Rebuttal of the ACA’s newest blatant lies
The extremely leftist, pro-unilateral-disarmament Arms Control Association (ACA) has written yet another litany of blatant lies on its website, this time in the blog section, and the leftist DefenseNews magazine’s writers, as usual, blindly and foolishly reprinted the ACA’s blatant lies without any critical analysis.
The ACA falsely claims that the East Coast missile defense site, proposed by Congressional Republicans, the Institute of Defense Analyses, and the National Research Council, is unneeded and “makes little sense”. They falsely claim that
“This was a bad idea when the House proposed it this summer, and it’s a bad idea now.”
But they’re completely wrong. It was a good idea when the House proposed it this past summer, and it’s a good idea now. More to the point, it’s a NECESSARY policy. It’s necessary to protect the East Coast from future Iranian ICBMs, which Iran may have as early as 2015, according to US intel and DOD reports on Iran. Tehran has already demonstrated the capability to launch satellites into space; developing an ICBM is a logical next step. The US intelligence community and the DOD say that Iran will have an ICBM later in this decade and may have it as early as 2015 – just 3 years from now.
Concurrently, Iran, despite leftist organizations’ (such as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ and Arms Control Wonk blog’s) pious denials, is working on nuclear weapons, as evidenced by its development of uranium deuteride, a type of a neutron initiator. A neutron initiator has NO civilian applications. Its only usage is as a trigger for nuclear weapons.
Studying possible sites for interceptors, radars, and a command center, making the Environmental Impact Statements, getting funding for such sites passed by the Congress, and building such sites will take many years, so it is necessary to start the work on an East Coast missile defense site NOW, before it’s too late – before Iran obtains an ICBM.
But for the extremely leftist, treasonous ACA, protecting America by any means – whether by missile defense or with a nuclear deterrent – is “a bad idea” and “makes little sense”. They categorically oppose (and have long opposed) any kind of missile defense for the United States (but don’t oppose Russian and Chinese programs on the same subject) and they want America to deeply and unilaterally cut its own nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems while other countries (Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan) continue to rapidly build up and modernize their nuclear arsenals. The ACA’s response? The US should just hope that Russia would be nice enough to cancel its nuclear buildup and modernization in reward for America’s unilateral disarmament.
The extremely leftist ACA ridiculously cites a recent (September) National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences report as supposed evidence that an East Coast missile defense site is unneeded, but the NRC/NAS report actually proves that such a site is necessary and explicitly calls for the construction of such a site (in lieu of the 4th phase of the Obama Admin’s European Phased Adaptive Approach, i.e. the SM-3 Block 2B missile). The NRC says that an East Coast missile defense site should be located in Maine or New York state and would be far more effective and at intercepting ICBMs than any site or any missile in Europe. Here’s what the report says (p. 5-27):
“In addition to FGA and VAFB, new sites, including a northeastern United States site such as Fort Drum, New York, or northern Maine; a far western site on Shemya, Alaska; and a European site in Poland, were studied. All of these new interceptor sites were assumed to be populated with the new GMD-E high-performance interceptors, as previously described, with communication links to the BMC2 system. In this regard, the first step in a deployment evolution (using GMD-E interceptors) would be a committee-recommended site for 30 interceptors in upstate New York or northern New England. The next step in the evolution would be a phased upgrade of the current interceptors at FGA and VAFB, with the new GMD-E interceptors. In addition, an Aegis system would be used to defend Hawaii (either a ship positioned near Kauai, Hawaii, or Aegis ashore on Kauai with an additional GBX radar and THAAD battery for second shot).”
I repeat: the NRC/NAS report recognizes the need for, and explicitly CALLS for the construction of, an East Coast missile defense site.
The ACA also falsely claims that:
“Instead of Sen. Ayotte’s premature proposal to study possible deployment locations for missile defense sites on the East Coast, Congress needs to take a deep breath, look at how little the nation got for over $30 billion invested on the West Coast, and ask: ‘Haven’t I seen this movie before?’”
That is also a blatant lie. The nation has realized a huge benefit for the $30 bn invested in West Coast missile defense: 30 anti-ICBM interceptors in Alaska and California capable of and ready to intercept any ICBMs from North Korea (and even a small number of Chinese ICBMs). These interceptors are accompanied by radars and command/control centers. If North Korea launches an ICBM, and if this North Korean ICBM makes it close to the US this time, America will be able to shoot it down, thanks to the GBIs on the West Coast and the $30 bn invested in West Coast missile defense.
Had the ACA had its way, the entire West Coast would’ve been completely unprotected and defenseless and North Korea would’ve been able to blackmail the US with a missile attack on the West Coast.
Think about it, folks: The ACA has been wrong everytime it has opened its mouth. It has been wrong everytime it has commented on something. It was wrong about North Korea and the West Coast, and had it had its way, the West Coast would’ve been completely defenseless. But now, ACA says “trust us, we’re be right this time, there’s no need for an East Coast missile defense site.”
But they’re wrong again, as always.
Also think about this, folks: ACA is an extremely leftist organization which seeks America’s unilateral disarmament and ideologically opposes any kind of missile defense (and has opposed it for a long time; they’ve said that the US should not deploy any kind of missile defense systems even if they prove themselves to work as intended).
They have an incentive to lie. They have an incentive to deny or understate threats to US security and to deny the effectiveness and usefulness of missile defense systems. They are not credible and cannot be trusted.
On a positive note, the Senate has adopted an amendment by Sen. John Hoeven which (and this will irk the ACA and other treasonous organizations) states that the Senate believes that the US needs to continue to maintain a nuclear triad of ICBMs, SSBNs, and strategic bombers. The amendment states:
“It is the sense of the Senate that 1) the United States should maintain a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems; and 2) the United States is committed to modernizing the component weapons and delivery systems of that triad.”
 Donald Montague [ed.], Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives, National Academies Press, Washington DC 2012, p. 5-27.