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

    A picture shows the test-firing of a new medium-range surface to surface missile, named Sejil-2, at an undisclosed location in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully test-fired the new missile, drawing a warning from Israel that Europe too should now worry about the Islamic republic's ballistic programme.

    Bradley Roberts, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, recently testified before a House of Representative Armed Services subcommittee, touting Obama’s plan for missile defense in Europe. His testimony is more noteworthy for the facts he conveniently left out.

    CLAIM: Hearkening back to Obama’s campaign promise to give Americans “proven and cost-effective ” missile defense, Roberts boasted “….the Obama administration was putting ‘proven’ sea-based and land-based missile shields into Europe as quickly as possible as part of a revised shield announced last September to any Iranian ballistic-missile strike.”
    FACT CHECK: The European Missile Defense proposed by the Bush administration was already proven technology. The “third-site” option would have used a two-stage variant of a three-stage missile already tested and deployed at sites in California and Alaska. The President, in effect, killed a proven technology option when he canceled the Bush plan for a missile defense system in Europe that would have protected both Americans and Europeans from a long-range Iran missile threat.

    CLAIM: Roberts claims the Obama system will be in place by 2018.
    FACT CHECK: The president has rejected the “spiral development” program that was used to speed ballistic missile programs, meaning the administration’s timelines may be overly optimistic. The President has nominated Philip Coyle, a leading critic of missile defense testing to key oversight position in the Pentagon, a move that if approved by the Senate would likely delay testing and deployment further.

    CLAIM: Roberts failed to mention that President Obama requires missile defense systems to be “cost effective.”
    FACT CHECK: Authoritative studies, including one conducted by the government-sponsored Institute for Defense Analyses, concluded that the land-based interceptors President Obama canceled were cost-effective.

    CLAIM: Roberts stated Obama’s system would cover “100 percent” of Europe, while the land-based site proposed under President Bush would have covered “only 75 percent.”
    FACT CHECK: That was not a lie, but it is completely misleading. The Bush plan would have covered 100 percent of Europe using both the land-based interceptors plus other systems including the sea-based Aegis, THAAD, and Patriot. In addition, the Bush administration had already started examining the feasibility of land-based mobile version of the SM-3 missile used by Aegis. The difference between the plans is that the Bush Administration’s plan would have been in place faster, with more proven technology, more redundancy, and likely at a cheaper cost. Thus, all the Obama Administration did was cut part of the missile defense umbrella—not add to it.

    CLAIM: Roberts never mentioned that even under the most conservative timelines Iran could have both a missile and a nuclear weapon by 2018.
    FACT CHECK: If there are any delays in U.S. deployments then both Europe and the U.S. will be at risk. Under the Bush Administration’s proposal, the land-based missile interceptors would have been deployed in 2013. Last year, after the change of administration Secretary Gates suddenly changed the Pentagon estimate claiming the land-based interceptors would not be available until 2017, an assessment that conveniently coincided with Obama’s desire to dump the third site. Recently, Secretary Gates declared in a classified memo linked to the Washington Post that the US lacked an effective plan to stop the Iranian nuclear program. He also stated that Iran might have a nuclear bomb in a year. Yet, the US has till opted for “phased and adaptive” approach to missile defense rather than pushing full speed ahead to cut off the Iranian threat.

    The administration’s position on missile defense coupled with a nuclear disarmament strategy that strengthens Russia’s hand; gives Moscow a veto over US missile defenses; and limits the ability to adopt to new nuclear threats as they emerge–makes the risk of nuclear conflict more, not less likely.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Missile Defense Whoppers

    1. Jason says:

      As presented in this article, we again can see the spineless attitude by this administration towards defense policy. In the form of speeches and words, Obama has talked about keeping America safe from our enemies, but by his actions of dismantling our nuclear posture, dampening our missile development and signing treaties with the double-talking Russians our ability to protect this country is rapidly declining at an alarming rate. I expound on this subject more in this link: http://www.freeorbound.com/2010/04/08/strong-defe

    2. George W. Belmore Co says:

      Oh wonderful, we go ahead and put missile sites and military installations all over eastern Europe and the Russians will put theirs in Cuba and south and central America. We have agreements that are costing us taxpayers plenty to keep our military in Europe, Asia, Middle East , Kyrgystan and Iceland, And don't forget were still fighting the Bush and Chaney war now going on 9 years at a cost of billions which Obama inherated. By the way I am not a Republican or Democrat I am an American, an American concerned more about what is going on here in America, an American for protecting America on it's own soil with it's own blood instead of dying and bleeding on foreign soils. , an American against being the worlds police force. an American against unions and big business and special interest running the country, an American for the removal of career politicians and for the establishment of term limits, an American that says if it's a law or benefit enjoyed by the law makers it should be good enough for all of the people. an American for placing higher taxes on all goods imported that once was manufactured here in this country,, an American for Made In The USA label.

    3. T.W. - Graham, NC says:

      What a travesty! What can possibly drive a person and his party to take steps so detrimental to our nation's security? Can they really have their heads so firmly planted in the sand to think that if only we're "nice" then we won't be attacked? That if we're too "aggressive" in our own defense we'll upset some karmic balance? I pray that the voters can correct this mistake before we suffer dire consequences.

    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.