How to Capitalize on Success in Missile Defense

Recently, a very important, yet under-reported development for the defense of the U.S. homeland against the threat of ballistic missiles occurred.  On June 22, the U.S. successfully tested the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system (GMD) and destroyed a complex, intermediate range ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean.  This represents the first time in over five years that the GMD system successfully intercepted its target.  Last month’s successful intercept contains several key lessons that point the way forward for U.S. ballistic missile defense. 

The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System is designed to protect the United States homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles.  With a complex array of radars that begin tracking a target during the launch phase of its flight, the GMD system is designed to ram a "kinetic kill vehicle" (EKV) directly into an incoming warhead outside the atmosphere.  This is a technological feat that is sometimes described as "hitting a bullet with a bullet" -- although the distances and speeds are even more daunting with missile defense.

The ultimate success of a development model like the one used for GMD hinges on sufficient and consistent support for the program.  Unfortunately, the current administration has underfunded the GMD system, cutting its budget by half between 2008 and 2012.  The administration also cancelled plans for ground-based interceptors in Eastern Europe in 2009, and reduced the planned 44 ground-based interceptors (GBIs) to 30 in the U.S. – a decision reversed four years later following North Korea's third nuclear weapon test attempt.  Insufficient funding for flight testing has also contributed to reliability issues.

How then should the U.S. capitalize on its latest success?  With a successful test showing that significant ballistic missile defense is achievable, the administration should develop and faithfully execute a long-term strategic plan for the GMD system.

First, the administration should stick to current plans to deploy 44 GBIs by 2017 as well as moving forward with a new East Coast interceptor site.

Second, focus should remain on improving the performance and reliability of the kill vehicles.  A consensus is developing that an interchangeable "common kill vehicle" for the various U.S. missile defense systems is the right approach.  The U.S. should fund research and development for this initiative to increase its ability to meet more numerous and complex threats as well as reduce costs.  However, in the shorter-term a redesign of an improved EKV is needed. Most of the currently deployed GBIs are still tipped with older and less reliable versions of the current EKV.  Utilizing technology developed for the highly successful SM-3 would be the most cost-effective and quickest way to improve the functionality of the current system.   

Finally, the U.S. should commit to funding frequent and rigorous testing of the GMD system. Regular, end-to-end operational testing is the only way to ensure reliability and build confidence in those systems. Regular testing drives corrections and improvements, as demonstrated by last month's successful intercept. 

The Obama Administration has expressed a preference for diplomatic "flexibility" on arms control issues.  It should match this with a serious commitment to the GMD system and the defense of the homeland.  Serious and sustained leadership from Congress will also be needed to ensure missile defense capabilities continue to improve and tests continue to be successful.

Jonathan Bergner is an independent national security policy analyst. He writes extensively about nuclear proliferation, deterrence, and ballistic missile defense.