U.S. Missile Defense in the 21st Century: Part 1

On May 21st of this year, Mari Yamaguchi reported that Japan authorized its military to work on intelligence satellites and missile defense capabilities in outer space. Specifcally, Yamaguchi noted "The law, one of several moves in recent years by Japan to give greater freedom to its armed forces, allows the military to develop more advanced spy satellites for intelligence gathering and missile defense."

Even though Japan took a tiny step toward utilizing space as a platform for missile defense last Spring, the United States still stands divided on this issue. Since 1983, when Ronald Reagan introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative, the idea of space based missile defense has become the focus of many national security debates. Some question its cost effectiveness while others question its safety. Still others question the impact of such a system on U.S. foreign policy and international relations. Though all of these questions are important, and will be adressed over the next several articles, they are not the most important questions in the debate on space based missile defense. The most important questions to consider are:

1) Is a space based missile defense program constitutional?

2) Will such a program increase U.S. national security?

The question of constitutionality is easily decided under the famous general welfare clause in the Constitution, which reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Although the term "general Welfare" is often misinterpreted to include government sponsored welfare, education, and healthcare proposals, the term "common Defence" cannot be so confused. Indeed, under a philosophy of original textual meaning, the Constitution grants the federal government very little power beyond foreign policy issues and matters of the common Defence. Regardless, it cannot be doubted that a space based missile defense system falls under the Constitution's powers granted to the federal government.

As to the question of increased security, the United States and our allies face the threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. On this subject, Steven Lambakis of the National Institute for Public Policy commented in an article for RealClearPolitics.com that "The ballistic missile threat to the United States, its deployed forces, and allies and friends has been well defined. This is a threat we downplay at our peril. Nations such as North Korea and Iran -- which also have significant programs to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons -- as well as nonstate groups can pose significant, even catastrophic, dangers to the U.S. homeland, our troops, and our allies. Russia and China, two militarily powerful nations in transition, have advanced ballistic missile modernization and countermeasure programs."

A single missile attack against the United States has the potential to cripple our infrastructure, economy, and any areas surrounding the city or region of the attack. Again, Lambakis wrote that, "The economic toll from a single nuclear attack against a major city, which would involve extensive decontamination activities and impact the national economy, could rise above $4 trillion."

Finally, according to Lambakis, a nuclear warhead would not even have to strike U.S. soil in order to cause a major blow to our economy and security. The threat of the warhead exploding while in flight over the United States is potentially just as costly considering the electromagnetic shock wave that would black out anything electronic across the country, including communications and military response capabilities. In essence, the United States infrastructure would be completely crippled, leaving us in a completely helpless state. Quite possibly, this scenario would be far worse than a direct ballistic missile attack against a U.S. city.

As we can see, the ballistic missile threat facing the United States is significant, but just because the threat is great, does that mean that a space based missile defense system would increase our security against the threat? Let's find out over the next few articles which will highlight basic topics for understanding missile defense and then analyze current U.S. missile defense capabilities in comparison to the proposal of a space based missile defense system.

Supporting Articles

CBO Provides Fuel For Boost-Phase Missile Defense Debate by Jeremy Singer

Experts Debate Space-Based Missile Defense Assets by Jessica Taylor