Deep cuts in some missile defense programs will eliminate development of systems to kill enemy missiles in their most vulnerable stage of flight trajectory, while also harming the defense industrial base.

So said a figure with senior missile defense experience, speaking in an interview with Space & Missile Defense Report at a conference where remarks were not for attribution except for certain speakers. The missile defense conference was presented by the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C.

The source was asked about President Obama’s plan to cut a total $1.2 billion from missile defense programs, leaving $7.8 billion for the Missile Defense Agency in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010.

Because some missile defense programs would receive funding increases, the cuts are even deeper than those figures would indicate.

The Obama budget would eliminate entirely the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and buy no more planes for the Airborne Laser program. Those were the two main developmental programs aiming to produce systems that could kill enemy missiles just after they launch, in their vulnerable boost phase of flight. The Multiple Kill Vehicle also was dropped.

Those budget cuts put "a squeeze on future development" of missile defense systems designed to protect the United States from attack, the interviewee said.

The Obama budget plan would rejigger some existing missile defense program (such as the sea-based Aegis weapon control system and the Standard Missile interceptor) to hit enemy missiles a bit later in their flight, in their ascent phase.

The MDA already was examining an ascent phase program before Obama wrote his budget plan, the interviewee said. "I don’t have a problem with that" move to ramp up the ascent phase program, he said. But it is "not a panacea."

"There’s nothing left" to hit enemy missiles at the most opportune time, just after launch, he continued.

This squeeze will devour "the seed corn" needed to produce boost phase systems in future, he continued. "There needs to be a little better balance" in funding for missile defense programs, he said.

During an earlier speech before the conference, the interviewee took issue with the Obama move to halt installation of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system at just 30 in- ground silos, instead of the earlier-planned 44.

"The only defense we have today against a long-range" enemy missile threat "is the Ground-based Midcourse Defense," he observed, adding that "44 is what is needed," so that construction of the system should be started.

The budget as presented to Congress "is not funded well enough now to carry some of our [missile defense] industrial base," he added.

He also was concerned that there is no money in the budget for space-based interceptors.

As for the planned European Missile Defense system to protect allied nations and the United States against Iranian missile attacks, he said Russia could be brought into cooperation with the plan by giving Moscow a role in the system. Until now, Russia has at times vowed to annihilate the European system if the United States builds it.

But Obama provided just $51 million for the system in the fiscal 2010 budget, and Congress forbids beginning construction of the missile shield in the Czech Republic (radar) and Poland (interceptors in silos).

The deep missile defense budget cuts are a concern, because missile defense provides the United States with myriad advantages, he noted:

• Having a missile defense system in place means that enemies can’t practice nuclear blackmail against Washington.
• A U.S. missile defense system makes it unattractive for rogue states or terrorists to invest in buying missiles.
• Its deterrent value makes leaders of rogue states uncertain whether their missiles would ever reach intended targets.
• Missile defense thus can help to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms.
• As well, in event an enemy launches a missile strike toward the United States, its defensive systems provide a president with an option other than a massive retaliatory nuclear strike against the enemy state.
• Missile defense can stabilize a crisis.

He also listed false claims by missile defense foes, such as that no enemy would dare launch a missile attacking the United States, or that it would be a simple and easy matter for the United States to launch military strikes to pulverize enemy missiles before they are launched, or that the United States already possesses missile defense systems.

But in fact, he noted, missiles have been used by enemies in every major conflict in the past two decades. Some rogue states use missiles instead of having a much more expensive air force.

Some dangerous nations are gearing up for missile attacks. There were more than 100 foreign missile flight tests last year, he noted. For example, North Korean missile capabilities have increased dramatically. North Korea recently launched a missile that flew successfully through its first and second stages, traveling more than 2,000 miles.

Iran has launched a satellite, he noted. That involves technology similar to that in an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Such technological development for advanced missile capabilities makes sense only if missiles someday will carry weapons of mass destruction, he noted.

Missile defense is needed, urgently, he indicated. For example, what if Israel were to launch an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, to prevent the rogue state from building atomic bombs, and Iran launches missiles at Israel and at U.S. bases, including those in Europe? A European Missile Defense system would have to be in place to counter them, he continued.

"We’re at a critical crossroads for missile defense," he concluded.