lead to Russia and the U.S. to a destabilizing expansion of their nuclear weapons programs to overcome those defenses.

When faced with a previous proposal from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-NC) to build an expanded missile defense system against Russia and China, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates replied that rendering Russia’s nuclear capability useless “would be enormously destabilizing, not to mention unbelievable expensive.” (May 18, 2010 Senate Foreign Relations hearing).

Posted in: Blog, Legislative Analysis, Uncategorized

Tweets by Livable World

Recent Posts

  • ‘Increases the risk of nuclear escalation’: statement on the NDAA committee approval June 23, 2022
  • Council: Front and Center: June 18, 2022 June 18, 2022
  • Top 11 critical races June 15, 2022
  • House Elections: Democratic and Republican Target Seats June 14, 2022
  • Council: Front and Center: May 21, 2022 May 21, 2022
Council for a Livable World logo

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.543.4100

Elections

  • Meet The Candidates
  • 2020 Senate Candidates
  • 2020 House Candidates
  • Who We’ve Helped Elect

Legislation

  • Key National Security Legislation
  • National Security Legislative Calendar
  • Legislative Achievements

Take Action

  • Issues
  • Join Our Email List
  • Become a Member

About

  • History & Mission
  • Staff
  • Press
  • Newsletter
  • Boards & Experts
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2022 Council for a Livable World
Privacy Policy