• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Missile Defense: Why It Matters for America's Future Security

    Ambassador Robert Joseph, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, recently published an important article in The Washington Times entitled “Obama Chooses Vulnerability.”

    As the U.S.commemorated the 10th anniversary since its withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Ambassador Joseph shares unique insight into lessons learned regarding arms control. A ballistic missile launched from anywhere in the world can reach the U.S. in 33 minutes, as this Heritage documentary shows.

    The experience of the U.S. over the past 30 years demonstrates that it is extremely difficult for a country to withdraw from a treaty agreement once it has been ratified. To do so, one must win the intellectual battle of ideas and bust mythology surrounding arms control processes.

    Time and again, missile defense opponents have worked to stand in the way of moving forward with robust missile defense deployment and beyond the lingering confines of the abandoned ABM treaty.

    A look at history, however, shows that many claims made against missile defense were proven false. Those claims included the assertion that missile defense capabilities would never actually work, but the new advances in ballistic missile defense technology achieved during the last decade dispel that argument.

    Today, the Obama Administration is interested in pursuing the “demarcation” agreements with Russia. These agreements would identify the limits between strategic and theater missile defenses and lead to less effective and capable strategic defense systems. Further, President Obama’s recent “flexibility” comment demonstrate a greater interest in placating Russian objections than sufficiently defending Americans at home.

    The Obama Administration has also under-funded missile defense programs and cancelled some of the most promising programs in terms of protection against strategic threats: the Multiple Kill Vehicle, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Airborne Laser programs.

    Iran and North Korea are advancing its long-range ballistic missile programs. In addition, both countries are transferring these technologies to other terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah. In order to catch up with the advancing ballistic missile threat, the U.S. should:

    • Expand and continually improve the Navy’s proven sea-based Aegis missile defense system,
    • Pursue and expand advanced integration of the various components of a layered missile defense system, including ground-based interceptors, and
    • Develop and deploy space-based missile defenses—particularly space-based interceptors—to counter ballistic missile attacks.

     

    Ambassador Robert Joseph, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, recently published an important article in The Washington Times entitled “Obama Chooses Vulnerability.”

    As the U.S.commemorated the 10th anniversary since its withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Ambassador Joseph shares unique insight into lessons learned regarding arms control. A ballistic missile launched from anywhere in the world can reach the U.S. in 33 minutes, as this Heritage documentary shows.

    The experience of the U.S. over the past 30 years demonstrates that it is extremely difficult for a country to withdraw from a treaty agreement once it has been ratified. To do so, one must win the intellectual battle of ideas and bust mythology surrounding arms control processes.

    Time and again, missile defense opponents have worked to stand in the way of moving forward with robust missile defense deployment and beyond the lingering confines of the abandoned ABM treaty.

    A look at history, however, shows that many claims made against missile defense were proven false. Those claims included the assertion that missile defense capabilities would never actually work, but the new advances in ballistic missile defense technology achieved during the last decade dispel that argument.

    Today, the Obama Administration is interested in pursuing the “demarcation” agreements with Russia. These agreements would identify the limits between strategic and theater missile defenses and lead to less effective and capable strategic defense systems. Further, President Obama’s recent “flexibility” comment demonstrate a greater interest in placating Russian objections than sufficiently defending Americans at home.

    The Obama Administration has also under-funded missile defense programs and cancelled some of the most promising programs in terms of protection against strategic threats: the Multiple Kill Vehicle, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Airborne Laser programs.

    Iran and North Korea are advancing its long-range ballistic missile programs. In addition, both countries are transferring these technologies to other terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah. In order to catch up with the advancing ballistic missile threat, the U.S. should:

    • Expand and continually improve the Navy’s proven sea-based Aegis missile defense system,
    • Pursue and expand advanced integration of the various components of a layered missile defense system, including ground-based interceptors, and
    • Develop and deploy space-based missile defenses—particularly space-based interceptors—to counter ballistic missile attacks.
    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Missile Defense: Why It Matters for America's Future Security

    1. roymcdade says:

      HAS ANYONE GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO SOETERO'S REDUCING OUR MILITARY FINANCIAL BUDGET, MAKING DEALS WITH RUSSIA TO MINIMIZE OUR MISSILE DEFENSE, ELIMINATING ANY INCENTIVE FOR OUR ARMY TO WISH MAKING A CAREER, AND GOING AS FAR AS SIDING WITH THESE MUSLIMS AND SHARIA OVER OUR OWN MILITARY ARE THE ACTIONS OF A TRAITOR AND SOETERO SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND PUNISHED….

    2. freedom (TM) says:

      spooky language! OOOOHHHH!

      you guys really need to find a better act.

    3. The voice of reason says:

      America needs to place missile defense not only in eastern europe but in the pacific rim, Asia,the middle east and here at home in America A.S.A.P…. Timelines and plans should not be discussed as a matter of national security….we need multiple layers of these defense systems!

    4. Leon The Electrician says:

      That's what happens when a Domestic Enemy is selected (not elected) for the highest Office in the land! They do everything in their power to harm their own Nation. No kidding, Obama and his fellow Chicago Gangsters are actual Enemies Of The State! Don't bust your hump trying to figure out why Obama chooses vulnerability. He also chooses Economic failure. He also chooses Dictatorships through the Agencies. Face it! You've been had by DINOs and RINOs! But what they really are is Communist Infiltraitors. And I used to be called Extreme! Three years (and more) I have been warning about it. Fat lot of good it did me.

    5. Mutantone says:

      Has anyone thought of the charges of treason that should be brought against Obama for telling the Russians the top secret information about the missile shield so they could find a way around it? Or that Russia and China are sharing their information with Iran as well? Traitor in the White House giving "Aid and comfort to enemy" that is what needs to be investigated. Treasonous actions by the president and his administration, what with the inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood inside of Our Homeland Security and the White House as advisers and that with in weeks of their placement all of the CIA's agents in the Middle East were named, hunted down and killed, what more do we need to know about to save the Republic/

    6. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Because Iran and North Korea want the Bomb.

    7. Rees Padfield says:

      The U.S. was not ready for WWi, it was not ready for WWII or Korea, . We had a big build up for Vietnam but frose R&D. We have worn out the Army, Marines and the Reseves in the Middle East, and to keep the entitlements increasing we are now demilitarizing. We will not be ready for the next one. Russia and China are producing the next generation ICBMs, ours were deployed in the early 1970s. The Russians and Chinese have a 5th generation figher comproable to the F-22. We can't even buld a poor substitute called the F-35. I thought we learned our lesson with the F-111. The oceans are no longer a faithful moat. It seems that our Administration thinks it can talk its way out of anything. Out survival is at risk..

    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.

    ×