A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
President Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order to build an “Iron Dome” for America is a welcome call for an effective missile defense shield for the United States homeland.
Indeed, for the first time since President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), it opens the door for building a truly cost-effective defense to protect Americans from an existential threat of missile attack while reinforcing U.S. efforts to deter its adversaries in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Moreover, we believe such a broad-based review of current technology will demonstrate again that space-based defenses are still the most cost-effective means to achieve that objective.
We expect the usual naysayers again to claim this outcome is impossible. Still, we recall from our up-close and personal experience that the likelihood of truly cost-effective missile defenses can reinforce negotiations to significantly reduce the threat of missile attack to the United States and our allies.
On our watch, the SDI-promised role of truly effective defenses led to the first-ever arms control agreements that produced major reductions in nuclear weapons. And again, we are pleased that this outcome can be accomplished by a strong alliance between our president and secretary of defense. And today’s technology should support even more cost-effective defenses.
Truly effective missile defenses of America and its troops and allies will complicate any adversary’s decision on whether to strike. With high confidence, cost-effective defenses can protect against limited attacks and against any truly major attack, at least limit damage and ensure credible options for us and our allies to respond and compel the adversary to cease its aggression.
During the Cold War, this reality, reinforced by Reagan’s Reykjavik summit, demonstrated commitment and led the Soviet leaders to abandon their attempts to outrace the potential of the U.S. and our allies. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher memorably opined that Reagan’s SDI and his commitment to it led to the end of the Cold War without firing a shot … contrary to the predictions of the “arms control naysayers of the day.”
SEE ALSO: Toward a cost-effective ballistic missile defense
While the U.S. has since greatly reduced its support for modernizing our missile defenses and making them more effective, Russia, China and others have increased, and continue to increase, their threats to all we and our allies hold dear … and they are increasing their collaboration among themselves.
Washington has refused to develop a robust missile defense since Defense Secretary Les Aspin “took the Stars out of Star Wars” on his first day as defense secretary in 1993. This rejection of Reagan’s commitment to SDI, in conjunction with his commitment to “Peace through Strength,” has left the U.S. without an effective homeland defense and with decaying offensive forces.
Because of this benign approach, our adversaries have noted U.S. vulnerabilities and have sought advantages at the expense of American security and sovereignty. Thankfully. Mr. Trump is returning to that worthy and, we believe, essential “peace through strength” strategy.
We agree with Mr. Trump’s “Iron Dome” order, which directs the Defense Department and its contractor community to accelerate the development of cost-effective and timely defenses, including proliferated space-based sensors and interceptors with intercept capabilities, including against hypersonic rockets in their boost phase.
This was the original purpose of Reagan’s SDI effort. Today’s technology is much more advanced than it was three decades ago. This viability was demonstrated in the Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptor effort that Aspin ended. Today, directed energy systems based in space (and on the ground) also offer much improved opportunities.
As was the case with the SDI efforts of yesteryear, Mr. Trump’s effort, if supported by the scientific and engineering communities as was Reagan’s SDI, will again quickly show the advantage of space-based sensors and interceptors as the most cost-effective in countering the threats confronting the United States and our allies. And as was the case with the original SDI efforts, moving quickly to evaluate all possible options will credibly bolster our deterrence efforts and increase the chances of maintaining peace between nuclear adversaries.
• Henry F. Cooper was President Reagan’s ambassador and defense and space negotiator with the Soviet Union (and subsequently SDI director), and Daniel J. Gallington was defense secretary Caspar Weinberger’s representative in those talks and served in several senior congressional and administration positions.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.