Res Communis

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
In a newly released speech entitled “U.S. Missile Defense Plans in Europe” (given at the NATO Defense College, Washington, DC, April 24, 2008), John C. Rood, Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, made references to the Iranian space program:

Our adversaries, like Iran, seek to coerce us and prevent us from coming to the aid of our allies and friends. This subverts the very core of NATO’s principle of the indivisibility of Allied security, as well as NATO solidarity. The decision at Bucharest places NATO on a path to address the increasing threat from the Middle East by states such as Iran.

In his testimony before Congress on March 5,2008, Lieutenant General Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, noted that: “Iran continues to develop and acquire ballistic missiles that can hit Israel and central Europe, including Iranian claims of an extended-range variant of the Shahab-3 and a new 2,000 kilometer medium-range ballistic missile called the “Ashura.” Beyond the steady growth in its missile and rocket inventories, Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of existing systems with accuracy improvements and new submunitions payloads.”

For his part, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has been very open about Iran’s intentions. Last fall Iran publicly claimed it had developed a new missile with a range of 2000 kilometers. On February 4, Iran claimed it conducted a sub-orbital test of a rocket with a payload designed to collect data on the space environment.

Furthermore, Tehran claimed it will use this data to put its first domestically produced satellite, “Omid” (Hope), into orbit as soon as May or June of this year. The rocket launched on February 4 appeared to be a Shahab-3, based on the videos released by Iran.

Iran also released photographs and videos of a new system in development called “Safir.” This system appears to be much larger than the Shahab-3 and it probably is the system Tehran will use when they attempt to place the “Omid” satellite into orbit. The immediate relevance to missile defense is that many of the technological building blocks involved in the development of space launch vehicles are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I know there are some commentators who would challenge the idea that Iran has the technology base to develop ballistic missiles of an intercontinental range. But we have been surprised before at how rapid. A nation can make technological advances, and as students of military history you know that surprise has been a constant of military affairs. I am sure the first Bronze Age warrior was no doubt surprised by his Iron Age opponent, while Philip VI and his knights were in for a rude awakening when they faced Edward 111’s longbow men at Crecy.

He also made reference to successful missile defense intercepts including the intercept of USA-193:

Achieving a successful deterrent to missiles relies on technological investment and advances. There are many critics who seek to belittle the feasibility of a robust missile defense. For example, one long-time critic of missile defense, has said that “. . .you would need to hit a bullet with a bullet, as they say. It’s like doing a hole in one when the hole is going 15,000 miles an hour.” Well, if that is the case, then the Missile Defense Agency must have hired Tiger Woods, because 34 of 42 terminal and midcourse hit-to-kill intercepts in the atmosphere and space since 2001 have succeeded. That is not too bad. As Dr. Charles McQueary, the Director, Operation Test and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of Defense said on April 1,2008, “[hit-to-kill is no longer a technological uncertainty; it is a reality, being successfully demonstrated many times over the past few years.”