8 December 2001
Alaska makes its case for missile defense role
By Wayne Specht,
Stars and Stripes, Pacific edition

"Alaska just may be in the right place at the right time," said Chris Nelson, the state’s
coordinator for missile defense. The program "certainly will have a decided Pacific
orientation involving a lot of Pacific-based military forces."

The Bush administration proposed establishing missile defense facilities at Greely, 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks, and other regions of the state by 2004. These facilities, to include five silos for ground-based interceptors, will serve as a test bed and an emergency defense in response to an attack by long-range ballistic missiles.

Initial clearing of land and improvements to existing infrastructure at Fort Greely began this summer.

And the nation’s missile defense system took another step this week with the success of the program’s third of five tests. An interceptor rocket knocked out a dummy warhead 144 miles over the South Pacific on Monday.

Choosing Alaska

Nelson said Alaska didn’t always figure into plans for missile defense. In 1995, he said, the Clinton administration published a national intelligence study assessing a missile threat to the lower 48 states.

"It completely omitted Alaska and Hawaii," Nelson said. "That was a real attention-getter for us."

The assessment found the lower 48 states needed protection from ballistic missiles being developed by rogue states like North Korea. Alaska and Hawaii were not included under the Clinton administration’s initial missile defense plans because the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty bars deployment of a missile defense system capable of providing coverage to all U.S. territories.

Admitting "we couldn’t even spell NMD years ago," Nelson said state legislators had no idea there was a problem after the Cold War ended. "We felt the ballistic missile threat went away with the demise of the Soviet Union."

However, U.S. intelligence agencies learned North Korea and Iran were developing advanced versions of ballistic missiles capable of reaching well beyond their borders.

Soon after the assessment, former Alaska Sen. Robert Taylor composed a legislative resolution calling on the United States to meet its constitutional obligations to provide for the state’s defense.

"He figured if Alaska wasn’t going to be defended as part of the Union, why are we here?" Nelson said. "It wasn’t threats just from the [former] Soviet Union or the Chinese anymore."

Nelson said the media picked up on the state’s plight, and that served as Alaska’s introduction to missile defense issues.

"We pointed out the flaws in that 1995 intelligence assessment, and Clinton appointed a bipartisan commission chaired by Donald Rumsfeld," he said. Rumsfeld’s commission issued a report in early 1998 that said "states of concern" be able to hit the United States with little or no warning by 2005.

"States of concern" is used to label countries like North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya that the State Department watches closely as potential threats because of munitions, armaments or biological developments, and harboring of terrorists.

North Korea’s 1998 test-firing of a Taepodong-3 multi-stage missile over northern Japan focused world attention on the emerging threat from ballistic missiles.

"We called that the ‘Rumsfeld validation shot,’ another wake-up call for Alaska," said Nelson, appointed two years ago by Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles.

Economic windfall

Nelson and other state officials see missile defense as a harbinger of an entirely new high-tech economic sector that never existed in Alaska.

"Alaska’s economy is a resource extraction economy; we pump oil and ship it outside, catch fish and ship outside, and we cut trees to ship outside."

Although tourism brings in significant revenue, Nelson said the high-tech economy in the lower 48 states has bypassed Alaska.

"Missile defense would bring top defense companies and sub-contractors to work on missile programs in Alaska. This is a real opportunity for us that isn’t dependent on the price of oil, or if the salmon are running," he said.

"We see many millions potentially in revenue. There will be many jobs created, too — 230 would be needed in Fort Greely alone to operate a missile system."

Boeing and United Missile Technology, a consortium made up of Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon, submitted proposals for the national missile defense system, Nelson said. Boeing’s was selected.

Rudy Tsukada, a researcher for Alaska’s Department of Community & Economic Development, said construction of the missile system could hold strong economic promise for the state, as well.

"The immediate benefit of the program would be the economic spike created by the construction phase of NMD," Tsukada said. "The operations phase is anticipated to be a substantial but smaller benefit for Alaska, too." He could not supply dollar figures the state may reap from NMD programs.

The right location

Four areas were examined for missile system sites: Clear Air Force Station in the corner of Yukon training area, the Fort Wainwright training complex, Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks and Fort Greely at Delta Junction.

Nelson said Fort Greely was the preferred location.

"It has existing military infrastructure, and the potential missile field had no permafrost, the water table is at 300 feet, and you can put missile silos in with minimal environment impact."

Alaska’s military presence saw a decline after 1995’s Base Realignment and Closure Commission. That commission singled out Greely, a 640,000-acre installation, for closure.

More than 21,000 active duty, Reserve and National Guard, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen now serve at installations throughout the state, according to the Alaskan Command public affairs office.

Alaska offers other project benefits as well. According to Tsukada, Alaska has the only non-federally controlled launch pad for rockets in the United States. Nearing completion is a low earth-orbit launch complex in Kodiak, and full service satellite ground station facilities development in Fairbanks is under way.

"NMD has already pumped large sums of money into this program, and the Air Force is one of the top clients for the facility," he said.

Tsukada said Alaska is working on becoming a premier area for downloading information from polar orbiting satellites.

In July, President Bush announced creation of the Pacific Region Test Bed consisting of an X-band radar system at Shemya, Alaska, and an upgraded Cobra Dane early warning radar system at Clear Air Force Station. Nelson said that promises more economic potential for the state.

"The Air Force wants to integrate Greely as a test bed to put five silos and build a battle management command, control and communication center there, too," Nelson said.

Eventually, Greely would have as many as 100 ground-based interceptors once initial testing is completed and the missile defense system becomes operational.

Detractors

Not everyone supports the program.

"These facilities would be a clear violation of the ABM treaty," Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright, senior staff scientists with the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in an opinion posted to the Arms Control Today Web site.

"Because the emergency deployment system would, in reality, have little capability against an enemy attack, the result of proceeding with construction at Fort Greely would be that the United States would incure large political costs up front in exchange for little actual benefit."

But since the Sept. 11 attacks, Nelson said the impetus for a missile defense system, he believes, became stronger.

"There’s a hard-core group on the left who are opposed to missile defense and continue to do so," he said. "But within mainstream American political life, he said, "missile defense must be an integrated part of Homeland Defense."

Learn more about missile defense at: www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/nmd.html

Source: the Air Force’s Ballistic Missile Defense Organization