• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Missile Defense: Lamborn and Franks’s Four-Point Plan

    Visitors look at a SS-18 SATAN intercontinental ballistic missile at the Strategic Missile Forces museum near Pervomaysk


    In a recent editorial piece in the Washington Examiner, Representatives Doug Lamborn (R–CO) and Trent Franks (R–AZ) propose a four-point plan to strengthen and advance America’s missile defense system.

    Their plan reflects what Heritage has always advocated: Missile defense is critical to national security. The plan’s four points outline a layered, comprehensive missile defense system that includes:

    1)      Support of the full deployment of ground-based interceptors;

    2)      Development of an East Coast missile site that would defend against Iran and shore up protection of the Eastern Seaboard;

    3)      Development of a space-based layer of defense along with the capability to destroy enemy missiles while still in boost or launch phase; and

    4)      Investment in developing new technologies for the future of missile defense that will reduce the cost of defending against enemy missiles, such as directed energy.

    Since taking office, President Obama has consistently undervalued missile defense and is on the record as “not agreeing” with it either as a policy or as a strategy to protect the nation—in spite of the escalating risks of attack to the United States from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Including the most recent cuts in this year’s defense budget, the Obama Administration has reduced national missile defense programs by almost $6.5 billion since 2009.

    The U.S. should keep pace with emerging threats by investing in missile technologies of its own instead of repeatedly cutting missile defense development programs that put the country at risk. This kind of shortsightedness only increases costs down the road and creates gaps in the protection of its citizens. A credible missile defense system would close that gap by deterring enemies from investing or deploying weapons of mass destruction.

    When it takes only 33 minutes for a missile to reach the U.S. from anywhere in the world, it would be a folly to cut back missile defense. In the words of Lamborn and Franks, not agreeing with missile defense is like “not agreeing with bulletproof vests.”

    Posted in Security [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.