Brief Chat
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5
Panda , an expert in nuclear strategy , arms control , missile defense and U . S . extended deterrence . “ Missile defense is never intended to play that role . It ’ s never intended to be a perfect shield or perfectly protect Guam or the military facilities that are here .”
The proposed integrated air and missile defense architecture , which is targeted for completion by 2027 , includes multiple mobile components , such as a sensor , command and control , and interceptors that will be located across Guam .
“ Technology has come a long way , but there is no such thing as a credibly 100 percent effective missile defense system ,” Panda said . “ The classic example is the first Gulf War , where missile defense infamously didn ’ t actually work in the way that it was designed to .”
While military officials can overstate the effectiveness of missile defense , Panda said their claim needs a reality check . “ We need to be realistic about what missile defense can and can ’ t accomplish ,” said the author of “ Kim Jong Un and the Bomb : Survival and Deterrence in North Korea .”
Defense experts have been warning that at the onset of any conflict with the U . S ., China will try to neutralize Guam with an overwhelming missile barrage by destroying the military infrastructure on the island . Some experts painted a Pearl Harbor scenario .
Panda agreed . “ Given the fact that Guam for decades has had a significant geographic presence for the US military , I ultimately think that Guam will be a target in the U . S . -China conflict , regardless of the specifics of missile defense . What missile defense does change , however , is the intensity with which Guam might be struck ,” he said .
Commonly referred to as “ tip of the military spear ,” Guam is considered critical to the U . S . military ’ s power projection in the Indo-Pacific region . The missile defense system is often referred to as deterrence . Pentagon leaders say 2024 will be a key year for the Army to have in place a foundational capability
“ So missile defense is part of the solution , but shelters , early warning , hardening the grid , electricity and a lot of stuff that might be done for typhoon resiliency can actually also help with resiliency in a war as well .”
to help stave off a potential attack .
But in the absence of an actual conflict , Panda said , deterrence is clouded with abstractness . “ One of the problems with assessing if deterrence is working is that it ’ s hard to tell when deterrence is working ,” he said . “ Every day there isn ’ t a war , people can make the argument that deterrence is working . But that ’ s not necessarily true .”
Guam is a known target of potential attack but Panda said deterrence alone will not be sufficient , especially for the long- term or for changing the systemic circumstances in which Guam exists . “ One of the ways in which an adversary might cope with missile defense is simply to launch more missiles ,” Panda said .
The deterrence approach will only spiral into an arms race setting , Panda warned . “ Every missile defense system is going to be constrained by the number of interceptor missiles that will be available . Guam will never have an unlimited number of interceptors , there ’ ll always be a limit ,” Panda said . “ China will look at Guam and see what is being done to protect Guam .”
The power competition between the U . S . and China is triggering security dilemmas . “ The U . S . perceives China preparing for war , so we prepare new capabilities , which in turn causes China to perceive insecurity further , to build up more capabilities .”
Over the past several years , China has been ramping up its missile capabilities . It owns a 4,000-km missile known as the DF-26 , nicknamed “ Guam Killer ,” specifically built for the island . “ Very quickly , that Guam-specific missile has grown quantitatively . So clearly , there is already an attempt to cope with what the United States is doing here on the ground . There might be an incentive to attack before certain capabilities can go online .”
Panda noted that the U . S . cannot fully control the situation . “ We can ’ t freeze the external environment in which Guam exists . There is going to be an adaptive response specifically designed to overcome missile defenses to accomplish the objectives that China seeks to accomplish ,” he said .
Panda said he does not necessarily criticize the U . S . military ’ s investment in a missile defense system . However , he pointed to the gap in combat preparation , identifying the civilian population as a critical element that Washington apparently overlooks .
“ There ’ s a responsibility for the government to prepare for all eventualities . It can ’ t just be about the defense of the U . S . military ’ s ability to operate off of Guam ,” Panda said .
He recommended more focus on increasing the resiliency of infrastructure on Guam such as the establishment of shelters for the civilian population and early warning capabilities . “ So in a war , the population has time to evacuate , if necessary , if missiles are inbound for Guam . All of that needs to happen in tandem ,” he said .
Guam ’ s defense requires a more holistic approach that applies equally to the people who live on island . “ Missile defense in isolation can allow the U . S . military to continue operating , but it ’ s not going to necessarily have the perfect shield that ’ s going to allow life , economic life , civilian life on Guam to continue uninterrupted in the course of a war ,” Panda said . “ So missile defense is part of the solution , but shelters , early warning , hardening the grid , electricity and a lot of stuff that might be done for typhoon resiliency can actually also help with resiliency in a war as well .”
While Washington focuses on the military approach , Panda reminded federal officials of other options including diplomacy , and economic tools that can contribute to decreasing the probability of war and arresting the spiral of a nuclear race in the Pacific .
“ But ultimately as much as we would like diplomacy to be effective , the United States can ’ t will diplomacy into practice ,” Panda said . “ It needs a willing counterpart in China and that ’ s proven difficult in this broader geopolitical environment that we ’ re in , where the U . S . -China strategic agenda just has too many issues on the table .”
6