Email this page to friends About the Author Peter Brookes writes a weekly column on foreign policy and defense for the New York Post and is penning a book on national security affairs for McGraw Hill due out early next fall. He appears regularly on national TV and radio. Prior to joining the Heritage Foundation, Brookes served in the Bush administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, where he was responsible for the development, planning, guidance and oversight of U .S. security and defense policy for 38 countries and 5 bilateral defense alliances in the Asia-Pacific region. Brookes has a distinguished military background, including active duty in support of military operations in Iraq/Kuwait (Desert Storm); Haiti (Restore Democracy); and Bosnia (Joint Endeavor). He flew reconnaissance missions in East Asia and the Persian Gulf while stationed in Japan covering military matters related to the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Iran and Iraq. His personal awards and decorations include: the Joint Service Commendation Medal; the Navy Commendation Medal (3 awards); the Navy Achievement Medal; several naval and joint unit awards; the Defense Language Institute’s Kellogg Award; the Joint Chiefs of Staff service badge; and Naval Aviation Observer (NAO) wings. Sound Off! - Have an opinion about this article? Visit the discussion forum. View the Brookes Archives Related Links Military Opinions Index Get Breaking Military News Alerts Terrorist Reference Global Hotspots Get $985 a Month! Your service may have earned you great education benefits. Get up to $985 per month to pay for your undergraduate, graduate or technical degree. Find out about military-friendly schools today.

August 23, 2004

[Sound Off! - Have an opinion about this commentary? Visit the discussion forum.]

THE vast majority of Americans believe that the United States can defend itself against a ballistic-missile attack.

They're wrong. But, thankfully, that's changing.

In as little as 45 days, we will finally have a limited capability to shoot down incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.

With Iran and North Korea threatening a nuclear (weapons) breakout and China modernizing its entire array of nuclear arms, the Bush administration's historic achievement of fielding an operational missile defense comes not a moment too soon. Like terrorism, the ballistic-missile threat is real. Roughly two-dozen countries already possess ballistic missiles. Many are pursuing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as well. A ballistic missile mated with a WMD warhead could be used to intimidate, coerce or blackmail the U.S., its friends or allies.

Most pressing, North Korea already may have two to three operational nuclear weapons. And North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong Il, is working feverishly to combine them with missiles capable of reaching the continental United States.

No less troubling, American intelligence believes that Iran will be a nuclear-weapons state by the end of the decade. (Israeli says by 2007.) With North Korean help, the mullahs of mayhem are working on an intercontinental ballistic missile able to reach the American mainland.

And Asia's 900-lb. gorilla, China, is rapidly increasing the size of its ballistic missile arsenal. Beijing also is modernizing its long-range nuclear forces, making them more lethal, survivable and accurate.

None of this is good news. But in a largely unheralded stump speech last Tuesday at a Pennsylvania Boeing plant, President Bush reaffirmed a campaign promise he made four years ago: to deploy a national missile defense.

He told the cheering crowd of defense workers that America's first ballistic-missile interceptor had been loaded into its underground silo at Alaska's Fort Greely last month. Four more interceptors will be on duty by the end of the year, giving the U.S. a limited missile defense against the likes of North Korea.

An additional 10 interceptors will be active by the end of 2005, including four at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The initial deployment will also enable the Pentagon to continue technical development for handling more robust missile threats like China.

Bush's plan wisely calls for a layered approach for defending against all ballistic-missile classes.

For instance, sea-based interceptors will be deployed on Navy Aegis-class ships to defend against both short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. These ships will not only help protect the U.S., but can also provide missile defense to friends and allies around the world. For the shorter-range missile threat, the Patriot missile system (of Persian Gulf War I fame) will protect our troops and allies in the field overseas.

Missile defense hasn't been without strong critics. Some have said that the technology was impossible - that the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet in space was a pipe dream. Successful testing has proven them wrong. And the technology over time will only improve.

Others have said missile defense is prohibitively expensive. (John Kerry is calling for reducing missile-defense spending.) But after the horrors of 9/11, is $50 billion over five years too expensive to prevent a similar or greater catastrophe? Hardly.

Deploying missile defenses gives us a broader range of policy options beyond military strikes or massive nuclear retaliation. And further developing missile defense might actually dissuade some from pursuing WMD and missiles at all.

The proliferation of ballistic missiles and WMD is a growing challenge to American - and international - security. Missile defense is just one aspect of a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the threat. Nonproliferation treaties, interdiction operations and multilateral export controls also come into play. By the end of this year, we will have begun to fulfill President Ronald Reagan's 1983 vision of ending the morally - and strategically - bankrupt policy of keeping the American people deliberately vulnerable to ballistic-missile attack.

Ongoing missile defense efforts will make us more secure in an age of seemingly endless insecurity. We can only hope that a strong missile defense will have the same effect on repressive regimes as Reagan's stoic vision for a missile defense had on the Soviet Union.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. E-mail: peterbrookes@heritage.org

  Email this page to friends

[Have an opinion on this article? Sound off here.]

© 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. Mr. Brookes is a Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. This column originally appeared in the New York Post. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.