Closing Velocity

Video: "Stellar Avenger": Aegis Destroyer USS Hopper Intercepts Missile Off Hawaii

"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what a ship is built for." --- Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, namesake of the US Navy's latest successful missile defense shooter.

Yesterday afternoon, outside the atmosphere 100 miles above Hawaii, an interceptor launched from the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) destroyer USS Hopper(DDG 70) achieved a direct hit on an inbound ballistic missile:

The latest US missile defence test, conducted last night in Hawaii waters, was deemed a success as tensions continue with North Korea over that country's missile programme.

A short-range ballistic missile was fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai and then was shot down by a three-stage interceptor missile from a destroyer, the USS Hopper.

The test, conducted by the Navy and the Department of Defense's Missile Defence Agency, marked the 23rd firing by ships equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system.

With the latest test, there have been 19 successes, including the shooting down of a dead US spy satellite last year.

Joining the Hopper on "Stellar Avenger" were two other Aegis ships, the destroyer USS O'Kane(DDG 77) and the rock star of last year's satellite shootdown, the cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70). Side note: the month before Lake Erie's sat shot, Hopper nearly opened fire on a swarm of Iranian gunboats in the Straits of Hormuz (video). She's a multitasker.

While Hopper gets bragging rights for the intercept, the other Aegis ships got the opportunity to test their own missile defense systems, tracking the target missile, developing firing solutions, and simulating their own intercepts. A second target missile was fired for Lake Erie--- the long-time Aegis BMD testing "flagship" --- to test the newest upgrade to the Aegis system (4.0.1). No intercept was planned for the second target and no interceptors were launched. Here's Hopper popping her target:

"If you do something once, people will call it an accident. If you do it twice, they call it a coincidence. But do it a third time and you've just proven a natural law!" --- Grace Hopper

And what exactly does 19 for 23 mean, my missile defense skeptics? Congrats, crew of the Hopper!

UPDATE (8-1-09): Want to see an Aegis ship up close and personal? Here's your chance, today and tomorrow only in Los Angeles.

Unanimous Senate: Any Missile Defense In Europe Must Also Protect The US

Via The Corner, a very interesting display of political jujitsu:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) lauded the unanimous adoption of his amendment, put forward with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), urging that any U.S. missile defense systems deployed to Europe must be capable of protecting both Europe and the United States.

 

“This unanimous vote by the Senate sends the clear message that it is imperative that we have an effective missile defense program given the threats to America and our allies.  Just one year after the United States signed an agreement to deploy the Ground-Based Midcourse defense system to Poland and the Czech Republic, the Obama administration says that it considers the GMD system just one of several options—some of which cannot protect the U.S homeland,” Lieberman said.  “The Senate today made clear that we will only support alternatives to the current plan that can defend both the United States and our European allies.”

This is a crucial distinction.

 

President Obama and people in his Adminstration like SecDef Gates and Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher have been methodically laying the groundwork to completely abandon Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in Poland. Instead, they're hoping to get by with mobile batteries of THAAD and tactical Aegis BMD ship deployments on Europe's periphery. 

 

Unfortunately, while protecting Europe itself, Euro-based THAAD and Aegis assets have no ability to intercept a long-range ICBM launched from the Middle East towards the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. GMD is the only missile defense asset that can perform that mission --- and Poland is the best place to deploy it:

 

As I've said before, an Iranian ICBM bound for the US must overfly Europe on the way there. That's just the way it is. Blame Sir Isaac Newton.

 

By the time it's over Europe, an ICBM is well beyond the reach of the relatively shorter range THAAD and Aegis shooters. Their smaller interceptors simply cannot reach the ICBM in space over Europe, but GMD's large, silo-based interceptors are designed to do just that. Instead of waiting to the last minute to fire the 3-stage GMD interceptors from Alaska or California --- and have them hauling ass all the way across the continental United States, dropping spent booster stages on hapless Americans below as they streak eastward --- 2-stage GMD interceptors in Poland would allow us a much earlier intercept opportunity.

 

So, back to this Lieberman-Sessions amendment to the defense authorization --- essentially it forces Obama to use GMD in Poland or nothing. Since this is perfectly aligned with why we're putting GMD in Europe in the first place (defense of the US has always been the priority; Euro defense is gravy), it allows no wiggle room. Obama can't say "we'll protect Europe with these other systems," scrap the Polish GMD site, and earn some brownie points with the Russians on START nuclear talks.

 

Unless he vetoes the defense authorization (unlikely), Obama must abide by a unanimous Senate and honor our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic and deploy GMD in Europe. No alternatives.

 

UPDATE: Video of Sen. Sessions speaking about this amendment:

 

.

Defector: North Korea Tests Chemical Weapons On Disabled Children

US airmen during chemical attack drill, Osan Air Base, South Korea

In a sickening report, a North Korean army officer and commando who defected to the South ten years ago finally reveals a monstrous secret --- which many claim is common knowledge in the DPRK:

When Im Chun-yong made his daring escape from North Korea, with a handful of his special forces men, there were many reasons why the North Korean government was intent on stopping them.

They were, after all, part of Kim Jong-il's elite commandos -- privy to a wealth of military secrets and insights into the workings of the reclusive regime.

But among the accounts they carried with them is one of the most shocking yet to emerge -- namely the use of humans, specifically mentally or physically handicapped children, to test North Korea's biological and chemical weapons.

"If you are born mentally or physically deficient, says Im, the government says your best contribution to society... is as a guinea pig for biological and chemical weapons testing."

Even after settling into the relative safety of South Korea, for 10 years Im held on to this secret, saying it was too horrific to recount.

But with Kim's health reportedly failing, and the country appearing increasingly unpredictable, Im felt it was time he spoke out.

Of course, claims of human testing is not new. Popular Mechanics reported on the North's utilitarian use of political prisoners in 2007:

Former prisoner Lee Sun Ok described one such test before the U.S. House Committee on International Relations: "In February 1990, I was asked by the chief guard to follow him to an administration warehouse ... He ordered me to check out six bundles (five pairs in each bundle) of gas masks with rubber gowns, which looked like a sea diver's kit. When I returned to my prison chamber, a total of 150 prisoners, several from each unit, were selected and separated from the other[s]. The selected prisoners were mostly crippled and weak women who had less labor value."

Later, said Lee, "I saw many prisoners lying on the slope of a hill, bleeding from their mouths and motionless, enveloped by strange fumes and surrounded by scores of guards in the gas masks ... I delivered earlier in the morning."

Why are these atrocities being reported here on a missile defense blog?

While many defense analysts are fixated on North Korea's pursuit of nuclear warhead miniaturization, less attention has been given to their other WMDs --- namely chemical and biological weapons. Tipping their intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with nukes is a significant challenge (one report claims they have already achieved this feat). But swapping a standard high explosive SCUD warhead with a cannister of toxins? Easy:

Arms experts say at least 30 per cent of North Korea's missile and artillery systems are capable of delivering such [biological and chemcial] weapons. With each successive test, they warn the North's accuracy improves, and so too its range.

The UN Security Council now says it believes three of the seven missiles tested by the North on July 4 were Scud-ER missiles, which are known to be more accurate and have a range of 1,000km.

Tokyo is roughly 1,160km from the base on North Korea's east coast from where the missiles were fired, while other parts of Japan are closer.

So while it can certainly be more sensational to talk about a nuclear ICBM bearing down on Hawaii, the more immediate --- and fully developed and operational --- threat is the potential for toxic missile attacks on the extremely dense population centers in South Korea and Japan.

UPDATE: Commenter 2Hotel9 found a video report of this story on Al-Jazeera:

UPDATE: Welcome, HotAir (thanks, Ed).

Israeli Arrow II Not Launched In Latest Intercept Test Off CA

Details are sketchy right now, but it appears we have a "D'Oh!"on this joint Israeli-US test:

In a test involving three U.S. missile interceptors, Arrow tracked a target missile dropped from a C-17 aircraft, the Pentagon said in a statement. The Israeli system also exchanged data on the target in real-time with elements of the U.S. missile defense system, the statement said.

"Not all test conditions to launch the Arrow Interceptor were met and it was not launched," the Pentagon said.

The US interceptors "invovled" were a Patriot PAC-3, a THAAD, and the USS Benfold, an Aegis BMD destroyer. It appears that the Israeli Arrow II was the planned shooter and all the other assets were on station to exchange sensor and tracking data, which MDA claims met their objectives, including a simulated intercept by Benfold (PDF of MDA's release here).

Interoperability between our allied systems is very important, so it's not a total wash. I would like to know why the Arrow II stayed in its launcher, though.

5 Years Ago Today: First Alaskan Interceptor Installed

First Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) installed at Fort Greely, AK (2004)

Happy anniversary:

Crews at Fort Greely lowered the 55-foot-long (16.8-meter-long), three-stage interceptor into one of six silos built behind a double perimeter fence reinforced by heavy barbed wire.

“We’re coming to the end of an era where we have not been able to defend our country against long-range ballistic missile attacks,” said Major Gen. John Holly, who heads the ground-based missile defense program for the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency.

Five years ago, we had no capability to protect the United States from a hostile ICBM. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

With Obama gutting this very same ground-based element of our layered defense, our current peace of mind may very well be fleeting.

Cold War Heroes Walesa & Havel Plead To Obama: Don't Give Up Missile Defense

Dissident heroes from the age of the Iron Curtain, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and 20 other Central and Eastern European intellectuals, policymakers and leaders have penned an open letter to President Obama on the perils facing US-NATO relations should he cave to the Russians --- and they should know:

Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant - and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense in some future crises.

...

Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies. A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is essential to our countries. We know from our own historical experience the difference between when the United States stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to "realism" at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle. That was critical during the Cold War and in opening the doors of NATO. Had a "realist" view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream.

With regards to planned European missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, they write:

[T]he thorniest issue may well be America's planned missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different views in the region, including among our publics which are divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has nevertheless also become -- at least in some countries -- a symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region. How it is handled could have a significant impact on their future transatlantic orientation. The small number of missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia's strategic capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide the future of the program as allies and based on the strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition. Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of the United States across the whole region.

UPDATE: Welcome, Jawas, LGF, National Review and memeorandum.

Stimulus Reality: 1,000 Defense Workers Fired By Obama Today

As President Obama attempts to spin his way out of over-promising the immediate effects of his signature piece of legislation, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)...

... a thousand defense workers get their pink slips today:

"Our hearts and compassion certainly go out to our employees" and others affected by the layoffs, [Boeing VP Tony Jones] said Thursday.

In a statement, Boeing said layoff notices will be issued to about 250 employees working in GMD [Ground-based Midcourse Defense, i.e. long-range ICBM interceptors]at various locations, including Alabama, Alaska, California and Colorado. They are to receive an official 60-day advance notice today, but Jones said it won't be a surprise.

"We've talked to all of our employees," he said. "We've done a lot of work" to try and minimize the impact, find jobs in other programs for as many as possible and provide other assistance.

The cuts are part of 1,000 jobs Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems said this week it plans to eliminate at various locations because of changes in defense spending.

The defense budget released by President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this year takes $1.2 billion from the Missile Defense Agency, which has a proposed 2010 budget of about $7.8 billion.

Boeing is not alone. Since the stimulus was enacted in April, several missile defense firms have been forced to swing the axe:

• Lockheed Martin --- stop work order issued on the Multiple Kill Vehicle.

• Northrop Grumman --- stop work order issued on the Kinetic Energy Interceptor.

It's hard to say how many missile defense people have lost their jobs so far. Of course, missile defense is not the only area to suffer Pentagon cuts. However, of all the defense programs, it has borne the largest percetage budget cut --- nearly 15%.

To borrow Obama's favorite rhetorical tic --- "let me be clear" --- these highly skilled, highly paid jobs were eliminated not because of any temporary economic downturn (finance sector) or fickle consumer whims (autos).

Obama and his Democrat legislators pro-actively chose to have these people fired. He chose to throw these folks on to the street and right in the teeth of a rather brutal recession.

All while choosing to make the US less safe. Perfect.

To my now unemployed colleagues in the missile defense industry, I'd offer to help out in any way with similar postions at my own firm, but surprise-surprise: hiring freeze.

What a stimulus...

Medvedev Resets The "Reset Summit"; Again Threatens NATO With Russian Missiles

Whatever...

It sure didn't take long for Obama's glow to fade in the eyes of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

In sharp contrast to his positive words during President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow earlier this week when the two reached broad agreement on nuclear arms cuts, Mr Medvedev used a news conference at the G8 summit to return to Russia's earlier tough rhetoric on arms control.

Referring to an order he gave earlier this year to prepare deployment of short-range Russian missiles in the western enclave of Kaliningrad to answer to any US deployment of a missile shield in central Europe, Medvedev said:

"If we don't manage to agree on the issues, you know the consequences. What I said during my state of the nation address has not been revoked."

It appears a certain Russian President got taken to the woodshed by a certain Russian Prime Minister since Obama left Moscow:

Mr Medvedev, speaking at the G8, also appeared to change his tone on the missile defence shield itself.

During Mr Obama's visit he told the US leader, using markedly softer language than normal, that "no one is saying that missile defence is harmful in itself or that it poses a threat to someone".

But in Italy on Friday, Mr Medvedev returned to the Kremlin's traditional posture on the system, describing it as "harmful" and "threatening to Russia".

Aaaaand we're back to square one --- reset indeed.

As I noted earlier in the week, the Russians are giddy that they pried loose a key concession from Obama in the form of linking strategic nuclear cuts to missile defense. Charles Krauthammer observes that not only is this linkage a terrible idea, but that Obama's faith in the power of anachronistic arms control mechanisms is comical ... and quite dangerous:

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.

That a man of Obama’s intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers —- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) —- induced the curtailment of anyone’s programs.

Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

It really is amazing that Obama would think that the sterling example of nuclear arms treaties between the US and Russia would somehow have any influence on intransigent, sanction-riddled international scofflaws and pariah states like Iran and North Korea. They have no use for their own agreements with the international community, much less the chirpy "role model" agreements between the US and Russia.

Colin Powell: No Russian Veto Over Missile Defense

Obama ally Colin Powell asserts that the United States' national interest trumps Russia's demands:

Russia's foreign minister said that progress would be jeopardized if the U.S. decides to create a global missile defense system. But Powell says Russia "can't have veto power over what we think is needed."

That's certainly a far cry from what Powell said about Russian objections to our missile defense when we were preparing to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in 2001:

Powell is sympathetic to [the Russians'] anxieties.

“The one thing that scares them and I’d be scared if I were them, and we’ve got to figure out a way to deal with this: ‘Powell, we love you like a brother. We don’t care what the magazines in Washington say, we think you’re great. But you’ll be gone one day. Putin will be gone. Bush will be gone. Igor will be gone. And we will have made some kind of a deal now, and, great, it’s a limited defense. Well, one day another president comes in, and he decides: “I’ll replicate it. I’ll clone it. I’ll geneticize it.” And it goes from being a limited defense to: POW! Reagan’s back. How do you persuade us that’s not going to happen? We can’t do this on the basis of personal relations. It has to be on the basis of our national interest over time.”’ Which means, Powell said, “You codify it somehow.”

“A good argument you get on the other side, probably from Condi, is: ‘Let’s just do what we think is right. We really don’t have to be bound up in the legal documents like we used to be with the Soviet Union.’ We will see.”

Powell paused and pursed his lips in a grim smile.

Referring to the Russians, he said: “You could just say, ‘The heck with you.’ I would rather not.”

Now it seems he rather would. What changed? Ohhhhhh.

Obama & Medvedev Kick The Can Down The Road On Missile Defense

No progress on convincing the Russians that planned missile defense bases in NATO member countries Poland and the Czech Republic are no threat to Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal:

President Barack Obama says he expects to complete a review of the U.S. plan for building missile defense systems in Europe by the end of the summer.

At a joint news conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Obama said that once the review is finished he will provide the Russian government with his assessment of how to resolve differences over the project.

Obama said he expects that to lead to extensive negotiations.

Relevant transcript of the Obama-Medvedev press conference today:

QUESTION: Deep divisions over a proposed U.S. missile shield have contributed greatly to the deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations in recent years. And it does not seem that you gentlemen have finally resolved that issue, either.

President Obama, you have said very clearly that you would not accept the linkage between the missile systems and arms control talks.

President Medvedev, you and Prime Minister Putin have said that these issues must be linked.

Is there -- are either of you gentlemen willing to budge or compromise on this issue? And if not, could this also contribute to a blockage or obstacle to reaching a final START II agreement?

And, also, President Obama, I wonder if you could give us your reaction to the Chinese government crackdown in the northwest of the country on rioting and unrest that has killed more than 140 people.

OBAMA: With respect to the China situation, unfortunately, I've been traveling all night and in meetings all day, so I have not been fully briefed, and I don't want to comment until I actually see all the information. But I assure you that our team will get a statement to you as soon as I've been able to do that.

On missile defense, we have agreed that we are going to continue to discuss this critical issue. That is part of the joint statements that we've signed.

I also believe that it is entirely legitimate for our discussions to talk not only about offensive weapon systems but also defensive weapon systems.

Part of what got us through the Cold War was a sufficient sense of parity and deterrent capability; that both sides, during those very difficult times, understood that a first strike, the attempt to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict against the other, could result in an extremely heavy price.

And so any discussion of nuclear strategy, security, has to include defensive as well as offensive capabilities.

Uh oh --- hedge alert.

Of course, Obama had developed his opinions on nuclear deterrence and first strikes years ago as a student radical at Columbia, so his reflexive acquiescence to Russian demands for linking offensive nukes to defensive interceptors is not entirely unexpected:

Generally, the narrow focus of the Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets.

Obama wrote that just 2 weeks prior to Reagan's landmark Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) speech (see quote in the Closing Velocity masthead above). God knows what nuke-freeze fanboy Obama would have penned about missile defense and the evil military-industrial complex's billion dollar erector sets back then. Maybe the media will finally do the job they refused to do in the campaign and uncover other gems like the above article from Obama's mysterious college days.

But back to Obama in Moscow today: 

OBAMA: The difference that we've had has been on the specifics of a missile defense system that the United States views as a priority not to deal with Russia but to deal with a missile coming in from Iran or North Korea or some other state, and that it's important for the United States and its allies to have the capacity to prevent such a strike.

There's no scenario from our perspective in which this missile defense system would provide any protection against a mighty Russian arsenal. And so in that sense we have not thought that it is appropriate to link discussions of a missile defense system designed to deal with an entirely different threat unrelated to the kinds of robust capabilities that Russia possesses.

Now, having said that, President Medvedev has been very clear that this is a point of deep concern and sensitivity to the Russian government. I suspect when I speak with President -- Prime Minister Putin tomorrow, he will say the same thing.

And what we would like to do is to work with Russia to advance a system that ensures that a stray missile, whether it was one or 10 or a handful of missiles, coming from a third source -- that we had the capabilities to prevent those from doing damage.

I think we can arrive at those kinds of understandings, but it's going to take some hard work because it requires breaking down long- standing suspicions.

With respect to this particular configuration that was proposed several years ago, as you know, we're undergoing a thorough review of whether it works or not, what has been proposed.

That review should be completed by the end of the summer. And I indicated to President Medvedev that as soon as that review is complete, we will provide the Russian government our assessment of how we think we should proceed, and that will be the subject of extensive negotiations.

So, ultimately, I think the more progress we make on some of the issues that I discussed earlier -- nonproliferation, being able to track ballistic missiles coming from other sources -- to the extent that we are building deeper cooperation on those fronts, I think the more effectively we're going to be able to resolve this issue.

I believe that over time we will end up seeing that the U.S.- Russian positions on these issues can be reconciled and that, in fact, we have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of dangers that weapons proliferations is posing today.

MEDVEDEV (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I'll say a couple of words on this subject.

Of course, anti-ballistic missile defense, not ballistic missile defense, but the problem of the (inaudible) region -- area is a difficult subject for our discussion.

But I would like to draw your attention to what President Obama said, and I would like to point it out myself.

In our mutual understanding that has just been signed, we talk about the linkage between offensive and defensive weapons. And this already constitutes a step forward.

Sometime ago, on this question, we had all only differences. Now this linkage is being stated [ed -- sure sounds like Medvedev thinks he won a key concession from Obama], and this opens up the opportunity of bringing positions closer to each other.

Secondly, nobody is saying that the ballistic missile defense is harmful or is posing a danger. It is aimed at resolving a number of practical tasks.

The question is of linking these configurations of missile defense with interests of other countries.

I would like to point out especially that our American partners, unlike what was happening in recent years, have taken a pause and now are studying this situation. As a result of this, they will formulate their final position. As (inaudible) least this is also a step forward in reaching possible compromise on this fairly difficult subject.

Before, we just heard that, "All decisions have been made. They do not concern you. But they have -- they present no threat to you."

Our position is somewhat different. You are well familiar with it. I am not going to say it again.

We -- our understanding is that these decisions do concern us and we will have to come to terms on dispositions.

We realize fully well that the number of threats, including a link to the medium-range and ballistic missiles, is not diminishing but is growing in number, so we all have to think about what configuration on the whole, the global antiballistic missile defense could have.

So, Obama didn't give away missile defense ... this time.

But the stage is clearly set (we'll review "whether it works" and kinda-sorta agreeing to the Russians' demand of linking offensive and defensive systems when it comes to START II) for him to ultimately jettison European missile defense. Stay tuned.