- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
Missile shield gains support across globe
Question of the Day
The White House yesterday announced that global opposition to President Bush’s missile-defense plan largely has collapsed in the wake of the war against terrorism, causing a “sea change” of views even in nations such as Russia, which once opposed the plan.
“We had a lively national debate about missile defense for 20 years,” said a senior administration official. “That more or less appears to be settled.”
Responding to questions from The Washington Times, the official added: “There really has been a sea change.”
To mark the milestone, the White House last night formally codified its quest for a global missile-defense system in a document known as National Security Policy Directive 23, releasing an unclassified version that spells out the president’s vision.
“Hostile states, including those that sponsor terrorism, are investing large resources to develop and acquire ballistic missiles of increasing range and sophistication,” the document stated. “The United States and our allies lack effective defenses against this threat.”
To remedy that, the Bush administration is accelerating deployment of the first stages of a missile shield in Alaska that would be able by next year to intercept any missile fired from North Korea, officials said. But the shield eventually would be extended to encompass many nations, a large number of which are scrambling to sign up for protection.
“We’ve seen a real change with regard to Russia,” said another administration official. “You can see in Russia now a desire to cooperate in the missile-defense area. They want to cooperate, and so there’s been a fundamental shift now.”
The official pointed out that when Mr. Bush first proposed scrapping the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and replacing it with a missile shield, critics predicted a new arms race and a deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations. But the two nations have become closer and have agreed to slash their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.
Canada, which opposed the war in Iraq, also has signaled interest in the missile shield. Poland’s largest military contractor has pledged its technology, and Japan has demonstrated a desire to beef up research and development.
Officials revealed late yesterday that the administration is close to reaching agreements for use of radar facilities in Britain and Greenland that would provide early warnings of missiles fired at the United States or its allies.
Domestic opposition largely has evaporated as well, with Democrats, who once defended the ABM Treaty, reduced to arguing over testing protocols for a missile shield. That is a major shift from two decades ago, when they labeled President Reagan’s plans for a missile defense as “Star Wars.”
The war on terrorism is not the only factor behind the shift in thinking. Equally important, in the eyes of the White House, is the end of the Cold War.
“The contemporary and emerging missile threat from hostile states is fundamentally different from that of the Cold War and requires a different approach to deterrence and new tools for defense,” the new policy document said. “The strategic logic of the past may not apply to these new threats, and we cannot be wholly dependent on our capability to deter them.
“Compared to the Soviet Union, their leaderships often are more risk prone,” it said. “These are leaders that also see [weapons of mass destruction] as weapons of choice, not of last resort.”
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Don't prematurely delist endangered wolves
- Fast-food protests spur backlash
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Why can’t humans just be free to be humans?
Get in the middle of all the action inside and outside the boxing ring.
Find the latest news and happening that effect those in the Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Maryland Metro region.
White House pets gone wild!