Support for Gates’s Missile Defense Plans
Travis | Jun 09, 2009 |
0 
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.
Security Matters, Missile Defense (all tags)
