• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama, Medvedev, and Missile Defense

    As President Obama and Russian President Medvedev met in Moscow July 6-8, arms control and missile defense were key issues. Both sides agreed to a preliminary framework for a treaty to replace the START Treaty, which expires in December. However, since before Obama arrived in Moscow, President Medvedev has been tying arms control to the U.S.’s abandoning of the third site in Europe. The third site, a missile defense system proposed by President Bush, includes ten interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic to protect our allies in Europe against the growing Iranian missile threat. This missile defense system would also, and very importantly, protect the United States from the Iranian threat.

    President Obama, in an effort to “reset” relations with Russia, may compromise on this missile defense system in Europe. Giving in on missile defense is a poor choice for United States national security, not to mention that Obama will get nothing in return if he gives up the European missile shield. For example, Russia has explicitly said it will not agree to tougher sanctions on Iran in return for the nuclear arms deal with Washington. What is also important to note is that President Obama has stated he only wants to deploy missile defenses that are proven and cost-effective. The European missile defense system is both, and therefore the exact kind of program the President should want to deploy.

    Not only is this linkage between nuclear arms reductions and missile defense detrimental to our national security, it sends a clear message to Russia that the United States will comply every time Russia makes a demand, even if it is unfounded. As the Senate discusses the Defense Authorization for the 2010fiscal year, it should remember to keep U.S. national security at heart. One way it should do that is to return funding for the third site in Europe to protect our allies abroad and Americans at home.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Obama, Medvedev, and Missile Defense

    1. Spiritof76 says:

      The article is written as though Obama cares a whit about the US. He has clearly expressed that US is the problem and never has been liberators or fighting for the good.

      The very fact that you had to write this story and provide what he should be doing or should have done, is a clear illustration of which side Obama stands for; clearly not on the US side based on our founding principles.

    2. Margaret Beacham says:

      I HOPE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON THE MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEM THAT WAS PROPOSED BY PRESIDENT BUSH WHEN HE WAS OUR PRESIDENT,IF HE DOES I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS THE BEST INTEREST IN AMERICA FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND I BELIEVE THAT IS ONE OF HIS MOST IMPORTANT ROLES IS PROTECTING AMERICA.THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE AMERICANS PEOPLE VOTED HIM IN OFFICE FOR. AND WE DIDN'T VOTE HIM IN TO CHANGE THE HEALTH ALL OVER, WE LIKE IT, OR THE MOST OF AMERICANS LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS NOW.SO PLEASE LEAVE IT BE THE WAY IT IS. AMERICA WILL BE SAVING MONEY.AND WHO KNOWS YOU MIGHT WIN A SECOND TERM.

    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.

    ×