- New budget accord saves $23B — after $65B spending spree
- Congress seeks ban on in-flight calls
- Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy site sold to owners of Townhall, HotAir: report
- GM’s Barra to be first woman to run top American carmaker
- China: Poisonous smog is a military asset, if you think about it
- Texas woman admits to sending ricin to Obama
- Ron Paul on son Rand: ‘I think he probably will’ run for president
- Cold War heats up again in the Arctic: Russian airfield reactivated after 20 years
- 6-year-old boy suspended for sexual harassment over kiss
- Voters deciding Mass. congressional contest
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: U.S. still waiting for better missile defense
In a recent Washington Times Op-Ed, Ed Feulner notes that 10 years after withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT), the United States still lacks an adequate missile defense system ("Decade after the ABM Treaty's end," Commentary, Tuesday). Mr. Feulner is correct, but the situation is more complex and more important than he outlined.
As longtime supporters of missile defense, we wrote a piece back in June of 1993 explaining that the ABMT was a barrier to an effective missile defense system. We repeated this theme in articles and letters over the years until America withdrew from the treaty in 2002. We had hoped the withdrawal would lead to a significant enhancement in capabilities for homeland defense, but this expectation has not been met. Instead, the United States has concentrated on shorter-range threats and improved systems to counter those, and our focus remains far from homeland defense.
After withdrawing from the ABMT, then-President George W. Bush pushed hard for an early deployment of ground-based missiles in Alaska. Although this was accomplished, it was done using a highly concurrent acquisition strategy that led to the discovery of design problems during production. This resulted in the fielding of equipment needing retrofits. There has since been a reluctance to test the system under realistic conditions, so we remain uncertain of the capability we possess.
For some reason, the Obama administration seems far less concerned with defending American soil against potential missile attacks than with deploying defenses against shorter-range missiles in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
Mr. Feulner is right that the policy of mutual assured destruction (MAD) should have died long ago, but sadly, much of our current muddled policy can still be characterized as mad.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
By Donald Lambro
Growth spikes are little more than trend-free anomalies
Get Breaking Alerts
- New budget accord saves $23B -- after $65B spending spree
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- VEGAS RULES: Harry Reid pushed feds to change ruling for casino's big-money foreigners
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- Obama's antics at Nelson Mandela tribute: Jovial conversation, handshake with Raul Castro
- EDITORIAL: The shake that shook the world
- Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu backs out of Nelson Mandela funeral
- Somber duty: U.S. presidents in hot demand at Mandela's memorial
- GOV'T MOTORS: Obama fudges math on auto bailout, $15 billion loss for taxpayers
- Obama shakes hands with Cuba's Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral