Russia-Georgia War Highlights Need For Directed-Energy Defences

By James Jay Carafano Ph.D
Heritage Foundation

For the second time in recent years, the United States has witnessed another wake-up call for the importance of fielding directed-energy weapons capable of shooting-down mortar and artillery fire, as well as intercepting short-range rockets and missiles.The Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Congress need to place more emphasis on fielding working prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible.

People as Targets

Terrorism continues to be the scourge of the 21st century, but the age of conventional wars is far from over. In recent years we have had plenty examples where both means of warfare have employed conventional weapons to target civilians. Specifically, indirect fire weapons from mortars to short-range missiles have been directly targeted against innocents or employed against military targets in urban areas, putting civilian populations at risk. Terrorists in North Africa attempted to shoot down a commercial airliner with a short-range surface-to-air missile. In Iraq, insurgent groups used mortars to fire on administrative buildings, as well as military facilities in Baghdad and other urban areas.

Even more troubling, however, is the use of these conventional weapons in combat zones aimed at the heart of civilian populations. In the 2006 battles between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hezbollah's Katyusha rocket attacks killed and wounded dozens of Israelis, destroyed property, and sent thousands to bomb shelters. The rain of rockets threatened to spark a larger regional conflict.

Another Rage of Rockets

The Russian incursion into Georgia last week saw the use of rockets in urban areas by both sides. According to reports in The New York Times, Georgia fired BM-21 rockets, a system similar to the Katyusha, at separatist military headquarters. Although the rockets appear to have been aimed at legitimate targets, the risk of damage to the surrounding civilian community from these inaccurate weapons may have been high. According to other press and eyewitness reports, during the massive Russian military offensive, ground troops fired dozens of SS-21s, a short-range ballistic missile that can carry a high-explosive warhead. It is not clear whether these weapons were fired at legitimate military targets. In addition, the large SS 21 high-explosive warhead can carry either fragmentation bombs or mines making the risk of civilian causalities in urban areas very high.

The Promise of Directed Energy

Despite repeated warning signs that both unconventional and conventional combatants have no problem using the weapons of war to target both military and civilian populations, the United States has shown little sense of urgency in developing effective countermeasures for either equipping military forces or safeguarding civilian populations.

Directed energy weapons, such as the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL), demonstrate tremendous potential against all kinds of mortar, artillery, rocket, aircraft, and missile threats. Directed energy can be used against short-range threats like the Katyusha rockets being fired at Israel and against ballistic missiles like the SS-21s fired at Georgia. Such systems could also be used for homeland security, such as protecting critical infrastructure, national security events (such as the presidential nominating conventions) and commercial air traffic from terrorist attack.

Concluding that the THEL was not sufficiently mobile and robust for battlefield use, the U.S. Army decided to forgo its full development. Meanwhile, though the Department of Homeland Security has experimented with some systems to defend commercial flights against surface-to-air missiles, it too has not deployed any operational systems.

The Clock Is Ticking

Rather than deploy the THEL, the national security community has turned to a new generation of lasers for developing suitable directed-energy protective systems. These lasers employ a solid-state technology, incorporating multiple industrial thin disk lasers into a single high-powered energy devise. The military is currently developing prototypes for a mobile version of this system.

Congress should insist and the administration should press to field operational prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible for both defense and homeland security applications. Both land-based and air-based platforms (mounted on manned and unmanned aircraft) should be fielded as soon as possible. Putting a system in the field now would provide some limited operational capability and invaluable operational experience on how to use these systems.

Courtesy of Heritage Foundation, read more at www.heritage.org

Rep. King Enters No P.C. Zone

Representative Peter King of New York made one thing clear, he is not concerned with political correctness. This was obivious after his comments about there being too many mosques in America.

The reaction that such comments would elicit would be highly predictable. But these reactions would simply be reactions to the congressman's statement on a purely superficial level. I think what Rep. King was doing was being a honest politician, the kind of thing we constantly complain that we do not have enough of.

"There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam," King said.

I think his point is an honest assessment of the current situation. When Islamic extremists carry out terrorists acts there is no condemnation or outrage from the moderate Muslim population.

We tend to judge people by their actions or lack of action as in these cases. I think it is entirely appropriate to question the motives of those in our country that have such an association to radical extremism and terrorism. If not, we risk a slow and steady infiltration of unwanted elements that do not wish to live out the great American dream but to destroy it.

Break Down at the Border

Racist, bigot, xenophobe, these are all adjectives to describe Republicans and conservatives. It is the common response of the left to conservatives’ concerns about illegal immigration. This is the same tired response given when concerns are raised on this issue. This is in response to concerns about the immigration bill trying to gain life in the Senate. The main objection is the granting of amnesty to 12 to 20 billion illegal immigrants, and the still unsecured border. These are two common sense concerns that do not seem able to penetrate the nonsensical minds of liberals. The bill failed to garner enough votes in the Senate and looked to be dead but like Lazarus it is being resurrected for another go around. The Democrats are dangling carrots in the faces of Republicans in an effort to boost support. The sad part is we have many on the Republican side of the aisle who are eagerly supporting this bill. There seems to be a divide among the party between those who want comprehensive reform and those who want enforcement of the border first. Unfortunately our president supports the former option. He even went as far, in recent weeks, to question the motives of those who want to secure the border first. Needless to say this had a predictable reaction as congressmen were flooded with calls decrying the move to grant amnesty. To respond to my earlier statement, we are not racists, bigots, or xenophobes, we are concerned citizens. We have a right to be concerned considering amnesty was tried twenty years ago and we now have many times the illegal population residing within our borders. We also sit and wait earnestly for our borders to be secured as promised. How can we expect to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into our country when our door remains wide open? Every day our borders remain wide open we will se an influx of illegal elements crossing into our country, some well-intentioned and some not. I think Congress needs to take advantage of their world-class healthcare and get a prescription to restore their common sense. Instead we are left with a debate going nowhere, as a bridge in Alaska, and two sides unwilling to compromise. It would seem logical to secure the border first and then decide what to do with the people already in our country. Logic, however, seems to elude those in Washington. For all the talk about bipartisanship it would seem likely that both sides would agree that securing our borders would be a first priority. After all they are given this responsibility in the constitution. And we all know how Democrats love to quote and refer to the constitution when they think another right is being taken away from them. Our Congress needs to know our feelings about this and they have begun to hear them. The proof is the lack of a signed bill. This is an issue with great importance like the war against radical Islam. Not only are their national security implications but economic as well. We have all heard the statistics of what the cost will be if we allow the status quo to remain. That cost being left for future generations to pay like social security. The point is this, there are so many things we cannot control but his is one we can solve if we have the right leadership. Unfortunately the halls of Congress are increasingly devoid of such leaders.