• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Bad Deal for the U.S.: Kerry on Missile Defense



    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated during his recent trip to China that the U.S. would withdraw some of its missile defenses if China can persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. It is optimistic to assume that China would be interested in persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, because North Korea developed it thanks to China.

    Even in the unlikely event that North Korean nuclear weapons go away, which would be extremely hard to verify, North Korea could still threaten mass casualties with ballistic missiles that could deliver explosives or chemical and biological weapons. In addition, North Korea appears to be increasing its interest in nuclear weapons and just recently threatened to use them on the U.S. And let’s not forget that U.S. intelligence estimates of North Korean capabilities proved wrong in the past.

    Recently, Representative Doug Lamborn (R–CO) pointed to a Defense Intelligence Agency’s (DIA) assessment with moderate confidence that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles. The DIA’s assessment is not new. North Korean ballistic missile and nuclear weapons capabilities are real, and the threat has long been known.

    A long-range ballistic missile, such as the one North Korea is developing, can reach anywhere in the world in 33 minutes. It is logically inconsistent that the U.S. would protect itself from North Korean missiles but not from the Chinese or Russian ballistic missiles. When a ballistic missile is in the air en route toward its victims, it doesn’t matter whether it happens to be launched from Russia or North Korea or Iran.

    The U.S. and its allies need a comprehensive layered ballistic missile defense system. The Administration should increase its missile defense funding and develop and deploy a layer-comprehensive ballistic missile defense program, including space-based interceptors that would provide the best protection against most classes of ballistic missiles.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    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.