• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama’s Missile Defense Plan Less Robust than Bush’s

    As Turkish representatives announced last week their decision to participate in the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), the Obama Administration’s plan for missile defense, there seems to be a misconception about EPAA’s capabilities.

    This week, The Washington Post wrote, “Development of a European missile shield accelerated under the George W. Bush administration. In September 2009, President Obama announced plans to construct a more extensive system in Europe that will be built in phases through 2020.” In fact, the EPAA is less extensive than where the Bush Administration was headed in terms of missile defense capabilities.

    While the Obama Administration is planning on deploying 48 Aegis land-based interceptors, this step is incomparable to the Bush’s plan to deploy 10 two-stage Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors in Poland, because both types of interceptors are designed to counter different threats. In addition, the number of two-stage GMD interceptors could have been expanded if the size of the threat had grown.

    The EPAA does not replace the tracking and cueing capability that would have been obtained by stationing of a powerful X-band radar in the Czech Republic (as the Bush plan foresaw). In addition, the Obama Administration’s plan downgrades the protection of the U.S. territory by developing capabilities to counter long-range ballistic missiles from sites in Europe in 2020 at the earliest. This is incomprehensible, as Iran is on a path to develop long-range capabilities by 2015, and North Korean missiles can already reach Hawaii and Alaska.

    It is impossible to confirm that the Bush Administration’s commitment to the deployment of sea-based systems was identical to that of the current Administration. However, in total, it appears that the Bush’s Administration commitment to fielding ballistic missile defense systems in the European theatre were more robust than the EPAA, because its comprehensive missile defense capabilities exceeded those of the EPAA.

     

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Obama’s Missile Defense Plan Less Robust than Bush’s

    1. Bobbie says:

      President Bush expressed by words and actions before, during and after his term, his love for this country and better protected her military and her people as priorities, not pawns. He didn't go out of his way to mislead or confuse the people he led. He has respect for honesty, deeply missed as this current corrupt American leadership expresses THEIR LEADERSHIP in opposition of Bush's words and actions…
      accountability and reprimand will regain America's purpose, otherwise America today is just another 3rd world country where leaders lead without accountability!

    2. Rick says:

      You mean you like the ground based system that has a much worse test record than Aegis? Why? BTW, did you see the excellent OpEd in NYTimes on why the whole shebang is flawed?
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/21iht-e

    3. H Snyder says:

      My observation of the Obama Administration over the past thirty months is that they have no intention of improving any aspect of the American situation. I can't fathom their intents, but it appears to be purposeful and in harmony with the promise to "transform" the nation into something "new." It could even be that Obama wants to make changes in our economy, military, foreign policy and the operations of the Defense Department which will be very difficult for a 2013 Republican administration to correct. His cozying up to or being cordial to radical Muslim groups in the Mideast, also. It suggests that he was, indeed, listening to the rants of "Rev. Wright."

    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.

    ×