If you are a resident of Washington, D.C., you are bearing witness to decades of neglect that have thrown the area’s Metro system into a downward dysfunctional cycle. With a safety and reliability record worthy of a third-world transit system, residents are struggling to understand what happened to their once-celebrated Metro. The answer is a lifetime of shortsighted decisions by officials who failed to spend the necessary time, energy and resources on the maintenance and improvement of a complicated mechanical system.
The reasons for Metro’s decline are legion: A tradition of managerial and employee incompetence and even corruption at WMATA; a lack of effective oversight and direction by a multi-jurisdictional board; and no dedicated funding stream like other major metropolitan subway systems enjoy. All of this has led to a culture of politically calculated decision-making, underfunding, corner-cutting and attempting to do more with less. While extending service and neglecting repairs and upgrades, Metro has been able to keep up appearances while in fact the system was in steep decline.
Pardon the pun, but this trainwreck actually teaches a valuable lesson about the importance of upkeep and upgrades to vital systems such as Metro. As Congress considers the fiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, a glance out the window at the mess that is unfolding could help keep the focus where it needs to be: On providing strategic direction and adequately funding our nation’s missile defense systems.
Admittedly, the parallels between Metro and the nation’s missile defense systems aren’t immediately apparent. However, lessons abound for anyone willing to look closely enough. Both require strategic maintenance and long-term investment, both require upgrades and development, and the neglect of either can lead to putting people’s lives in danger.
The ballistic missile threat to this country and our allies continues to grow. Countries like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia all continue to modernize their missile capabilities at a feverish pace. Thankfully, over the last two decades, the U.S. has developed advanced technologies that can counter this threat by intercepting incoming missiles. While “bending the cost curve” over the long-term is a good goal, the protection of the homeland and our troops and allies abroad remains paramount. It is incumbent on policymakers to maintain and upgrade those proven systems that can provide that security.
What does this reinvestment and maintenance entail? Congress needs to focus on two main issues as it works through the NDAA and defense appropriations process. First is continuing to upgrade capabilities for our current hit-to-kill systems. Finding and destroying incoming threats in the upper atmosphere and space is an incredibly difficult task. In the future, a Multi-Object Kill Vehicle will provide the best opportunity of guaranteeing successful interception.
But we can’t simply rely on aging equipment as we wait for the development of the next generation of kill vehicle to be developed. Rather, we need to move full steam ahead with a Redesigned Kill Vehicle that builds on lessons learned from our existing equipment in Alaska and California.
In addition to advancing our capabilities, we also need additional missile inventory to combat evolving threats. The Obama administration has recommended a reduction in the number of Standard Missile-3 interceptors by 33 percent and a funding cut for the next generation of SM-3 variant. These cuts must be reversed. The versatile SM-3 can be either land or sea-based and is used in the recently established European missile defense shield in Romania. With more platforms in need of the proven SM-3, cutting production and underfunding development will inevitably lead to a reduction in our capabilities.
D.C. residents are experiencing what happens when a complex mechanical system is neglected for decades: Emergency expenditures of funds (which may or may not be available); wasted time and frustration; and catastrophic failures that put people’s lives in danger. Parallels between the D.C. Metro and missile defense are inexact, but as those spearheading defense legislation at the White House, the Pentagon and in Congress experience delays on their morning metro commutes, maybe they’ll think twice.
The U.S. can ill afford to have a degraded missile defense system in the face of a serious threat from a rogue nation.
Jonathan Bergner is an independent national security policy analyst. He writes extensively about nuclear proliferation, deterrence and ballistic missile defense. He worked previously for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the early 2000s.
