Missile Defense and International Politics Continued
September 21, 2009
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
I wrote last week about Mr. Obama’s decision to forgo plans to put ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. At that time, I considered the Republican talking points to be more than excessive.
Sound bites about appeasing Russia and abandoning our allies was disingenuous considering all the known facts.
As seems typical with this President however, is that each time I agree, he does something so stupid as to defy rational thought:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama sharply dismisses criticism that Russian opposition influenced his decision to scrap a European missile defense system, calling it merely a bonus if the leaders of Russia end up “a little less paranoid” about the U.S.
“My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians,” Obama told CBS’ “Face the Nation” in an interview for broadcast Sunday. “The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”…
This seems extremely hard to believe and if you analyze the situation while taking the President’s words at face value, you’re only left with one looming question, “If not for Russia, then why?”
Mr. Obama’s current position:
…In its place will be a different missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air. Obama says that adapts to the most pressing threat from Iran to U.S. troops and allies in Europe, potential attacks by short- and medium-range missiles….
Which, according to the CBO, will be more expensive and make us less safe overall. From the report:
- Defense of Europe. All of the alternatives CBO considered would provide defense of most of Europe roughly equivalent to the defense provided by MDA’s proposal against most types of ballistic missiles that Iran is thought to have developed or could develop in the future. Because the alternatives CBO considered would locate interceptors closer to Iran than MDA’s planned system, they would generally provide more extensive defense of southeastern Europe than would MDA’s proposal. Moreover, because they would be composed of mobile or transportable components, deploying the alternative systems would not require building permanent facilities—including missile silos—at European sites.
- Extended defense of the United States. A second goal of MDA’s proposed European system is to give the United States an extra layer of defense against potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles. CBO’s analysis indicates that by 2012 systems already in place at two bases in the United States would protect more than 99 percent of the U.S. population from this threat. MDA’s proposed European system would extend defensive coverage to the other 1 percent of the U.S. population. It would also provide redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States, giving system operators more flexibility by creating an opportunity to launch a second interceptor from the United States, if necessary. None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.
- Costs. For roughly the same cost as MDA’s European system—a total of about $9 billion to $14 billion over 20 years—the United States could deploy either of the ground-based alternatives. The ship-based alternative would cost almost twice as much as MDA’s proposal—a total of about $18 billion to $26 billion over 20 years—largely because CBO assumed that the Navy would need to buy additional ships to operate it.
- Availability. The alternatives that CBO examined might not be available as early as MDA’s proposed European system.
So again Mr. President – if this wasn’t to sooth relations with Russia and the alternative path you’ve chosen is both more expensive and makes us less safe – then why?
Categories: Foreign Policy, International, People/Blogs, Politics
| 
Tags: CBO, Critical Thinking, Foreign Policy, hyperbole, idiocy, International, Iran, missile defense, Obama, Obama Administration, People/Blogs, Poland, Politics, Russia, Stupidity
|
Leave a reply
