Print Print this article Email Email this article Link Trackback

Support for Gates’s Missile Defense Plans

Travis | Jun 09, 2009 | there are 0 comments 0
Gates The Knife

Gates The Knife

When Iraq was being viciously debated in DC between 2006 and 2008, I (and other liberal analysts) would often take swipes at Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings. The guy was so omnipresent we really couldn’t help ourselves. When your views are constantly publicized, you have to expect criticism.

Today, however, I come to offer nothing but praise for O’Hanlon’s latest column in the Washington Examiner. He writes...

Under the Obama budget, missile defense will remain well funded, to the tune of about $10 billion annually. That is less than the Bush administration’s $12 billion, but quite a bit more than the average of $6 billion to $7 billion a year under Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush and more than Bill Clinton’s $5 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars). Of course, budget comparisons only go so far. The threat has grown, so we should spend more today. But these numbers invalidate the charge that Gates and Obama have gutted missile defense.

I concur, Doctor.

Gates’ cuts center on four programs…There is good logic to these changes. As for the California/Alaska system, while Gates will not move now to deploy the full 44 interceptors envisioned by President George W. Bush, we have 30 interceptors in the ground already. That is sufficient given the magnitude of the threat posed by North Korea, the nation they are deployed against.

Building three-stage intercontinental rockets at a cost of tens of millions of dollars apiece is a major feat even if done to North Korean standards. Pyongyang is very unlikely to start mass producing such systems like sausages. As an insurance policy, we could always destroy North Korean ICBMs on the launch pad using aircraft rather than missile defenses. Against the threat in question, the current program is robust.

I concur, Doctor, and told the Politico as much.

Advocates of missile defense tend to present it as the only way to stop a rogue state missile. It is not. Diplomacy, deterrence, and military action (as a very last resort) are all viable options. I know those first two don’t make defense contractors as much money as missile defense programs that don’t work, but I’m not in the Arizona congressional delegation so I don’t really care.

tags Security Matters, Missile Defense (all tags)


Display:

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account by clicking right here. It's quick and free.

About This Blog

Search This Blog

Center Analysis

Obama: Additional Sanctions on North Korea
...

Jimmy Carter to the Rescue... Again
Former President Jimmy Carter is in North Korea to secure the release of an American missionary sentenced to eight years of hard labor for illegal entry. The trip comes amid a North Korean nuclear impasse and heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula. W...

Is a “Region by Region” Approach Really Effective in Preventing the Spread of Sensitive Nuclear Tec
Following an August 3 report in the Wall Street Journal, the arms control blogosphere has been buzzing about a nearly finalized nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Vietnam. According to the Journal, and now other outlets includin...

Current Status of Iran's Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs
There is no hard consensus as to exactly how close Iran is to acquiring a nuclear weapon, fitting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile, and/or developing a ballistic missile capable of reaching most of Europe and the United States. In this updated fac...

Another Squeeze
The U.S. will soon announce a fresh list of sanctions against North Korea to dry up the regime’s illegal cash sources that fund its nuclear weapons programs. Pyongyang is expected to unleash more provocations, even a third nuclear test, in retaliation as ...