House-Senate Defense Bill Seeks New Radar Against N. Korea Threat

A semi-submersible, self-propelled X-band radar that provides ballistic missile-tracking information is pictured in this undated photo. House-Senate conference legislation would require the U.S. military to buy an additional radar system to patrol for possible long-range missile attacks by North Korea.
National Journal
Rachel Oswald
See more stories about...
Rachel Oswald
Dec. 10, 2013, 10:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — U.S. Sen­ate and House ne­go­ti­at­ors on Monday an­nounced they had hammered out bi­par­tis­an le­gis­la­tion that would re­quire the Pentagon’s Mis­sile De­fense Agency to field a new radar to de­tect any long-range mis­siles that North Korea may fire against the United States.

The two cham­bers agreed to a fisc­al 2014 de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion con­fer­ence bill that iden­ti­fies $30 mil­lion in ad­di­tion­al funds to ini­ti­ate de­ploy­ment.

The U.S. mil­it­ary presently fields an early-warn­ing radar at a base in north­ern Ja­pan and is plan­ning on de­ploy­ing a second, long-range sensor with­in the year at an­oth­er site in the East Asi­an coun­try. The moves are part of an al­lied ini­ti­at­ive to boost the early de­tec­tion and mon­it­or­ing of pos­sible North Korean mis­sile launches.

The in­crease for the ad­di­tion­al radar is among more than $350 mil­lion in ex­tra funds the House and Sen­ate law­makers have agreed to ap­ply to mis­sile de­fense pro­grams in the joint bill, which could be sent to the White House by the end of this week.

The De­fense De­part­ment policy-set­ting le­gis­la­tion con­tains $607 bil­lion in au­thor­ized fund­ing, in­clud­ing $9.5 bil­lion for mis­sile de­fense activ­it­ies — a $358 mil­lion boost over what the Pentagon had re­ques­ted for the year, ac­cord­ing to a press re­lease from Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in’s (D-Mich.) of­fice.

Both cham­bers are sus­pend­ing nor­mal rules of or­der and likely fore­go­ing votes on con­tro­ver­sial amend­ments such as more sanc­tions on Ir­an in a bid to get the bill to Pres­id­ent Obama for sign­ing be­fore the end of Decem­ber, ac­cord­ing to The Hill news­pa­per.

The House is sched­uled to break for its hol­i­day re­cess on Fri­day and the Sen­ate could ad­journ a week after that. The deal reached by con­gres­sion­al ne­go­ti­at­ors does away with the need for a bicam­er­al con­fer­ence re­port, which means the Sen­ate only has to vote on the le­gis­la­tion once, Politico re­por­ted. The House already passed its ver­sion of the bill.

For mis­sile de­fense, the bill in­cludes a set-aside of an ad­di­tion­al $80 mil­lion to fix a tech­no­logy mal­func­tion that caused a high-pro­file Ju­ly test of the coun­try’s Ground-based Mid­course De­fense sys­tem to fail. The mis­sile in­ter­cept failed when the kin­et­ic kill vehicle of the Ground Based In­ter­cept­or fired in the test did not prop­erly sep­ar­ate from its rock­et boost­er.

The bill also in­cludes $80 mil­lion for work on an “en­hanced kill vehicle and dis­crim­in­a­tion cap­ab­il­it­ies” for the GMD sys­tem, which is the coun­try’s prin­cip­al de­fense against pos­sible long-range bal­list­ic mis­sile at­tacks by North Korea and Ir­an. The dif­fi­culty that GMD sensors have in dis­tin­guish­ing between ac­tu­al war­heads and de­coys has re­peatedly been raised by tech­nic­al ex­perts as a ser­i­ous flaw with the sys­tem.

Oth­er mis­sile de­fense and nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al-re­lated pro­vi­sions in the le­gis­la­tion in­clude:

— A re­quire­ment that the Pentagon “en­sure the cap­ab­il­ity” of field­ing more sensors on the U.S. East Coast to guard against pos­sible in­ter­con­tin­ent­al bal­list­ic mis­siles launched by Ir­an.

— A pro­hib­i­tion on us­ing any U.S. funds to in­teg­rate a Chinese an­ti­mis­sile tech­no­logy with U.S. mis­sile de­fense sys­tems. The meas­ure ap­par­ently is aimed at de­ter­ring Tur­key from pur­chas­ing a Chinese sys­tem that Ank­ara wants to con­nect to the evolving NATO mis­sile shield. The al­li­ance an­ti­mis­sile net­work is be­ing built largely with U.S. tech­no­logy.

— A man­date that the De­fense De­part­ment brief Con­gress on any en­vir­on­ment­al as­sess­ments of the im­pact of a po­ten­tial third in­ter­cept­or site un­der the GMD sys­tem. The meas­ure au­thor­izes $20 mil­lion for the con­tin­ued study and plan­ning of the pos­sible com­plex.

— An in­crease of $173 mil­lion above the Pentagon’s $96 mil­lion re­quest for joint U.S.-Is­raeli an­ti­mis­sile activ­it­ies, which in­clude nearly $34 mil­lion for work on the de­vel­op­ment­al long-range Ar­row 3 mis­sile in­ter­cept­or.

— An au­thor­iz­a­tion of $543 mil­lion — a boost of $40 mil­lion over the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­quest — for the con­tro­ver­sial ef­fort to build the Mixed Ox­ide Fuel Fab­ric­a­tion Fa­cil­ity in South Car­o­lina.

— The es­tab­lish­ment of a “Nuc­le­ar Com­mand, Con­trol, and Com­mu­nic­a­tions Coun­cil” in­side the Pentagon that would fo­cus on up­dat­ing and bet­ter co­ordin­at­ing seni­or lead­ers’ com­mu­nic­a­tions sys­tems.

— A sense of the Con­gress that the ef­fects of the im­ple­ment­a­tion of the New START arms con­trol ac­cord with Rus­sia should be dis­trib­uted as evenly as pos­sible among the coun­try’s ICBM wings.

— The au­thor­iz­a­tion of work on re­mov­ing the nuc­le­ar role of some of the Air Force’s B-52H bombers, once the Pentagon has provided its plans for bring­ing the coun­try’s stra­tegic nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al in­to com­pli­ance with New START.

— A re­quire­ment that the En­ergy De­part­ment cer­ti­fy to Con­gress that its nuc­le­ar-weapon sites hold­ing sens­it­ive atom­ic ma­ter­i­als meet de­part­ment stand­ards for phys­ic­al se­cur­ity.

— A sense of the Con­gress that any po­ten­tial new bi­lat­er­al arms con­trol re­duc­tions with Rus­sia be un­der­taken “through a mu­tu­ally ne­go­ti­ated agree­ment, be veri­fi­able, take in­to ac­count tac­tic­al nuc­le­ar weapons, and be sub­ject to Sen­ate ad­vice and con­sent.”

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×