• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Limiting Defenses to Placate Russia Is Dangerous

    In his recent article former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Keith Payne offers a unique perspective on the U.S. missile defense program and exploits the rationale for taking a more aggressive approach to U.S. defensive measures.

    The issue of missile defense in particular has recently occupied a prominent position in the debate about U.S. national security and the future of U.S.–Russian relations due to Russia’s adamant opposition to the European Phased Adaptive Approach. While the Russians continue to threaten U.S. allies with nuclear attacks on their soil if they accept U.S. missile defense installations on their territory, President Obama seems to believe that Russia’s opinions are more important than making sure that the U.S. and allies are less vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack.

    The U.S. should not cave in to Russian demands to restrict its missile defense system, because any limitations would ultimately make the U.S. and its allies vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack. Yet President Obama recently demonstrated his willingness to be more “flexible” regarding Russian demands after the November election. President Obama’s commitment to missile defense cannot be trusted past November.

    Vulnerability is not inevitable, but it is a consequence of government’s policy choices. The Cold War notion that missile defenses and other passive defense measures are “destabilizing” (meaning incentivizing the opponent to strike first) and not worth pursuing (because they would not save a significant majority of the population) is no longer applicable in the post–Cold War environment, writes Payne.

    Today, the U.S. faces new types of threats from many difference sources: terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction, electromagnetic pulse attacks, and ballistic missile attacks from Iran or North Korea. As Payne concludes, “The Cold War is over, and U.S. officials need not accept its legacy of uncontested vulnerability. The price of continuing adherence to that old, dubious tenet of the balance of terror is now too high.”

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Limiting Defenses to Placate Russia Is Dangerous

    1. Bob says:

      To limit our countries defenses is not only dangerous but eminently deadly to not only our young men and women in uniform but to our beloved country. Then to make matters worse this idiot is intentionally DOWNSIZING our protective forces to a point where we cannot protect ourselves is not only insanely idiotic but also a breach of National security and there by an act of High Treason. Yet our Congress will do nothing so they are party to this criminal act.

    2. Jan says:

      I wonder if you could give a proof of a russian "nuclear threat"? The link to the article "Russia’s Blackmail Shows Why U.S. and Allies Need Missile Defenses" does, unfortunately, show no evidence of any nuclear nor other serious threat. Especially the previous article uses an argumentation that is reliant on the fact that the defense system is build to reduce russian military capability. If one threatens to react to such provocation, it can not be used as an argument for the missile defense system the US and Europe like to install.

    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.

    ×