Reply With Quote
Did this really merit a third thread?
September 18, 2009
White House Fact Sheet on Missile Defense Raises More Questions Than It Answers
by Baker Spring
WebMemo #2621
On September 17, President Obama announced that the United States would not honor its commitment to field missile defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic.[1] At the same time, he announced that the U.S. would pursue a new “phased, adaptive approach” for missile defense to provide protection to U.S. territory and America’s friends and allies in Europe.
The White House accompanied the President’s announcement with a fact sheet describing this alternative approach.[2] The fact sheet makes assertions that, at a minimum, are difficult to validate. As such, Congress would be well-advised not to take the assertions in the fact sheet at face value. Rather, it should be prepared to ask Administration officials probing questions about these assertions.
Ambiguous (at Best) Assertions
The assertions that the Obama Administration has included in the fact sheet are listed below, along with analysis that explains the difficulty in assessing their validity.
Assertion #1: The Iranian Ballistic Missile Development Program Is More Focused on Short- and Medium-Range Missiles. Specifically, the fact sheet states: “The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated.”[3]
Leaving aside the fact that intelligence estimates of foreign ballistic missile developments is an inexact science and that the U.S. is often taken by surprise regarding these developments, the reality is that the Iran is developing its ballistic missile capabilities holistically. Neatly dividing the Iranian development program between the efforts for short- and medium-range missiles from ICBMs and space-launch vehicles (SLVs) is at odds with this more holistic approach. Developments toward what in a particular flight test may appear to be a short-range missile can make material contributions toward the development of a long-range missile.
Congress needs to delve into the specifics of the assessment cited by the Administration and inquire how either:
- The intelligence community was able to separate elements of the Iranian missile development program so precisely, or
- Whether the Obama Administration simply read the intelligence in a way that interpreted the assessment to arrive at the conclusion that there were neat distinctions within the structure of the program.
Assertion #2: U.S. Missile Defense Capabilities and Technologies Have Advanced in Recent Years. This assertion is accurate, but is completely at odds with President Obama’s previous statements that missile defense technologies are ineffective and unproven. The Obama Administration has used such statements to curtail or terminate a number of missile defense programs earlier this year and justify a $1.6 billion cut to the overall program in fiscal year 2010 compared to fiscal year 2009.[4]
Now, he is using the opposite argument to justify the termination of plans to install missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland. Congress needs to inquire why opposite arguments are being used to the same end—justifying the termination of specific missile defense programs.
Assertion #3: The Sea-Based and Standard Missile Interceptor Technologies Can Be Matured in Four Phases through the Next Decade. Certainly, the sea-based and Standard missile programs can be matured during the time period cited by the fact sheet.[5] But such maturation can be realized only if there is a sustained commitment to the program over the entire developmental period.
Nowhere in the description of the program is such a commitment made, and long-term funding levels are not revealed. There is no guarantee that arms control considerations will not be allowed to interfere with this program, just as they led to the termination of the system intended for the Czech Republic and Poland. Congress needs to ask about firm commitments to the future of the program.
Assertion #4: The Alternative Approach Will Provide for the Defense of the U.S. Homeland against Long-Range Missiles. Even if there is a sustained commitment to the alternative program, this will occur only at the last of the four phases, or around 2020. In the meantime, the Obama Administration is moving to reduce the number of interceptors fielded in Alaska and California from 44 to 30 to counter long-range missile strikes against the U.S.
Now, it has canceled the fielding of the interceptors in Poland, which would also have served to defend the U.S. homeland. Congress needs to ask why the Obama Administration is not pursuing both systems for the defense of the U.S.
Assertion #5: The Alternative Plan Speeds Protection to Europe for the Defense of U.S. Forces Deployed There and of U.S. Allies. This assertion is based on a comparison of the time the defensive system for countering long-range missiles from Iran would go into the Czech Republic and Poland against doing nothing. It conveniently assumes that the U.S. would not pursue other programs such the sea-based system it is now touting, the Terminal High Al ude Area Defense system, the Medium Extended Air Defense System, and the NATO cooperative program along with the systems in the Czech Republic and Poland. The U.S., however, has long been pursuing these additional programs in concert with those for the Czech Republic and Poland. Congress needs to ask the Administration about what clearly is a false assumption behind the comparison.
Assertion #6: The Alternative Plan Provides More Flexibility to Respond to the Emerging Iranian Missile Threat. Clearly, the sea-based and Standard missile program, if pursued on an aggressive and sustained basis, can provide flexibility because of its highly mobile deployment mode and the options for adding technological upgrades to the system. As described regarding the previous assertion, this could have been achieved in concert with the fielding of the radar and interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland. It poses a false choice to say that it is either the previous option or the Obama Administration’s alternative plan. Congress should ask whether in fact greater flexibility could be achieved by pursuing both options in tandem.
Poor Choices
In an attempt to justify its decision to terminate America’s commitment to field missile defense interceptors and radar in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Obama Administration has released a fact sheet. The questionable validity of the fact sheet’s assertions, however, serves only to highlight the shortcomings of the Obama Administration’s decision.
Congress should not let the Obama Administration go unchallenged regarding this matter.
Baker Spring is the F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]The White House, “Remarks by the President on Strengthening Missile Defense in Europe,” September 17, 2009.
[2]The White House, “Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy: A ‘Phased, Adaptive Approach for Missile Defense in Europe,” September 17, 2009.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Baker Spring, “Obama Missile Defense Plan Puts America at Risk,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2292, June 29, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/research/nat...ity/bg2292.cfm.
[5]Report of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA: Ins ute for Foreign Policy Analysis, 2009), pp. 24–26.
Did this really merit a third thread?
He pretty much got pantsed in the other threads and probably wants a do-over. I don't blame him. This is a much better try.
I wonder if he noticed the author substantially agrees with the efficacy of the Obama approach (especially in #2 ,#3 and #6) where he does not stress:
-- ambiguities (such as the unreliability of intelligence in assertion#1, while he subs utes his own speculations for the DOD's on the iffy intelligence)
-- rhetorical side issues (such as Obama's former pronouncements on the efficacy of missile defense in #2)
--sheer speculation (such as the claim that future disarmament will interfere with adequate defense in #3),
-- question begging (such as the insinuation that our mainland interceptors are inadequate in number and require augmentation in eastern Europe for US mainland defense)
-- implausibilities (such as the claim about speed of protection; DOD obviously was comparing the current policy, not to doing nothing at all as an alternative as claimed, but to the previous policy established by Bush, to which it has an obvious advantage in time. Gates can hardly be unaware of other contemporaneous policies, and the insinuation that the decision to limit the focus in the white paper reflects strategic naivete or deceptiveness is asserted by fiat, not supported in fact)
-- omitting political and fiscal considerations of defense as in #6. The author's suggestion that a tandem approach might be more effective in principle, in fact ignores that that approach might be too expensive, too slow, or politically counterproductive, as Obama and the DOD seem to have determined.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-20-2009 at 02:19 PM.
I don't think I got pants. I definitely feel there was a lack of class in the last one. I found this in my RSS while I was looking for statements Gates has said over the years on this.
Not anymore you don't.
Agreed. The author states his case poorly. In 2 alone, he argues that Obama said missile defense systems don't often work, then uses that as an excuse of why Obama should be installing this new missile defense system. Huh?
Spursncowboys, you are a real piece of work, spamming article.
Welcome to my IGNORE list.
^^^Just in, the scores from the east german judges.
mogrovejo's point about notification is a good cause for concern. Letting your allies find out about a strategic shift in their defense when they pick up the morning papers... that's just not cricket.
Is it fact that the governments of the respective countries weren't informed of this until the announcement?
I've been busy and haven't been reading up on the subject.
SnC should post an article about how many packs of cigs Obama smoked per day in August of 2002.
I'm sure there has to be something that he's knowledgable in.
Anybody who wants to ignore me and my picks of stories. Great. The ones saying this are the ones who contribute nothing except ridicule. You are the ones with 2,000 posts per day,living with your mom as she brings your food down to the basement so you don't miss a beat. The only time you will go out is to Starbucks where you will type your same nonsense. You are the 'cheetos stained-finger' bloggers that will talk about our country being in a recession because CNN said it but not knowing for sure because you never talk to anybody real. You are the ones that got on AOL chats and talked to everyone and tried to pick up girls.
This was a very insightful article. There was researched far better than anything from HP, DailyKos, or mediamatters. Mediamatters has not produced something where the full context was shown, yet no one writes towards the merit and credit of that. Every forum has this same group of douch bag members. You contribute nothing to this forum and nothing to a discussion. You are a nuisance to everyone that actually wants to read a page of forum responses and not have their time wasted by internet thugs.
Ignore me because then I won't have to read your responses.
I don't know this independently, but accepted mogrovejo's tale. It might even be in something linked to the thread. I honestly don't know, but doubt it little.
I didn't ignore you. I responded promptly, in detail, and got down to points.
Own home, own car, own job, God willing.Great. The ones saying this are the ones who contribute nothing except ridicule. You are the ones with 2,000 posts per day,living with your mom as she brings your food down to the basement so you don't miss a beat.
Nailed on the cheetos, I make coffee at home, and I seldom reference or even watch CNN.The only time you will go out is to Starbucks where you will type your same nonsense. You are the 'cheetos stained-finger' bloggers that will talk about our country being in a recession because CNN said it
BTW, the recession is real.
Like you?but not knowing for sure because you never talk to anybody real.
I tried to pick up girls. I was not as successful as I would have liked.You are the ones that got on AOL chats and talked to everyone and tried to pick up girls.
I deny everything about AOL.
If you have already read it, why don't you post it, and include your own commentary? At least give us a chance to be on the same page.This was a very insightful article. There was researched far better than anything from HP, DailyKos, or mediamatters. Mediamatters has not produced something where the full context was shown, yet no one writes towards the merit and credit of that
I'd think the bags would vary from board to board, but I'll cede to your experience on this one.Every forum has this same group of douch bag members.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...You contribute nothing to this forum and nothing to a discussion.
Thugs? I read your page. I replied in detail. Did you read mine? Did you reply?You are a nuisance to everyone that actually wants to read a page of forum responses and not have their time wasted by internet thugs.
I don't do ignore.Ignore me because then I won't have to read your responses.
Personal preference.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-21-2009 at 02:57 AM.
Do you like to drink col' bur, spursncowboys?
I sure do.
Missile defense is Repug/Ronnie/neo-con Star Wars fantasy.
Russians have enough offensive missiles to overwhelm whatever dubya was putting in central/eastern Europe.
When Reagan first went to NORAD, he asked how we stop an attack, if USSR shot a nuke at us. The guy replied that the US would shoot back. Reagan decided that that was unacceptable. Having a MDS that shoots two down now and can advance technology in the future is better than nothing. It's definitely better than hoping they don't shoot missiles at us.
St Ronnie was nothing if not one dumb, simple-diseased-minded mother er.
They've been spending $5B/year on MDS for 20+ years.
Can they shoot ANY missiles down?
Can they shoot 10s or 100s of simultaneously arriving missiles down?
Are you going to respond to Winehole, or just ignore him and continue to whine about how people are ignoring you?
By the way, one of the primary reasons for scrapping the current missile defense in Poland/Czech R. is that it would be unable to stop a SINGLE missile, let alone multiple targets. I'm sorry to tell you this, but if the Russians decide to start throwing nukes, a couple of defenses are not going to stop it, because it's not going to be just one ICBM. It's going to be an entire payload, more than enough to blast through our defenses like they're paper. There is just no reliable way to stop multiple nukes once they are launched with today's technology, and you would not be one iota safer if we actually spent the $9,000,000,000 to build it.
I read your posts. They are very insightful. About the paper, I included the link. I would have posted it but thought it took up too much room. I psted the summary and felt if someone liked the summary they could see the full website.
! You will eat your words when Reagan rises to lead God's Army against the USSR.
Actually I've been living on my own since I was 17, but thanks anyways.
Actually, I usually get my Starbucks to go. That apple ed cider is delicious. Not quite like the cider you can get in New England during the fall, but still good.
Well, it's true I don't know any economists personally. So yes, I'm just going by, ya know, the actual description of a recession and the facts that show we're in one.
Actually I met my wife in a tejano bar.
Have you actually bothered to look on DKos to see if there were posts abot this? While many posts have a slanted POV, there are many liberals on DKos who post insightful blogs. Yes, there are some intelligent people on DKos.
Really? They've misrepresented EVERY single thing they've posted?
If you don't care for the community, the door's over there. I think you'll find that many of us enjoy talking with like-minded individuals, and enjoy talking to those on the other side of the fence when we're treated with respect. (I enjoy learning about businesses from 101A, and Yoni/WC/sommersett have good posts occasionally as well.)
Look at this post. You're whining about your lack of respect, while at the same time ing at everyone else. And you wonder why you're not treated as one of the adults?
Edit: Oh and I hate cheetos.
This. It's the whole reason behind Mututally Assured Destruction theory. There's no 'missile shield' technology that is currently feasible that could stop nukes in flight if they were determined to attack, because they'd send a whole ton of them at once.
The only thing preventing them is the realization that we could do the same to them. Why do you think all these third world countries are trying to develop nuclear weapons? It puts them on the same platform as us, and gives them legitimacy. (The same reason why America is trying to prevent as many countries as possible from getting nuclear weapon capability.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
