Biden: Why Democrats Oppose Billions More on Missiles

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Why Democrats Oppose Billions More on Missiles
July 31, 2006; Page A11

Your July 21 editorial "The Taepodong Democrats1" misses the point on both missile defense and North Korea. Democrats said that the real work on missile defense could be done without withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and that the administration's aversion to international legal commitments would bring unintended consequences. Since 2001, the progress in missile defense has been against shorter-range missiles, rather than ICBMs, which is why Aegis cruisers and PAC-3 have no likely capability against a Taepodong missile and were never barred by the ABM Treaty. The ground-based missile defense hasn't intercepted anything in years, and even the president was hard put to voice much confidence in it. Besides, just about the least likely threat we face is from a North Korean nuclear ICBM with a return address that invites that country's destruction. That's why many Democrats support more testing, but oppose spending billions on more missiles before we know whether the ones we have will even work.

Meanwhile, under this administration's watch, North Korea has become far more dangerous, and not because of its long-range missiles. The danger is a 400% increase in Pyongyang's stock of plutonium above the amount it had in 2001 (which was produced during the administration of the first President Bush) and which it could sell to the highest bidder. If this had happened under the previous administration, you would be calling for impeachment. In fact, the Clinton administration's approach, which this page loves to deride, succeeded in freezing Pyongyang's production of plutonium and got a missile test moratorium that lasted until this month. Results matter. No apologies necessary if you will acknowledge that fact.

Sen. Joe Biden (D., Del.)
Washington

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115429958173221731.html (subscription)

[Cobalt-60]

1. This work has already been done

The majority of incoming missiles we might be likely to face are based on Mid 20th century technology.
All of the North Korean and Iranian missiles are based on SCUD technology.
And the North Korean missiles are junk even by Iranian standards.
Several competent ABM systems have been developed since then.
Take the venerable Sprint interceptor, swap out the old nuclear tip for a modern overlay and steer it with up to date radar.
You can't miss.
Indeed, the steely eyed missile men that manned the Nike batteries claim to this day they could have picked off incoming warheads at will.
But it's all academic.
Iranian missiles will go to Israel. North Korean missiles are headed for South Korea