• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • President Obama's Missile Defense Plan: Too Little Too Late?

    The Phased Adaptive Approach, President Obama’s missile defense plans for the protection of European allies and the United States, faces increasing scrutiny in the House of Representatives.

    House Armed Services Committee chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R–CA) and House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces chairman Michael Turner (R–OH) recently penned a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta expressing concerns over the Administration’s “continued sharp decline in the attention and resources invested in U.S. national missile defenses.”

    They are correct. President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2013 missile defense budget is not adequate to address a growing ballistic missile threat and is tilted in favor of funding missile defenses for regions outside the U.S. In addition, President Obama’s March 2012 “flexibility” remark to the Russians indicates that President Obama is willing to subordinate the missile defense program to his arms control agenda.

    President Obama assumes that if the United States reduces the number of its nuclear weapons, others will follow. This is mistaken, because countries pursue nuclear capabilities based on their own interests and perception of their security, not what the United States does.

    The letter also calls for answering questions related to the Iranian intercontinental-range ballistic missile program and a potential North Korean rail-mobile, intercontinental-range ballistic missile. In 2009, the Obama Administration abandoned the third site, comprising an interceptor site in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, and justified this shift on “new intelligence,” which indicated that the pace of Iranian and North Korean ballistic missile programs is slower than previously believed.

    President Obama took this as an opportunity to radically cut the missile defense budget and cancel some of the most promising programs, including the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the Airborne Laser. The Administration also reduced the number of ground-based interceptors available to protect the United States from 44 to 30.

    So far, the Obama Administration has not produced a “hedging strategy” in case a ballistic missile threat develops faster than expected pursuant to the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The House Armed Services Committee proposed a missile defense interceptor site on the East Coast as a part of such a hedging strategy.

    The Heritage Foundation made a similar recommendation in its recent study. Such a site would be capable of defending U.S. territory more effectively against ballistic missile attacks, including short-range missiles carrying electromagnetic pulse (EMP) warheads that could be launched from ships.

    A ballistic missile threat from adversarial nations is growing. This is not the time to cut U.S. missile defense capabilities.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to President Obama's Missile Defense Plan: Too Little Too Late?

    1. Does any of this tie into the UN "orbital debris" treaty (up for a senate vote sometime in the future?)?

    2. steve h says:

      How many times has America been attacked under Obama? What about under the last Republican Adminsitration? Who kept America safer? Who killed Osama? Enough said.

      • Sage on the Stage says:

        No sir, not enough said, not even close. A better indicator of how safe Americans are is how Obama has weakened the United States, materially and psychologically. In addition, the Great Zero in the WH has made the world a more dangerous place. Example–under G.W. Bush, the U.S. Navy had 600 ships; under the Great Zero, we have 283; this isn't enough. The Chinese ordered the US Navy out of the Yellow Sea in 2010, and we obeyed; wouldn't have happened under Bush. In addition, the Great Zero treats US soldiers like garbage; he has caused their health insurance rates to triple, and he said absolutely NOTHING about the Ft. Hood massacre for four days afterwards; Bush actually visited Ft. Hood BEFORE the Great Zero. Any other POTUS would have condemned the attack IMMEDIATELY. The Great Zero also has weakened our missile defense system in Eastern Europe. And as for killing Bin Laden, the Great Zero simply gave the order to do it; but it was done in such a way that 0 didn't have to take any risk. The Admiral in charge of the operation took all the responsibility.

    3. Bobbie says:

      Oh brother steve h! if that's all it takes for Obama to be reelected while you and his activists holds Bush accountable to the 3 years Obama's in office says you have little to no expectations in the leadership under Obama. You support a man who doesn't live by his word, who shares nothing of his background that doesn't have to be investigated while none of it suggests any good for this country or Americans. You support his ideas where crisis is foreseen and so ignorant, it's intentional and highly disrespectful to his oath of office. You support taking from others who have personally achieved on their own keeping people poor in character and dependent on outside government to get their "wants" government takes from the rich instead of encouraging self respect and personal dignity to provide for ones own and earn ones own "wants."

      Didn't robin hood steal from the rich government to give to the poor??? Having the rich government of America stealing from the personal achievers sounds a little suspicious, doesn't steve?? Sounds like there won't be the opportunity to become rich in America from obama on out if America comes to that? "Rich" won't be personally earned but government appointed! Are you in line, steve h? After government takes their cut just for existing where they're unconstitutional!!

      Demonizing a class of financial stability doesn't motivate people's ambitions to reach a higher class through their own abilities like those that achieve, steve h! That's why America has various classes. People widen their individual minds ability to reach a potential of their individual own on their own accord. It's all in the control of the individual people, steve h. Freedom! Liberty! Property! Ever hear of them? I wouldn't wait around for government to make you rich. If you want rich you'll gain the self respect to get rich when you take on the challenges everyone else does in their own circumstances to get rich.

      9/11 wasn't Bush's fault he couldn't discriminate against workers that have terroristic tendencies (some democratic legislation.) He didn't let them through the gate! You hold republicans at a respectful 180 while obama can just be corrupt, undisciplined and unaccountable. That's shameful, steve h. Enough said!

    4. steve h says:

      Bobbie. The Bush administration dropped the ball…and took their eye off it. There is plenty of evidence that they didn't see terrorism as the threat the Clinton adminstration thought it was. Read the pre-9/11 Ashcroft memos to DoJ and you'll see that terrorism wasn't even on the list of missions, while it was top priority in Reno memos to DoJ. I understand you are emotional about this, but facts are facts. The current administration has kept us safe and has taken out Al Queda leader after Al Queda leader.

      That's quite a tangent you went on though. From the failure of Bush administration to deal with terrorism to robin hood and taking from the rich. Please Bobbie. Taxes are at the lowest level ever for the wealthiest Americans. The top marginal tax rate has dropepd from 70% to 35% since Reagan took over. Cap gains and dividends went from taxed as real income to 15%. The estate tax has been gutted. Look at the stats before screaming about the tax burdens.

      Yeah, I'm sure people will stop wanting to earn more money if the top tax rate was increased 3%. The entire country would come to a halt. Time to come back to reality.

      • Bobbie says:

        Thank you, steve h. That was almost humbling. But you refuse to accept the fact that this money grab is for government control!!! They're moving in taking over personal responsibilities at a high cost and lack of competence!!!

        People have to be initiated where it was once inherent to have the dignity to provide for ones own. There's no need for government obstructionism or the President to personally bad mouth and show the willingness to punish people that achieve in their life is SO NOT American and so threatening when there's that much influence over people that are suppose to be free to go out in the world to develop their own opinions not derived from government insecurities or intimidations.

        This money grab is unconstitutional with direct certainty it will collapse small businesses and protect the big ones which defies reasoning. This isn't the job of America's government!!! Nobody should be subject to government exploitation unless a threat foreign and/or domestic! It isn't the role of government to prejudice, infringe, burden, favor or violate anybody or activity in America unless a threat to America(ns.) When the government is more corrupt than the people government pretends they're protecting us from, somethings going to give!!! Look at your government diminishing your freedom before you see a need to unfairly cost the tax payers.

    5. zbigniewmazurak says:

      I agree with Ms. Bendikova, except one thing: instead of building a static BMD base on the East Coast consisting of siloes for 20 static, expensive GBIs, the Congress should instead save *all* 7 cruisers that Panetta wants to decomission from early retirement, modernize them, make them BMD capable, and equip them with SM-3s. An SM-3 Block 1B missile, if sufficiently upgraded and tested, can protect America against ICBMs (and the Navy against ASBMs, but that's a different story). And according to VADM J.D. Williams, just 6 Aegis class ships would be enough to cover the entire East Coast.

      If the ICBM threat from Iran doesn't develop as quickly as expected, or never arises, or arises and disappears, those ships could be shifted anywhere, anytime, and perform any mission (not just BMD). But a static base would become useless once the Iranian ICBM threat disappears (if it ever emerges). Besides, those ships don't have to be built – they already exist. Just fit them for BMD and buy enough SM-3 Block 1B missiles (Baker Spring writes that the SM-3 inventory is inadequate). One SM-3 costs only $10 mn, seven times less than a GBI.

    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.

    ×