February 12, 2019—Win One for the Gipper!

“I believe it can be credibly argued that among President Reagan’s greatest acts of leadership was his commitment on March 23, 1983, to the Strategic Defense Initiative — SDI. . . He put it this way on the tenth anniversary of his SDI announcement: “It is as true today as it was ten years ago that this effort holds the promise of changing the course of human history, by freeing the world from the ominous threat of ballistic missile attack. Given the choice, shouldn’t we seek to save lives rather than avenge them?” ~ Former Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) . . . And it is still true today!

Last week at the Reagan Library, while celebrating Ronald Reagan’s birth on February 6, 1911 — 108 years ago, former Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), gave a memorable tribute to him and his time as President, including his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which Maggie Thatcher emphasized “ended the Cold War without firing a shot.” Below in its entirety is his memorable speech, with emphasis added for important memories that still apply today — many of which echo arguments I have made in previous messages:

This June 4, it will be 15 years since President Reagan’s death — 25 years since we last heard from him. Yet, for those who knew him, it is impossible to forget his jaunty smile and sunny optimism, his genial quips or, when the occasion called for it, his stern seriousness. His personality was such a large part of his presidency that I believe those who knew him should do all they can to share their recollections with new generations that did not.

It is to this end that I am grateful to the Reagan Library for inviting me to be a part of this year’s birthday celebration of President Ronald Reagan. Thank you very much.

In a moment, I will turn to my theme for today; but, first, as he started most meetings or talks with humor, I can’t resist recounting just a bit of the famed Reagan wit.

First, self-deprecation. After being criticized for dozing off, he announced, “I’ve laid down the law to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it’s in the middle of a cabinet meeting!”

On politics, he quipped, “It’s been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I’ve learned it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”

Ronald Reagan was no fan of big government. “The most terrifying words in the English language, are,” he said, ‘I am from the government, and I’m here to help you.” He observed that “The nearest thing to eternal life is a government program.”

And, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

His definition of a taxpayer was “someone who works for the government but does not have to take a civil service exam.”

Finally, apropos of the recent government shut down, he “wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”

We could have fun with the Gipper’s humor all day; but, in the spirit of the man who I believe captured the essence of the Declaration of Independence better than any President since Lincoln, I would like to turn to a more serious subject.

“Freedom,” Reagan said, “is not just the prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.” And, he warned, “The nature of freedom is that it is fragile. It must be protected, watched over, sometimes fought over.”

President Reagan reminded us that, “We know only too well that war comes NOT when the forces of freedom are strong; it is when they are weak that tyrants are tempted.”

On another occasion, he said, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”

Understanding this better than many so-called “experts,” President Reagan always believed strength deterred aggression. Peace through strength was his formula. As he put it, “Peace is made by the fact of strength. Economic, military, and strategic. Peace is lost when such strength disappears, or just as bad, is seen by an adversary as disappearing.”

President Reagan understood that we don’t get to define whether our deterrence will be effective—our adversaries do; and, we’d better not leave them any room for doubt or miscalculation. Some of them are risk-takers, after all; which means our deterrence must be unmistakable.

Today, unfortunately, there are signs potential adversaries believe they may be getting the upper hand in scenarios involving conflict with the U.S. Vladimir Putin openly brags about new weaponry like hypersonic maneuverable warheads that are immune to any U.S. defense. The Chinese make no secret of their efforts to deny U.S. dominance in space…by destroying U.S. satellites at the beginning of a conflict.

Today, there are too many aspects of defense where Russia or China have greater capabilities than the United States. This, in addition to their increasingly bellicose attitudes, is why the Defense Department has reset our defense priorities in its National Defense Strategy, moving the threats from our peer competitors, China and Russia, to the top, and defining Iran, North Korea, and terrorism as continuing but lesser threats. Recent public testimony from leaders of our intelligence community validates this reprioritization.

I was privileged to serve on the National Defense Strategy Commission in 2017-18. This Congressionally-created bipartisan group of 12 defense experts was charged with evaluating the DOD’s strategy and reporting findings back to Congress.

In a twist of fate, after helping write our report, I was appointed to John McCain’s Senate seat after he died, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee was present for the hearing in December at which the report was presented by the co-chairmen of the Commission, Ambassador Eric Edelman and Retired Admiral Gary Roughhead.

Though equally divided by political party, the Commission members reached a unanimous consensus in the report. We agreed with the resetting of threat priorities by the Secretary, but questioned whether the strategy to deal with the threats could be effectuated without significantly increased Congressional funding. We focused not only on the budget top line, noting that DOD had recommended increasing each year by at least 3-5% over inflation, but also on the way appropriations are made. They should not be subject to sequestration or parceled out by continuing resolutions or CRs. The former unfairly targets defense spending and the latter makes efficient planning and acquisition extremely inefficient.

We also recommended specific areas of improvement in military programs and attention to strengthening alliances; and we advocated a “whole of government” approach to unique challenges, especially posed by China. We also endorsed the recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), including its commitment to modernizing our nuclear deterrent.

Because DOD’s long-awaited missile defense review had not been issued by the completion of our work, we could not evaluate it; but we did recommend enhancements in missile defense, including in space, specifically, that “DOD should invest in a robust R & D program to anticipate future threats, operate effectively from space, and enhance resiliency.” (67)

I believe it can be credibly argued that among President Reagan’s greatest acts of leadership was his commitment on March 23, 1983, to the Strategic Defense Initiative—SDI. It would enhance the U.S. deterrence to the threat of ballistic missile attack by adding a defensive capability to our existing offensive retaliatory capacity. The President engaged the U.S. military, scientific community, and private sector in this new effort to take advantage of U.S. technological superiority. Rather than relying only on the threat of massive nuclear retaliation, dubbed mutually assured destruction because of the belief that an attack followed by retaliation would destroy both the Soviet Union and the United States, and probably much of the rest of the world, a new element of deterrence would be added: the ability to DEFEND the U.S. from most of the attack, thus rendering foolhardy an attack by an enemy. If an attack could not succeed, the new thinking went, an attack would be less likely to be attempted. And, indeed, to judge by the reaction of the Soviet leadership, the prospect of such a defense did in fact alter their calculation of the likelihood of successful attack. The Soviets then and Russians now have never stopped complaining about our missile defense efforts.

In addition to enhancing U.S. deterrence, SDI was advocated by the President because, he reasoned, defense is a more moral way to ensure peace than the prospect of avenging lives. He put it this way on the tenth anniversary of his SDI announcement: “It is as true today as it was ten years ago that this effort holds the promise of changing the course of human history, by freeing the world from the ominous threat of ballistic missile attack. Given the choice, shouldn’t we seek to save lives rather than avenge them?”

Unfortunately, President Reagan had to deal with a hostile House Armed Services Committee. It refused to authorize funding for his priorities, and in the FY 1989 NDAA, among other things, reduced ballistic missile defense authorization by 20%. The President was angry and considered vetoing the bill; but vetoing a defense authorization bill, especially for not doing enough, was extremely rare, and Reagan was unsure he would do any better on a second go-around. I was among a small group of Republican “hawks” on the Committee invited to the White House to discuss this with him. We argued for the veto, believing that his ability to sway public opinion was so strong that House Leadership would choose to concede to him…to authorize the missile defense and other spending.

In the end, that’s what he did…and what the Congress did, sending him a bill with all of the offending provisions removed, which he then signed. He was willing to fight for what he thought was right, even in the face of conventional wisdom, and he won.

Yet, what eventually happened to SDI? In the beginning, scientific breakthroughs foretold several promising concepts for development. Perhaps the most promising, Brilliant Pebbles, was approved by the Pentagon to enter into a Demonstration and Validation program in 1990. Brilliant Pebbles was a proposed constellation of hundreds of small satellites which, together with other assets, would detect, track, and destroy an attacker’s missiles in their assent or boost phase, when they were relatively slow and before they could release their warheads and decoys.

Progress on SDI was credited with helping to end the Cold War, including by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who said it had ended the Cold War “without firing a shot.” And, contrary to concerns expressed by some in the arms control community, it did not prevent offensive arms reductions. Both the INF treaty and START were achieved during this time.

Regrettably, however, the Clinton administration pulled back from SDI in 1993 when Defense Secretary Les Aspin bragged he “took the stars out of Star Wars.” And, because the Soviet Union no longer posed a threat, Brilliant Pebbles funding was never restored and most of the research was shelved.

We made a lot of mistakes in defense policy in the ensuing decade. For one, we were slow to recognize that the Soviet arsenal was not only subsumed into the new Russian state, but that Vladimir Putin quietly set about to modernize it to take advantage of American weaknesses. Russia and China both “went to school” on how America fought. They stole our technology and developed their own very capable weapons and strategy. And, as the National Defense strategy warned, they have exhibited hostile behavior which requires U.S. response if we are to avoid the risk losing a conflict with either of them. Because potential nuclear conflict is the one existential threat to the United States, defending against and deterring such a conflict is recognized by the DOD as our number one priority.

This is where we return to President Reagan’s vision of deterrence using both offensive and defensive capability, including space-based systems.

In recent years, the Armed Services Committees of Congress have authorized funding for some space-based programs, mostly sensors which would provide us better situational awareness. Until the Trump administration, there was no hope for approval of the other components of a space-based missile defense. Fortunately, Congress removed language from the NDAA which had restricted research to “limited missile threats.”

Three weeks ago, the Pentagon released its Missile Defense Review. While it articulates the rationale for a robust missile defense and endorses a space-based sensor layer and “future technologies”, nowhere is there an endorsement of an integrated space-based missile defense. That was left for the President to propose in his announcement speech. He said: “Fourth, we will recognize that space is a new war fighting domain, with the Space Force leading the way. My upcoming budget will invest in a space-based missile defense layer. It’s new technology. It’s ultimately going to be a very, very big part of our defense and, obviously, of our offense. The system will be monitored, and we will terminate any missile launches from hostile powers, or even from powers that make a mistake. It won’t happen. Regardless of the missile type or the geographic origins of the attack, we will ensure that enemy missiles find no sanctuary on Earth or in, the skies above.”

It appears that, while there are technical experts in the Defense Department who well understand the possibilities, including the very affordable cost of an integrated system, there are also those who, for whatever reason, are reluctant to support development of more than sensor capabilities. Though the MDR does not overtly embrace a total system, the President’s budget will reflect HIS vision; and, if his speech is to be believed, we may see a request for funding research on all of the potential components of a space-based missile defense, including those that actually do the intercepting, whether small kinetic satellites like Brilliant Pebbles or more advanced concepts like lasers or directed energy.

The problem after waiting two years to issue the MDR is that Democrats now control the U.S. House of Representatives, and it will be much more difficult for the administration to get authorization, let alone appropriations, for more than space sensor technology. This will be the challenge going forward.

Just as in President Reagan’s day, there are those who oppose any use of space for defense on the grounds that it would amount to the “militarization” of space. This is a hard argument to make for two reasons. First, an intercontinental ballistic missile hurtling through space at over 17,000 miles an hour on the way to attacking, say, Los Angeles, is certainly a weapon in space. Why is it ok then to try to shoot it down with an interceptor missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force base, but not with a small satellite in space? A satellite which, by the way, is cued to target by another satellite in space which is presumably ok because all it does is detect a launch, track, and cue the interceptor to target. Second, if we can prevent millions of Americans from being killed, what difference does it make if we shoot from below AND above? I hardly think Chinese leaders feel constrained by this rather Talmudic distinction.

A second objection to any missile defense is that it would prompt an arms race. Well, the arms race already occurred. The reason some don’t know it is that we weren’t in it! Only China and Russia (along with N. Korea) have been developing a new generation of launchers and nuclear warheads for the last 20 years. As a result, there is a consensus that we need to modernize our own strategic deterrent. So, it’s actually quite odd, under the circumstances, that one would argue a U.S. space defense effort would start an arms race, given what the Russians and Chinese already have done. And, I would note, neither Russia nor China are strangers to space, particularly in anti-satellite capabilities.

As I noted, President Reagan faced the same arguments, but was undaunted. He said, in 1993, “The wisdom of the program we launched a decade ago will prevail, and America will not remain forever defenseless against ballistic missile attack.” “It is technologically feasible, strategically necessarily and morally imperative. For if our nation and our precious freedoms are worth defending with the threat of annihilation, we are surely worth defending by defensive means that ensure our survival.”

All that was lacking then and now is the will to move forward.

President Reagan had great faith in the American people…that, when all was said and done, we would get it right. He said, “No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the WILL and moral courage of free men and women.”

Ladies and gentlemen, today we celebrate again the life of a great man and one of our greatest Presidents. Despite the naysayers, his actions proved time and again that he was right. History shows it was, indeed, unwise to bet against the Gipper.

He taught us much.

Can we take to heart his vision and his confidence in us to do what is necessary for our security and that of future generations? That is the question on this February 6, 2019.

Comments.

I could not agree more with my good friend Jon Kyl. He was among my strongest supporters when I was privileged to serve as Director of Ronald Reagan’s SDI program, and as I championed the Brilliant Pebbles program while also initiating serious acquisition programs for most if not all our currently operational Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems.

Notably, we were opposed every step of the way by Democrat obstacles, a condition that still seeks to limit our way forward.

For example, the earliest version of our homeland ground-based missile defense (GMD) system, now operating in Alaska and California, entered a fully approved Demonstration and Validation (DemVal) program on my watch in 1992, but the DemVal proposals were sent back to the contractors — unopened, as one of the first acts of the Clinton administration in 1993.

And as he said at the time, Defense Secretary Les Aspin “took the stars out of Star Wars” — as noted by Senator Kyl — by completely scuttling the Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptor program that had been the first SDI concept to achieve a fully approved DemVal program status in 1990. This was simply an extension of Secretary Aspin’s previous efforts as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, when he had joined his House and Senate Democrat colleagues to scale back the previously approved Brilliant Pebbles efforts in 1991 and 1992.

Our Theater Missile Defense (TMD) programs were the only programs that were subsequently supported, but at substantially educed levels. Nevertheless, Patriot, THAAD and Aegis programs continued and eventually, with fits and starts, became impressive BMD systems for today — as is Israel’s Arrow system, now in its third upgraded status.

Now it remains to be seen whether space-based BMD systems will survive the inevitable challenges that most likely will be posed by the current Democrat obstruction of President Trump’s initiatives, as mentioned by Senator Kyl. In particular, in attempting to block a revival of a modernized Brilliant Pebbles system.

Among the arguments against such a revival will be the alleged costs of such a space-based system, as well as its technical viability. I dealt with these issues in two articles this past week, one in the Washington Times and the other in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. Click here for the first and here for the second.

In case you cannot link to the Wall Street Journal, the operative words of my criticism of an earlier article by Arthur Herman were: “Maturing initiatives were canceled by the Clinton administration in early 1993, and the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Review calls for reviving them. The Raptor/Talon airborne boost-phase intercept capability is now being revived. More important was Brilliant Pebbles — a space-based interceptor system — not a space laser system as Mr. Herman claims. The Pentagon’s independent cost-estimate for developing, deploying and operating a thousand Brilliant Pebbles for 20 years was $10 billion in 1988 dollars ($20 billion today) over an order of magnitude less than the $300 billion claimed by Mr. Herman.”

Moreover, we were confident that Brilliant Pebbles constellation would have had had a very high probability (over 90-percent) of intercepting all of a salvo of 200 reentry vehicles — much more capability that any of today’s operating missile defense system that has cost the American taxpayer much more.

Finally, click here for my January 22, 2019 comprehensive discussion of the major technology hurdles and critical reviews that were cleared by Brilliant Pebbles in becoming the first SDI system concept to enter a fully approved DemVal program in 1990. Surely today’s technologists are sufficiently competent to repeat this history — indeed they should be able to do better, by exploiting today’s more advanced technology accomplished by the private sector and our peer adversaries, China and Russia.

Bottom Lines.

Brilliant Pebbles was the most cost-effective product of the SDI era (1983-93). It was “ready for prime time” in 1990, and should be re-invented ASAP. Again, the Pentagon’s independent estimate was that 1000 Brilliant Pebbles could be developed, deployed and operated for 20 years for $10 billion in 1988 dollars ($20 million today). Given today’s much more advanced technology, the costs now should be less.

A great team is forming in the Pentagon that could revive the best of the SDI era and move beyond those advances, based on all that has happened since it ended a quarter century ago.

So, what will come of President Trump’s battle with congress? Stay tuned for his anticipated Space Force and its “birth pains.”

Hopefully, the “powers that be” will win one for the Gipper!

What can you do?

Join us in praying for our nation, and for a rebirth of the freedom sought, achieved and passed to us by those who came before us.

Help us to spread our message to the grass roots and to encourage all “powers that be” to provide for the common defense as they are sworn to do.

Begin by passing this message to your friends and suggest they visit our webpage www.highfrontier.org, for more information. Also, please encourage your sphere of influence to sign up for our weekly e-newsletter.

Encourage them to review our past email messages, posted on www.highfrontier.org, to learn about many details related to the existential manmade and natural EMP threats and how we can protect America against them. I hope you will help us with our urgently needed efforts, which I will be discussing in future messages.

Click here to make a tax deductible gift. If you prefer to mail a check, Please send it to 500 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

E-Mail Message 190212