• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Third Site Missile Defenses Would Demonstrate the Indivisibility of Transatlantic Security

    As Iran inches closer to crossing the nuclear weapons threshold and continues to advance its ballistic missile program, the dangers to Europe and America increase. Estimates predict that Tehran’s missiles could hit Europe’s entire landmass within 4 years, with parts of Europe already in Tehran’s crosshairs.

    An attack on Europe would almost certainly hit American assets on the Continent, and would be invoked by NATO as the same as an attack on the United States itself. As the commemorations of the 9/11 terrorist attacks begin, it should be remembered that it was on 9/12/2001 that for its first and only time, NATO invoked the sacred Article V clause to demonstrate the indivisibility of Euro-Atlantic security.

    Iran has already demonstrated that it is an aggressive actor on the international stage, supporting and consorting with odious regimes such as North Korea and terrorist actors such as Hezbollah. It has violently crushed legitimate domestic opposition and sought to solidify its position among Iranian elites with extreme anti-Western rhetoric and actions that glorify past terrorist acts and incite further terrorism.

    As President Obama looks to defend the United States against such rogue regimes, missile defense is a tried, tested and trusted protection strategy. The placing of missile defenses outside of the U.S. as well as on the Homeland reinforces America’s long-held commitment to the NATO alliance. To make America and her allies deliberately vulnerable to ballistic missile or nuclear attack makes no sense. In an age where America’s enemies have ballistic missile capabilities, the United States must have missile defense technologies.

    As a workable, cost effective, defensive solution to current and emerging threats, missile defense makes sense for America and for Europe. Abandoning America’s most enduring allies now, in the face of unsupportable Russian objections, is a tactical miscalculation with long-term strategic implications. President Obama must not surrender to spurious Russian accusations on one of America’s greatest defense assets.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Third Site Missile Defenses Would Demonstrate the Indivisibility of Transatlantic Security

    1. Bill San Antonio TX says:

      Good Article.

      You do not have to be a historian or stratagist to realize how much danger the world is in.

      Mass communications and transportation and technology make it more dangerous than any other time in history. Unfortunately, all too many people do not understand or think about the military ramifications…

      The most important priority is national defense. The liberals hate when you point this out; inside, they know this is true. It's as if we have to fight them in order to protect them and us!

      There should not even be a debate on our national security being paramount. Where is the common sense?

      Why is it we continually close our eyes to the reality of the world we live in?

      It is shameful how politicians always look at defense, first, for cuts, while hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted through inefficencies and fraud.

      Most of us do not have secret bunkers and hideaways that will accomodate our nation's leaders and their families in the event of a catastrophic attack. We understand and accept this.

      What we should not accept is backing away from a comprehensive missle shield. At least, we will have done everything possible to protect Americans.

      Some countries do not want us to builder a defensive missle shield.

      Why? Because it will be harder to successfully attack us. Hello!!! That is the general purpose for the program.

      May God Help Us

    2. Bill San Antonio TX says:

      Today should remind us that we want peace.

      It should also remind us that peace can only be achieved through strength because we are dealing with heartless terrorists who are not afraid to die in order to kill as many of us as possible.

    3. Carroll George, Arli says:

      Technological advances in mass communications, transportation, and other areas have certainly advanced the good life. 911 has shown that any technologies obtainable by terrorists will, without hesitation, apply them to mass destruction and mass killing.

      Self defence is a basic right and extends to defense of our way of life and friends from any possible event that we know by experience terrorist will do when they obtain the means.

    4. Pingback: The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Conservative Leaders Speak Out on Obama Missile Defense Decision

    5. Pingback: Have Americans Stopped Having Confidence In Their Government? « A Nation ADrift-Why?

    6. Bill, Pittsburgh, PA says:

      This has shades of the 1930's. The leaders must need a history lesson if they think that appeasing an aggressive government will bring peace or stability. I can certainly understand eastern European fears given the history of the last century.

    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.