'Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them?'

• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/10/why-the-russian-and-chinese-hypersonic-missile-thr/ HOME/OPINION/COMMENTARY

By Henry F. Cooper and Paula A. DeSutter - - Wednesday, April 10, 2019

'Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them?'

Hypersonic delivery systems can be launched on top of ballistic missiles, and as they “boost” to the zenith of their flight, dispense “glide” vehicles (potentially carrying nuclear weapons) that maneuver in the upper atmosphere — and lower — at many times the speed of sound.

Russia’s Avangard “boost-glide” system can defeat our current ballistic missile defenses, as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin boasted last year. China is also developing these capabilities.

Russia and China seek not only to attack important U.S. tactical systems such as our naval ships and those of our allies, but also to pose an existential threat to Americans, our strategic systems and our overseas troops, friends and allies.

Three responses might be considered: 1) arms control prohibition of, or limits on, hypersonic missiles; 2) building U.S. hypersonic versions for a “response in kind” for deterrence sake; and/or 3) in our opinion, the most effective response — deploying effective defenses to defeat the hypersonic threat.

Seeking to ban or limit hypersonic glide vehicles is almost certainly not viable — and confidently verifying such limits would likely not be possible anyway. China has shown no willingness to limit, much less eliminate, its growing offensive programs. And Mr. Putin has demonstrated that Russia is not the reliable treaty partner it seemed to be in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Developing U.S. hypersonic missiles would prove that we can extend the technology demonstrated years ago by Sandia National Laboratories’ “Swerve” hypersonic boost-glide concept, if there is an offensive need for such added U.S. capability.

But we believe it is more important to assure that ballistic missiles, including Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles, cannot effectively attack America and our overseas forces, friends and allies.

The United States can, and should, rapidly develop and deploy the means to shoot down an attacking hypersonic boost-glide missile while its rockets are still boosting shortly after it leaves its launch pad and long before it reaches an altitude to maneuver by “gliding” in the upper atmosphere.

The most cost-effective product of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a space-based boost-phase intercept concept, called Brilliant Pebbles. It entered a formal 1990 Demonstration and Validation (DemVal) program, approved by the Pentagon’s highest Acquisition Authority after extensive critical technical reviews.

Former SDI directors have reported on this history and that Brilliant Pebbles was expected to cost $10 billion in 1988 dollars, corresponding to about $20 million in today’s dollars — a fraction of what we have invested in less capable missile defense systems.

The Brilliant Pebbles concept and costs were scrubbed by numerous internal and private sector expert reviews that covered development, deployment and operations for 20 years, including to replace each of the 1000 Brilliant Pebbles at least once. The operational system was expected to be able to shoot down up to 200 ballistic missiles with a very high probability — above 95-percent.

Brilliant Pebbles’ top priority was to shoot down attacking missiles in their boost-phase; next priority was to intercept reentry vehicles as atmospheric drag shreds away decoys that could impede intercept above the atmosphere; and third priority was to shoot them down as they coast above the atmosphere if those countermeasures could be defeated.

The Clinton administration canceled that important program and instead emphasized strict adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned its development, testing and deployment. The Soviets repeatedly violated that treaty, which was terminated in 2002 by President George W. Bush. But to date no effort has sought to revive the Brilliant Pebbles effort. It should be revived.

The United States has several options for defending against hypersonic vehicles and the right stuff to pursue them. The Pentagon’s under-secretary for research and engineering, Mike Griffin, is very familiar with how Brilliant Pebbles ran the gauntlet of critical reviews in 1989-90, when he served as the SDI deputy director for technology. Other boost phase interceptors also can be launched from airborne vehicles, like fighter aircraft and drones — and these concepts also should be pursued.

One fact is unquestionable: Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have greatly invested in capabilities to attack America and our forces abroad with nuclear and other deadly weapons.

Americans probably know that negotiations with these nations are unlikely to make the threats they have pursued at great cost disappear; and they don’t want the president to rely only on retaliation after an attack. They want to be defended so that it never happens in the first place. President Ronald Reagan memorably asked “Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than to avenge them?”

Americans want their hard-earned tax dollars spent wisely to buy protection from nuclear attack. Accordingly, we should build the most cost-effective defense system concept thus far pursued by the Pentagon — Brilliant Pebbles. In our opinion, this program deserves higher priority than developing offensive U.S hypersonic missiles.

Sun Tzu, the sixth century Chinese general, strategist, philosopher and author of “The Art of War,” said: “The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”

? Henry F. Cooper was the director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. Paula A. DeSutter was U.S. assistant secretary of State for verification and compliance.

Copyright ? 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.