Closing Velocity

Fortress Hawaii: THAAD Deployed, SBX Put To Sea, GBIs Ready

  From Left: THAAD, SBX, GBI

What a difference a few months of up tempo ballistic missile and nuclear weapons tests by North Korea makes. When North Korea last threatened to launch its longest range ICBM toward Hawaii earlier this year, the reaction from the Obama Administration varied, from the embarassing gullibility of our Director of National Intelligence:

"I tend to believe that the North Koreans announced that they are going to do a space launch, and I believe that that's what they intend," [DNI Blair] told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

To the clumsy diplomacy of Secretary of State Clinton as she prematurely discarded an important arrow in our quiver:

The United States has no plans to shoot down the North Korean rocket, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Jill Dougherty...

To the spectacle of Secretary of Defense Gates simply giving up on utilizing our missile defense assets even as our missile defense commanders proclaim confidence in our ability to down a hostile North Korean ICBM:

Appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting host Chris Wallace to ask: "And there's nothing we can do about it?"

"No," Gates answered, adding, "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."

And culminating in our most advanced missile defense radar, the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) Radar, being ordered to stay anchored at Pearl Harbor:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates denied permission for the U.S. Northern Command to use the Pentagon's most powerful sea-based radar to monitor North Korea's recent missile launch, precluding officials from collecting finely detailed launch data or testing the radar in a real-time crisis, current and former defense officials said.

Well, someone at Obama's Pentagon got the message, for Hawaii is being fortified with a new deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors and the SBX is finally putting to sea:

Mr. Gates told reporters that the U.S. is positioning a sophisticated floating radar array in the ocean around Hawaii to track an incoming missile. The U.S. is also deploying missile-defense weapons to Hawaii that would theoretically be capable of shooting down a North Korean missile, should such an order be given, he said.

"We do have some concerns if they were to launch a missile to the west, in the direction of Hawaii," Mr. Gates said.

Gates went on to say that the long range Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska --- slated to be cut by Obama, but-that's-not-important-right-now --- were also ready to engage:

Although Gates did not explicitly say that the U.S. would try to shoot down a test missile aimed in the direction of Hawaii, he noted that interceptor missiles in California and Alaska were ready.

"The ground-based interceptors are clearly in a position to take action," Gates said. "So without telegraphing what we will do, I would just say, I think we are in a good position, should it become necessary to protect American territory."

Perhaps the reality of missile defense is setting in on a few of the adults in Washington. Or more likely, perhaps someone's watching the polls:

A new Gallup Poll finds 51% of Americans saying North Korea currently poses a direct threat to U.S. security. That is the highest percentage seen for eight countries or territories tested in the poll whose political climates or ongoing conflicts present a threat to U.S. interests in the world.

Which, of course, makes this the perfect time to slash missile defense funding --- "Missile Budget Cut Still Stands":

An attempt Tuesday to restore money slashed from the missile defense budget failed to gain traction when an amendment that would have paid for additional interceptors in Alaska was defeated.

.

No, We Can't: US Military Requests SBX Radar During North Korean Missile Launch, DENIED

SBX at Pearl Harbor, Going Nowhere

One of the immutable criticisms leveled at US missile defense by its skeptics is the lack of "operationally realistic testing." Until our ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) is perfected with 100% realistic testing, it is foolish to prematurely deploy it, they say.

But when given the extraordinarily rare opportunity to actually use OUR BEST MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR in a situation as operationally realistic as you can imagine, the Obama Administration orders the Sea-Based X-Band radar to stay tied to the dock at Pearl Harbor:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates denied permission for the U.S. Northern Command to use the Pentagon's most powerful sea-based radar to monitor North Korea's recent missile launch, precluding officials from collecting finely detailed launch data or testing the radar in a real-time crisis, current and former defense officials said.

While other sensors were on station to monitor the launch, SBX could have collected priceless intelligence about North Korea's rapidly maturing missile technology:

SBX, deployed in 2005, can track and identify warheads, decoys and debris in space with very high precision. Officials said the radar is so powerful it could detect a baseball hit out of a ballpark from more than 3,000 miles away, and that other radars used by the U.S. would not be able to provide the same level of detail about North Korea's missile capabilities.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, who until recently headed the Missile Defense Agency, said the SBX would have gathered data other U.S. systems could not.

"The sea-based X-band radar is clearly without a doubt the most powerful and capable sensor in all of our missile defense inventory," he said. "It is three or four more times powerful than other radars" in Asia, including Aegis-equipped ships, a Cobra Dane early warning radar in Alaska and a small X-band radar in northern Japan, he said.

Gen. Obering noted that the SBX was used by the U.S. Strategic Command to track a falling satellite and guide U.S. sea-based missile interceptors that destroyed it in February 2008.

And President Obama did not "listen to his commanders on the ground":

Jamie Graybeal, Northcom public affairs director, confirmed to The Washington Times that Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, the Northcom commander, requested the radar's use but referred all other questions to the Pentagon.

Why did Obama refuse Gen. Renuart's plea?

One current and two former specialists in strategic defenses said the [Obama] administration rejected the request because it feared that moving the huge floating radar system would be viewed by North Korea as provocative and upset diplomatic efforts aimed at restarting six-nation nuclear talks.

So using the SBX to simply observe a very provocative missile launch was itself deemed too damned provocative by Obama? And that it would have derailed disarmament talks? You mean those talks that have utterly fallen apart anyway?:

North Korea on Tuesday ordered international nuclear inspectors out of the country and said it would "never again" take part in denuclearization talks, dealing a harsh, early setback to the Obama administration's hopes of disarming the defiant regime.

Brilliant. Effin' brilliant.

The opportunity to pursue (now)demonstrably hopeless talks with Kim Jong-Il was deemed more valuable than collecting operationally realistic data and improving our defense against a growing threat. And the Hopes of naive diplomats outweigh urgent requests from military commanders. Change you can believe in.

UPDATE: Welcome, HotAir.

ArmsControlWonk takes a rather peculiar view on this: parking the SBX out in international waters on the other side of Japan is somehow more provocative and dangerous than skirting RC-135S Cobra Ball recon planes along North Korean airspace.

Ummm, WHAT?

Just days before launch, North Korea threatened to shoot down any US spy planes. And indeed, back in 2003, a Cobra Ball was intercepted by four North Korean MiGs in international airspace over the Sea of Japan. I'd say Kim perceives Cobra Balls as kinda-sorta provocative. Call me crazy.

In any case, two Cobra Balls were on station during this latest missile test, according to the Mainichi Daily. And lest there be any confusion, I'm glad they were there.

I just wish the SBX had been recording this launch as well. Better data = better missile defense.

Palin Finally Recognizes Alaska's Vital Missile Defense Role

Literally within minutes of Sen. McCain's selection of her as his VP candidate last August, I recommended that Gov. Sarah Palin fully embrace her state's status as THE strategic linchpin in our nascent defense against long range ballistic missiles. Palin's national security and foreign policy chops were quite weak at the time, and she could have used Alaskan-based missile defense as an expeditious credibility builder, especially when compared to her inexperienced opponent (and missile defense skeptic) Sen. Obama:

• Fort Greely: With 21 long range Ground-based Interceptors, Greely is the largest operational missile defense base on the planet.

• Sea-Based X-Band radar (SBX):this state-of-the-art floating radar's home port is Adak Island.

• Cobra Dane radar:Also in the Aleutians on Shemya Island, Cobra Dane has been a vital missile defense radar since the Cold War.

• Clear Air Force Station radar: Another crucial sensor used for detecting inbound ICBMs.

• Kodiak Launch Complex: Several missile defense target missiles have been launched from Kodiak Island, including the one obliterated in last December's successful GBI test.

But I paid very close attention to Palin during the campaign and, obviously, even closer attention to missile defense as a campaign issue --- and never did the two intersect. Until now.

With missile defense budget cuts now in motion --- and Fort Greely's planned deployment of 40 interceptors being capped at the current 21 --- Palin finally emerges from her cocoon:

“I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead,” Governor Palin said. “I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation.”

Governor Palin stressed the importance of Fort Greely and the need for continued funding for the Missile Defense Agency. The governor is firmly against U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ proposed $1.4 billion reduction of the Missile Defense Agency. Greely’s isolated location in Alaska as well as its strategic location in the Pacific allows for maximum security and development of the country’s only ground-based missile defense complex.

That's all fine and well now, but Palin could have made this slamdunk case about 8 months ago. Instead, she let herself get permanently tarred with the SNL-written "I can see Russia from my house!" as shorthand for her national security (in)experience.

Palin's "Airport To Nowhere"

The Wall Street Journal's credibility takes a hit today as it reports on Gov. Palin's federal funding requests for Alaska. The problem? The WSJ sloppily declines to identify which of these requests were hypocritical earmarks and which requests were normal legislative appropriations:

Last week, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, hadn't sought earmarks or special-interest spending from Congress, presenting her as a fiscal conservative. But state records show Gov. Palin has asked U.S. taxpayers to fund $453 million in specific Alaska projects over the past two years.

Amazingly, the WSJ readily states McCain's position, i.e. there's nothing wrong with funding worthy projects if they are openly debated, authorized and funded via legislation, not shady, buried earmarks:

[McCain] has never sought earmarks for his state of Arizona and vows to veto pork-barrel spending bills that come to his desk as president, saying these projects should go through normal budget review. And he derides the argument that states often make: that they're funding important projects.

"If they're worthy projects they can be authorized and appropriated in a New York minute," he explained on his campaign bus earlier this year, before Gov. Palin joined the ticket. "If they're worthy projects I know they'd be funded."

But then the WSJ throws all of Palin's requests into one universal pork heap, not making any distinction. Again, SLOPPY.

Seeking to reincarnate that infamous poster child of pork, the Bridge to Nowhere, the writer tosses out this jewel as an example of Palin's runaway earmarks/pork/requests/whatever-we're-on-a-roll:

[Palin] also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.

So where exactly is this mysterious Airport to Nowhere?

According to this document (PDF; thanks, Ed), the Aleutian backwater that needs an airport upgrade is Adak Island. (Example of more WSJ sloppiness: the amount is $3.2 million, not $4.5 million).

OUTRAGE! How dare Palin attempt to pork up some ghost town speck of rock in the Pacific? Airport to Nowhere indeed! There's no good reason for this federal spending.

Or is there?

Adak Island is the new home port of the newest sensor in the US ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, the one-of-a-kind Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX):

 

The SBX has been on station off the coast of Adak since early 2007, and played a key role in tracking/targeting the toxic spy satellite shoot-down this past February. Positioned in the North Pacific, the SBX is ready to detect ICBMs launched from Asia towards the US:

[Missile Defense Agency Director] Obering said this radar is so powerful that if it were located in Chesapeake Bay, it could track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco.

While stationed off Adak, the SBX's crew of 85 will be frequently transiting through the island's airport. With Adak's harsh weather and usually socked-in conditions, it seems that $3.2 million is a small price to pay for the safe transport of this important crew.

Unless bête noire Palin requested it, of course.

UPDATE: Thanks, Doubleplusundead, AOSHQ, Conservative Grapevine and RedState.

Here's the best refutation of all this Palin earmarking nonsense in three concise words: Governors Cannot Earmark.

UPDATE: For those of you visiting for the milpr0n instead of electionpr0n, for scale, here's the SBX at Pearl Harbor en route to Alaska. Here are some SBX construction photos. It's basically our most advanced radar mounted on a self-propelled oil platform. Each pontoon is the size of a Trident nuclear submarine.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Back to the earmark discussion, Glenn makes a good point:

Meanwhile, I was watching Bill Whittle on Pajamas TV talking about this, and he was very strongly making the point that it's a very different thing for a Governor to be accepting earmarks than it is for a Senator to be enacting them. I think that's a valid point as far as it goes, but it has its limits. For example, if I were really lobbying my Senators for $50 million in earmarked funding to build the PorkBusters Museum in Knoxville, people might reasonably question the depth of my commitment to porkbusting, notwithstanding that I'm not a Senator. It's not at all clear that Sarah Palin was doing anything like that, but if she were, it would undercut claims that she's always exhibited an unwavering commitment to fighting earmarks.

As I discuss in the comments, the impetus for this post was the WSJ's craptacular article. According to the writer, ANY federal spending by Palin is now questionable and/or hypocritical ... even federal spending targeted at a recently-federal property (Adak Airport was Adak Naval Air Station until Congress BRAC'd/foisted it on the State of Alaska in 1997) which mainly services a federal military mission and federal employees.

The Wall Street Journal's irresponsible ambiguity has only added more confusion to a topic that liberals were simply not prepared to discuss intelligently. Until Palin appeared in their hypocrisy crosshairs, when was the last time you heard ANY Democrat complain one iota about earmarks? They are fighting on unfamiliar ground and it shows in their half-baked arguments (all federal spending = earmarks).

================================================================

(Originally posted at Perfunction; original comment threads are over there)