• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Guest Blogger: White House Should Not Duck Its Responsibility to Shield the United States

    Two modified Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IV interceptors are launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency test to intercept a short-range ballistic missile target June 5, 2008 in the Pacific Ocean west of Kauai, Hawaii. The missile, one of two launched, intercepted the target approximately 12 miles high on the Pacific Missile Range Facility. This was the second of two successful intercepts of the sea-based terminal capability and the fourteenth overall successful test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program.

    “Duck and Cover” has been replaced by its 21st-century incarnation: “Shield Yourself.” This no doubt marks the zenith of the Obama Administration’s nuclear preparedness plan (sarcasm intended), as outlined in a recent government report detailing the methods for increasing survivability rates in the case of a nuclear blast.

    Unfortunately, such trivialities belie the dangerous path upon which America inexorably moves, one marked by unpredictable adversaries whose nuclear ambitions outpace America’s defensive maneuvers.

    Instead of stating the obvious, such as staying indoors in the event of a nuclear explosion, the Obama Administration would be well served to adopt a more literal, macro interpretation of their new slogan. Instead of abandoning much of the progress made in missile defense during the Bush Administration, President Obama should readopt a posture of aggressive missile defense deployment.

    To be certain, the President’s pending treaty known as New START, currently awaiting Senate deliberation and approval, undermines America’s missile defense capabilities by restricting its implementation. It further allows for the maintenance of a disproportionate Russian advantage in tactical nuclear arms. As cited by the Heritage Foundation, “The Russian advantage poses a significant challenge for the U.S. in maintaining a credible extended deterrence policy for the benefit of its allies.”

    President Obama should demand full funding for missile defense objectives and endeavor to provide the continental United States with blanket coverage against nuclear attacks from rogue regimes. Our missile defense objectives should also extend to our friends and allies throughout the world and provide robust coverage in the event that a nuclear-armed adversary makes use of weapons of mass destruction.

    Tensions in the Yellow Sea and instability throughout the Middle East foster an international environment that increasingly threatens U.S. interests both at home and abroad. The Obama Administration can do far more in protecting the American homeland by decisively taking proactive steps to increasing our defensive capabilities, not undermining our national security efforts through rhetorical hokum.

    The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.

    Scott Erickson has worked in the field of law enforcement for the past decade and holds both his B.S. and M.S. in Criminal Justice Studies. He is a contributor to The Daily Caller and writes on myriad political, national security, and counterterrorism issues. His blog can be found at www.scottgerickson.com.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Guest Blogger: White House Should Not Duck Its Responsibility to Shield the United States

    1. Will S., Chicago says:

      So, the defensive review, begun under the Bush administration, is a bad idea? We shouldn't determine how to survive a terrorist nuclear attack? Not, the warhead size referenced there is either a tenth or a hundredth of what would hit the city if the city were attacked by a modern thermonuclear device.

      Also, I have noticed the great silence regarding the latest failure, let me repeat failure, of the missile defense shield. How you plan to "protect and defend" with a system that has a little over a 50% success rate is beyond me.

      The fact is: no national missile defense shield will be considered useful unless it has near a 100% success rate, and the only way to get there is to spend an astronomical amount of money.

      And, would you want to spend the 100s of billions defending against a Russian nuclear attack or deterring China, by building more attack subs and warships. Note: in the last week Russia said they might build a carrier beginning in 2020, China said they plan to have at least 2 and possible more completed by then.

      START is useful, because it frees up limited resources to contain China, that alone should be enough grounds to pass it.

    2. Ammonium says:

      It was interesting to see that the administration froze the salaries of workers at the nuclear labs yesterday. Is this a threat of what they will do to the nuclear deterrent if the treaty loses, or an admission that Heritage has won and the treaty is dead?

    3. Spiritof76, NH says:

      The title of this poece alone says what we seem to be reluctant to admit to ourselves. Thsi White House sees the US as the main problem. They believe and they have said so that America behaves arrogantly towards other nations. What do you expect from such an anti-American administration other than elevating interests of Russia and others over above the interests of America. By the way, I thought Obama took the oath of office to defend and protect our country and th Constitution. What a degenerate state the country has reached?

    4. G-Man, Virginia says:

      First DADT, now New START. This Administration and Senate will stop at nothing to weaken United States national defenses.

      DADT is flawed because 1) the decision doesn’t strengthen the Country’s national defenses, 2) the Armed Forces will suffer from yet more social experimentation, 3) it creates a special class of individual within the Armed Forces, and 4) it works against formulation of a cohesive fighting force capable of protecting our freedom and liberty. Time will prove these reasons TRUE. I don’t glorify my sin, but it saddens me that the persistent minority want protected status, and legal justification for theirs.

      Secondly, it is clear from history and the recent Rianovosti articles that the Russians clearly see us as their adversaries and they are acting upon that understanding. The New START places maniacal, self-imposed limits on America's ability to advance its missile defense programs, and fails to deter proliferation. Only the naive would think that we should attempt to change the Russian world-view by weakening our nuclear arsenals or missile defense programs by ratifying New START.

      Further, based on facts from our Founding and our history America is more trusted to possess nuclear weapons than the former Soviets. Because of the Christian values that America was founded upon a case can be made that America places a high/er value on human life than the majority of Russians. It is possible to cite examples where America has gone astray [E.g. Roe v. Wade], but in the case of Roe v. Wade the sanctity of life was denigrated by an un-elected, activist Court – NOT – by the majority of Americans!

      The Russians understand one thing and one thing only: STRENGTH. Only when the United States is strong can it influence the world for liberty and freedom.

      U. S. Senate, you vote to ratify New START at your own political peril. Freedom loving Americans won’t stand for the weakening of their Country. We can't wait until 2012 to hold YOU accountable, and to help complete the restoration of our Country!

    5. Pingback: Big Red Grouper Fishing Video: Topsail Island NC fish | Taking care of your pet

    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.

    ×