• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • First Steps to Remedy President Obama’s Flawed Missile Defense Policy Taken

    Yesterday, members of the House Armed Service Committee, under the leadership of Representative Michael Turner (R–OH) increased the funding for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program in the fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget. Members of the committee decided to increase the funding for this program by $100 million above the Obama Administration’s $1.2 billion request.

    By taking this step, the committee attempted to remedy an almost 15 percent cut from the missile defense program in the FY 2010 compared to the FY 2009 level that would have left the United States vulnerable to a ballistic missile threat. The GMD is the only operationally deployed system protecting the U.S. homeland against a threat of long-range ballistic missile strikes, particularly from Iran and North Korea, in the future.

    Despite this unique capability, the Obama Administration decided to cap the number of ground-based interceptors (GBIs) in the U.S. at 30 instead of the 44 originally proposed by President Bush. In addition, the Obama Administration reversed the decision to deploy 10 two-stage GBIs in Poland, which opens a window of vulnerability in Europe if the Iranian ballistic missile program progresses earlier than expected.

    This is a 44 percent reduction in the U.S. ability to protect itself and its allies against a long-range threat. This reduction comes at a time when Iran and North Korea continue to improve the range, accuracy, and payload of their ballistic missiles.

    The President’s budget request for the GMD is inadequate because it reduces funding for the program by $185 million from the requested level for the current fiscal year. The Administration also plans to further limit the funding for the GMD beyond FY 2012.

    The action of the committee is a step in the right direction for the defense of the U.S. homeland at a time when the long-range ballistic missile capabilities of China, Russia, and rogue states are expanding. In fact, the GMD program could be restored more effectively with funding levels that are about $100 million higher than the additional funding provided by the House Armed Services Committee.

    Instead of pushing back and rapidly increasing funding for the protection of the U.S. homeland and its allies, the Obama Administration opted to sign New START, a strategic nuclear reduction forces treaty with the Russian Federation. This treaty limits the U.S. missile defense option in at least five different areas. The most dangerous of these limitations is the linkage between strategic offensive and defensive forces in the preamble of the treaty. The preamble asserts that the defenses will otherwise “undermine the viability and effectiveness” of Russia’s offensive strategic force. This will give the Russians opportunity to object and threaten to withdraw from the treaty when the U.S. expands its ballistic missile defense capability.

    Congress is in the best position to remedy shortcomings stemming from President Obama’s ballistic missile defense policies. After all, to “provide for the common defense” is its only constitutionally mandated obligation.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to First Steps to Remedy President Obama’s Flawed Missile Defense Policy Taken

    1. Zbigniew Mazurak, Pl says:

      This is only the first step. And it remains to be seen whether Obama will actually sign such a legislation if it comes to his desk. Which is a big IF, given that Congressional Democrats will do everything they can to further cut funding for the GMD program.

      The MDA needs hundreds, not dozens, of GBIs.

    2. Erin Shumaker, Lakew says:

      "The most dangerous of these limitations is the linkage between strategic offensive and defensive forces in the preamble of the treaty….This will give the Russians opportunity to object and threaten to withdraw from the treaty when the U.S. expands its ballistic missile defense capability."

      It's scary that we've put ourselves in this kind of a situation. Not only does this not allow us to expand our own defenses, but it also allows Russia to expand its offense. Those two ideas do not sit well with me when put together. Also, the fact that if we take measures to protect ourselves from missile attack, even if it's NOT from Russia, Russia can back out of the treaty and possibly sink the world into another Cold War.

    3. Pingback: Must Know Headlines — ExposeTheMedia.com

    4. George Colgrove, VA says:

      It is kind of hard to take the DoD requests seriously anymore. The 2005 BRAC legislation resulted in a boondoggle spending program that will cost the taxpayers (born and unborn) upwards of $280,000 to move just one federal worker. I think once the DoD starts looking at the bottom line and starts to return to frugality, we should be monitoring DoD funding request tightly. BRAC will cost us 35 BILLION in 7 building complexes designed to move 128,000 DoD workers. These place will offer "free" fitness rooms with taxpayer supplied trainers, fitness instructors and three PAID hours to use the facilities. Essentially what costs the taxpayers $500 a month to buy our own fitness program, these feds who are paid twice what we are paid will get it "free" on our backs.

      There is no end to the spending in the DoD. These BRAC's would have fully funded a state of the art missile defense system and then some. We need to start listening to Mike Mullen as he walks outr the door. When it became flush with cash due to 9/11, the DoD has lost it sense of prioritizaton. The federal workforce in the DoD is sucking up the cash for luxurious office space that will do nothing to save this country from attack.

      When the DoD cannot even do something like construct cost effective buildings when it is using deficite funding – how can anyone trust it to manage something serious like defending this country.

    5. Larry Welch, Idaho says:

      The sooner we realize that the President's view of national defense is a child's dream, the sooner we will restore rational policy.

    6. tampa says:

      Obama has been a true nightmare for our country. America, what were you thinking!!!

    7. Renny, Maryland says:

      their not thinking, they are listening to lies!!! not non truth's, "lies!!!"

    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.