SOLVENCY: NMD IS A VITAL PROTECTION AGAINST AN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PULSE ATTACK

N�M�D� �I�S� �T�H�E �B�E�S�T� �P�R�O�T�E�C�T�I�O�N� �A�G�A�I�N�S�T� �A�N� �E�M�P� �A�T�T�A�C�K�

//VT2002acsln

Regardless of the debate, the surest way to protect the United States from a high-altitude EMP is to deploy a ballistic missile defense that would give the United States an opportunity to intercept and destroy a warhead before it is detonated above the atmosphere. This would prevent an EMP attack and any harm to U.S. systems, and it might even deter rogue leaders from considering the use of EMP. Deploying a missile defense architecture that is capable of intercepting a missile early in flight (during the ascent phase) means that rogue-state missiles would be ineffective, thereby undermining the rationale for their use.

N�M�D� �S�H�O�U�L�D� �B�E� �C�O�N�S�T�R�U�C�T�E�D� �W�I�T�H� �A�N� �E�Y�E� �T�O�W�A�R�D�S� �D�E�F�E�N�S�E� �A�G�A�I�N�S�T� �E�M�P� �A�T�T�A�C�K�

//VT2002acsln

To begin developing a policy for protecting Americans from the effects of a high-altitude EMP blast, Congress should:

* Hold hearings on whether the Administration's planned national missile defense architecture can protect the United States, its allies, and its troops stationed abroad from an EMP delivered by ballistic missiles and examine national missile defense alternatives to that system to ensure that America deploys the best protection technologically possible.

* Continue pressing the Administration to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technologically possible. As numerous officials and the Heritage Foundation Commission on Missile Defense chaired by Ambassador Henry Cooper have stated, the best defense involves a system that includes sea-based, space-based, and land-based interceptors that can respond to any ballistic missile launch to intercept the missile as near its boost phase as possible.

2. Establish a blue-ribbon commission to (1) assess the immediacy of the EMP threat to America and the level of civil and military vulnerability, (2) recommend a level of just force in retaliation for EMP attacks, (3) conduct a cost-benefit analysis for protecting civil and unhardened military electronic infrastructure against EMPs, and (4) determine the extent to which America's potential enemies have access to this technology and the ease with which they could use it.

N�M�D� �I�S� �T�H�E� �B�E�S�T� �W�A�Y� �T�O� �P�R�O�T�E�C�T� �A�G�A�I�N�S�T� �E�M�P� �A�T�T�A�C�K�

//VT2002acsln

Today, because of the spread of nuclear technology and ballistic missiles, the threat of a high-altitude EMP explosion over the United States or a battlefield is increasing. Indeed, America's reliance on advanced electronics makes its systems more vulnerable to such a blast than those of hostile states that might choose to use an EMP. Moreover, protecting all of America's civilian electronic infrastructure is fiscally not feasible. Because the most likely vehicles for delivering such a nuclear device above the atmosphere are ballistic missiles, the most prudent method of protecting America from EMP attacks would be a missile defense system that could destroy a ballistic missile before it reaches U.S. airspace.