• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Missile Defense Mystery

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Vice President Joe Biden

    Despite Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Europe last week, and Secretary of State Clinton’s meeting with the Czech Foreign Minister, Karel Schwarzenberg, this week, we still don’t know whether this Administration will honor U.S. agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to deploy elements of a U.S. missile defense shield in Europe (known as the ‘third site’ deployment).

    Obama has successfully–and probably deliberately–provided enough ambiguity to make a decision either way. On the one hand, he has pledged to field defenses against WMD attacks but on the other he has implied that ballistic missile defense programs are either ineffective, too costly, or both.

    The international press is now speculating that the U.S. will abandon the third site deal, and do a deal with Russia instead. The Administration has said that it is keen to put relations with Russia on a more positive footing than President Bush.

    However, the Administration is making a number of miscalculations if it intends to abandon the third site deal in a rapprochement with Moscow. Firstly, the third site deployment is a win-win for national and global security, as it will defend against ballistic missile attack from rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. Secondly, it is a win-win for American diplomacy, having been backed by the 26-nation NATO Alliance on two separate occasions. To abandon the deployment now makes no sense politically or strategically.

    It is wrong to claim that ground-based missile defenses are unproven or unworkable. On December 5 2008, the Missile Defense Agency performed a successful intercept of an incoming ballistic missile. On September 28, 2007, the U.S. missile defense system also destroyed the mock warhead of a long-range missile. As General Trey Obering, former director of the Missile Defense Agency, states in Heritage’s “33 Minutes” documentary, we are not only now able to hit a bullet with a bullet, but can also hit a spot on a bullet with a bullet.

    Finally, it makes no sense to throw away close and proven allies in Europe, in favor of Russia. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August last year, followed by its illegal annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia demonstrates its unpredictability on the world stage. It also willfully turned off Europe’s gas supplies this past winter, leaving millions of Europeans out in the cold.

    While the Administration should certainly try to rebuild relations with Russia, it should not abandon its security interests or its long-standing allies in the process.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Missile Defense Mystery

    1. R. Reagan -- Califor says:

      "To abandon the deployment now makes no sense politically or strategically."

      It makes perfect sense if the Adminstration plans to strengthen ties with Iran and Syria.. see article by Gateway Pundit:

      Breaking Intelligence Report: Obama to Drop Sanctions On Iran ( http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/ )

    2. Peepers, Sabattus, M says:

      20/20 is hindsight! Unfortunately for us (Americans) this administration is more liken to the blind leading the blind. I do believe that even if a missle penetrated our possibly weakened defenses and hit us here, this Admin. would just lie to all and say the sky is falling and saddly those who voted for and are of the mind set of Obama would probably believe it!

    3. Tony Hollick Bristo says:

      My copy of Heritage's "High Frontier" project book was inscribed to me by Dan Graham personally, in London, England in 1983.

      The money thus far spent on "SDI" vastly outstrips the cost estimates for "High Frontier."

      That is, we could have _had_ an actual Layered Defense system long before now, for the vast outlays which have been expended to date, without even GPALS being produced and put into place.

      Simply put: this is inexcusable, as we will alas probably recognize as and when the first "rogue state" missile hits.

      No doubt there is useful science and technology to show for this staggering expenditure; but no "High Frontier" as yet.

      I am experiencing the same sort of delays and obstruction in fielding a system of small, inexpensive Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles carrying powerful, semi-automatic high-velocity sniper rifles. Not "bullet-sprays."

      These can be produced on the (slowing, everywhere) automobile production lines, at automobile prices. Thousands of them… Better than "Boots on the ground" for assymmetric warfare. Doesn'r "come home in a box."

      Precise hits on intended targets, rather than the million rounds presently expended for each enemy taken down in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with extensive "Collateral Damage."

      The aim of our "Project HOPLON" is to enable individual warfighters to seek out and address specific targets from the air, from thousands of miles away. These UCAVs can be deployed from land, sea or air. All the technologies are proven. Development costs are minimal. Development time is short.

      I often ask myself: "Do we really WANT to win?"

      What is lacking is the intelligence and the will to win. I'm not in this for the money…

      Best Wishes,

      Tony Hollick

    4. Bill, Little Rock says:

      It has done better than hit missiles. It took out a satellite gone bad that was due to reenter the atmosphere while it was still filled with toxic fuel. A missile from a navy destroyer destroyed the satellite and its toxic fuel. The navy's antimissile defense is a first or second layer defense, whereas the missiles in Alaska and proposed for Turkey are the big boys.

      Tony, the weapons deployed on unmanned aircraft are missiles (Hellfire missiles, if memory serves), not "bullet sprays," by which I take it you mean machine guns. Those missiles are fired from a range greatly beyond the range of any rifle, sniper or otherwise.

    5. Mike, Hickory, NC says:

      Hey! When you're as dedicated to the so-called "Progressive" agenda of the Socialist government elitist Left, and/or supportively "sympathetic" to the so-called "Islamic Extremist" Fascist agenda of so-called "rogue leaders" such as Ahmadinijad and Bin Laden, then of course you'll also act as if to say: "What's the big deal about betraying allies, militarily invading and overpowering a comparatively powerless bordering neighbor (Putin), and causing people to freeze through “Under my plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket” (Obama) and willfully turning off Europe’s gas supplies (Putin)?

      In fact, they probably will do more to show, however duplicitously they may try to hide it, what a shame it is, according to them, to waste any opportunity, including any crisis, through which they could do what they haven't before and thus show how well they've learned that lesson by example from such as Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler who also betrayed allies, committed illegal annexations, and caused people to freeze, and more, for their government elitist quests for power.

      Indeed even Obama’s “White House Chief of Staff” named Rahm Emanuel said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before”, and, in addition to the Socialist Left’s Pork and Socialism filled so-called “(Economic) Stimulus Package”, such things are even more examples of that money and power-hungry government elitist attitude and agenda.

      Of course, according to the government elitist Left and “rogue” leaders alike, all of us other people must be subjected to and accept their already documented efforts and plans to “re-educate” us against our "dangerous, antiquated, archaic, out-dated, and/or infidel ideas", on pain of whatever punishment, or “jihad” they choose, and submit to their “enlightened” Leftist government elitist ways, or “will of Allah”.

      Indeed, how supposedly “unprovocative”, acceptable, and thus "ok" it is, according to them, for other nations to have and emplace (including in other countries and “returned” lands) what they call "defensive missile capabilities"; yet how supposedly “provocative”, unacceptable, and thus "not ok" it is, according to them, for us in the U.S. to even speak of doing anything other than our not likewise having and emplacing our own such missile defense capabilities for our allies and ourselves.

      Now there’s a glaringly obvious and illogical double standard for you, in accordance with the money and power-hungry government elitist Left and “rogue” leaders alike!

      Both I and hundreds of millions of other U.S. Americans would prefer to say that is not all true. However, not only is it all true, but, at this point, we whom the U.S. Constitution identifies as “We the People” brought it all on both ourselves and other freedom lovers around the world through either falling for or not voting against the “siren song” of the Socialist Left and their accomplices in academia, the media, and elsewhere, and that of “rogue leaders” who benefit from the attitudes and behavior of the Left, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Fascist extremists such as Ahmadinijad, Bin Laden, and others.

    6. ARJIS, GA says:

      It is just plain ignorant to turn our backs on our Cold War allies and cuddle up to Russia. There is nothing wrong with bettering our relations with Russia in that we will help to make a more stable world. But to sacrifice past promises to existing allies in order to do so is not right.

      The importance of this defense system cannot be over-emphasized.

      Thanks for the article,


    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.