• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama’s Policy Toward Missile Defense Draws the Ire of Nation’s Leading Defense Experts

    In a recent National Journal article, three-quarters of defense experts interviewed opposed any attempt by the Obama Administration to scale back missile defense deployment in Europe in exchange for promises of Russian cooperation with Iran.

    “If we drop these plans, we could witness the reemergence of Russia as a dominant force in Europe, and that would be antithetical to U.S. interests,” stated one expert.

    Other experts offered the following critiques:

    “Missile defense is more important than Russian intel. If we have to choose, we should pick the deterrence against Iran.”

    “Rapprochement with Russia is important. Consistency before our friends and enemies is more so.”

    The Obama Aadministration’s departure from resolutely pursuing missile defense capabilities throughout the world upends the Reagan vision of an enhanced national security model consistent with contemporary threats.

    In 1983, President Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era of thought on the topic of maintaining the national security of the U.S. Reagan spoke to the world’s evolving threat dynamic and the need for America’s defense capabilities to change as well:

    There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age.

    He further explained the need to adopt new and innovative ways to defend the American homeland, or our national security interests abroad, when confronting an enemy with ever more powerful weaponry. In this vein, Reagan introduced to the American public the concept of missile defense:

    What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

    Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative would provide the catalyst for a new generation of thought on American missile defense, one that has seen its capabilities dramatically evolve from the first Gulf War to the present. A robust missile defense initiative should remain a bulwark of American national security policy.

    President Obama does not appear to share this view. When Obama ceded to Russian demands in his first year in office that the U.S. halt deployment of missile defense and tracking capabilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, he only emboldened the Russians into demanding even more concessions.

    Now, as Russia continues to pressure the U.S. to dramatically scale back its deployment of missile defense systems in Europe—ostensibly in return for Russian intelligence cooperation with Iran—the diplomatic and strategic achievements of past Administrations are rendered precarious.

    The Obama Administration should be more forthcoming with its plans related to America’s missile defense strategies. Equivocation on this issue only renders uncertainty.

    President Reagan’s vision for an American national security policy predicated upon a comprehensive missile defense capability should not be abandoned or scaled back at this time. Hostile and provocative regimes in North Korea and Iran only magnify this necessity and reinforce the prescience of Reagan’s vision.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Obama’s Policy Toward Missile Defense Draws the Ire of Nation’s Leading Defense Experts

    1. SUSANM says:

      AMERICA, OBAMA SHOULD BE WATCHED LIKE A HAWK..REMEMBER THE LITTLE TALK THAT WAS CAUGHT ON AN OPEN MIKE? TELLS YOU SOMETHING?

    2. odessablogger says:

      Exactly how many wars does the United States need? Russia has not engaged in a conflict beyond its borders since Afghanistan in the 1980's, aside from Saakashvili thinking he had NATO support to attack Ossetia. Give US troops a break from the existing small wars before trying to pick another. This is all the result of the United States pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile System Treaty in 2002. That treaty helped keep the peace for 30 years (from 1972) – so why stop a good thing?

    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.

    ×