Did Democrats Leave The U.S. Vulnerable To North Korean Missile Threats?

The U.S. Navy successfully tested newly enhanced SM-6 missiles against an intermediate-range ballistic target. (U.S. Navy photo)

Marc Thiessen, Salt Lake Tribune/Washington Post: How Democrats left us vulnerable to North Korea's nukes

Opposition to missile defense has been an article of faith for Democrats since President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983.

With last weekend’s surprise nuclear test, North Korea has reached final stage of its crash course to develop thermonuclear weapons that can reach and destroy U.S. cities. So why are we not on a crash course to protect our cities from North Korean nuclear missiles?

Answer: Because for more than three decades, Democrats have done everything in their power to prevent, obstruct or delay the deployment of ballistic missile defense.

Opposition to missile defense has been an article of faith for Democrats since President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. Sen. Edward Kennedy led the early opposition to what Democrats derisively labeled “Star Wars,” denouncing missile defense as a “mirage” and “a certain prescription for an arms race in outer space.” Running against Reagan in 1984, Walter Mondale called it a “dangerously destabilizing” and unworkable “hoax.”

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I still remember the arguments .... even though they are 30 years old. Missile defense cannot stop a massive attack. Missile defense technology is not proven. Missile defense is very expensive. Missile defense will start an arms race. etc. etc. etc. And .... quite frankly .... they were right at the time. What has happened since then is that certain elements of missile defense have proven themselves .... especially with the steady stream of advancements in technology/computers/software/etc.. Two programs that come to mind are THAAD, and what the Israelis are doing with their Arrow/David Sling/Iron Dome platforms. As to the question .... did Democrat opposition to missile defense in the 1980s set into motion the sequence of events that made the U.S. vulnerable to North Korean attacks today .... the answer is yes but it is an unfair question. In context of the time this Democrat opposition was valid for the simple reason being that the technology was not there, the costs were enormous, and more to the point .... after the fall of the Soviet Union .... the threat that spurred this development was over. Flash forward to today .... yes .... the times have changed .... but so is opposition to missile defense .... an opposition that is not organized or as vocal as it was then. But even with this support we are still realistically far from having an effective missile defense platform against threats from small countries like North Korea ..... even though U.S. military leaders like to say publicly that we are safe .... US Can Block North Korean Missiles — For Now, Leaders Say (Defense Tech).

Why The Chinese Fear U.S. Missile Defense

Roving Sands THAAD Launcher

Harry J. Kazianis, National Interest: Why China Fears U.S. Missile Defenses

North Korea loves to cause trouble--except this time China might be the one on the recieving end.

Well it seems we might want to hold off on all the predictions of Seoul and Beijing joining hands and riding off into the sunset as Asia’s new power couple--at least for now.

China is quite upset at the prospect of South Korea acquiring America’s latest missile defense platform, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD for short. However, Xi Jinping might want to redirect his anger at the real problem and why President Park Geun-hye might be considering THAAD in the first place: North Korea.

But before we get to the heart of the matter, it seems appropriate to understand what THAAD is, what it can do, and why its important.

WNU Editor: The South Koreans are definitely feeling the pressure from Chinese opposition to the deployment of US missile defense systems on the Korean peninsula .... Missile defense puts South Korea in East Asian squeeze (Robert Marquand, CSM). More here.

Update: The North Koreans are also voicing their opposition to missile defense .... N. Korea slams allies for possible THAAD deployment on peninsula (Yonhap News Agency)

Update #2: South Korea Tells China Not to Meddle in Decision Over Missile defense -- New York Times

Is Missile Defense A Failure?

The Failures of Missile Defense -- Philip Coyle, National Interest

Two recent scientific assessments of U.S. missile-defense efforts show that these programs are chasing scientific dead ends, unworkable concepts and a flawed overall architecture.

One assessment is the “Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force Report on the Science and Technology Issues of Early Intercept Missile Defense Feasibility”; the other is a report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, “Making Sense of Missile Defense.”

Read more ....

My Comment: Not a reassuring post on missile defense.

Europe Embraces Missile Defense

Indymedia

A New Shield Over Europe -- Ivo Daalder, New York Times

BRUSSELS — Last month, NATO leaders held a successful summit in Chicago at which they charted the future course of the alliance in Afghanistan, bolstered NATO’s partnerships with nations across the globe and made a commitment to ensure that the alliance will have the capabilities to meet the security challenges of today and tomorrow.

The alliance made many critical decisions in Chicago; one of the most important was the declaration of an interim NATO ballistic missile-defense capability — the first concrete step to defending NATO European territory, its population and forces against the growing threat of ballistic missile attack. Today, NATO has the ability to defend parts of southern Europe against a limited attack, a capability that will gradually expand so that all of NATO Europe will be protected by the end of this decade.

Read more ....

My Comment: What was unthinkable a decade ago is going to be a reality within ten years .... by the end of this decade NATO will have an operational system that offers protection to all NATO countries from a ballistic missile attack (i.e. from countries like Iran).

Why Is The U.S. Providing Russia With Sensitive Missile Defense Technology?

Russian President Medvedev and U.S. President Obama. Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Giving Away the Farm -- R. James Woolsey & Rebeccah Heinrichs, Foreign Policy

The Obama administration is freely giving Russia sensitive information about missile defense that weakens U.S. national security.

President Barack Obama's administration recently threatened to veto the defense budget, citing "serious concerns" over provisions that limit the U.S. missile defense know-how that the White House is permitted to share with Moscow. This is the sort of information that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in his earlier days, would have assigned his spies to steal. Through its single-minded pursuit of "resetting" relations with Russia, the Obama administration may simply be willing to hand over this information and, in doing so, weaken U.S. national security.

Read more ....

My Comment: It is a question of priorities .... and as as long as I can remember .... for many Democrats missile defense has always been on the bottom of their list of priorities. The fact that this mindset is now being implemented into policy .... why should we be surprised?

Is The U.S. Conducting Secret Negotiations To Do Away With Missile Defense?

Missile Defense -- IBD Editorial

National Security: There seems to be only one thing White House arms negotiators want more than a reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons — a reduction in U.S. missile defenses to protect us from such weapons.

The Washington Times' Bill Gertz reports that U.S. diplomats are secretly negotiating with Russia to link nuclear arms reduction to limits on our anti-missile defenses.

As Gertz points out, "Pro-arms-control officials within the administration dislike missile defenses, viewing them as an impediment to offensive arms agreements."

Read more ....

Previous Post: No Secret Deals Done For START

My Comment: It appears that the rumors are becoming true.

Past And Present Politics On The Space Program And National Security -- A Commentary

Space Wars: Circa 1959 To 2010 -- Bryan Demko, American Thinker

I noted with interest President Obama's April 16 visit to Cape Kennedy to rally the "workers". Certain reports have it that there were few in any "workers" invited to hear the speech. There did seem to be a lot of applause from people who were about to lose their jobs. Then on April 22 I noted the launch of an Atlas/X-37 "space plane" combination on a "secret" mission.

Had I seen this before? The Atlas/X-37 stirred my memory. In June of 1959 the Eisenhower administration awarded a contract to Boeing for a project called Dyna-Soar. This also was an Atlas/Space Plane combination very closely resembling the current configuration. The intended offensive purpose of the 1959 system sounds remarkably similar to the theories put forth for the X37. Also remarkable is the involvement of the same contractor & booster.

But is there a more over-riding theme in both of these events?

Read more ....

My Comment: Technology changes with time, but Washington politics stays the same .... especially with this administration.

The Elimination of European Missile Defense .... Some Comments

BMEWS solid-state phased-array radar at RAF Fylindales.

Missile Mystery -- Newsweek

The missile-defense shield was a fantasy to begin with. So why did Russia and Eastern Europe obsess over it?

Barack Obama has finally called time on the Bush administration's controversial plan to build a missile-defense shield in Eastern Europe. The announcement caused widespread consternation. The Czechs and the Poles, who had hoped that the system would somehow protect them against Russian aggression, were appalled. (The Polish prime minister refused to take a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informing him of the decision.) Conservative Americans, who counted on the missile shield to contain Iranian missiles, decried Obama’s move as dangerous, or even treasonous. Only Russia, which believed that the system would somehow impair their ability to use their own nuclear missiles, was delighted. The real question, though, isn't whether Obama is right or wrong about the system's efficacy. (He's obviously right.) The real question why everybody cares so much. How did a piece of technology years from reality work its way to the center of so many diplomatic crises?

Read more ....

My Comment: When President Reagan first announced the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) program in the 1980s, critics of the program quickly labeled it as fantasy and/or cowboy politics. It was Senator Kennedy and his colleagues who coined the term .... Star Wars .... and all the pundits at the time called such a program a waste of money and totally unrealistic. 25 years later .... Newsweek is saying exactly the same thing.

What Newsweek ignores is that this fantasy became reality after a decade of research and development. The Aegis system is probably the biggest accomplishment of this program, and is now an essential element to our defense. It is also the program that President Obama is touting as the means to protect us against Iranian missile proliferation.

My problem with the decision that was made yesterday was the absence of consultation with our allies on what was going to happen. The White House made a review, realized that it would not fit into its commitments to improving U.S. - Russian relations, and then made the decision to wipe out the program. No debate in Congress. No discussion with our allies. No input from outside experts. No media coverage. This was a unilateral decision done with the outcome decided months ago. A pure political move with .... as far as I can tell .... no quid pro quo from Russia.

What is infuriating is that the alternatives that President Obama is talking about our just ideas on a piece of paper. There has been no feasibility studies. No examination on the consequences of installing radar systems in Turkey or Israel?!?!? No laying the groundwork for getting the necessary political support from these countries that would permit these systems .... nothing .... nada ... no work or planning to do work has even been proposed.

Yesterday's decision means that more money is going to be spent. More time will be lost. And we are now going to have an outcome that we are not sure about.

What I do know is that we have distanced ourselves from our allies. We have embolden hard core radicals in Moscow who have no interest in accomodating any of our interests. We appear lost and confused in the eyes of our allies .... and weak in front of our enemies.

I am witnessing amateur hour at the White House .... which is suprising because I know that President Obama can do much better.

Two Critical Editorials On President Obama's Plans For Missile Defense

Aloha, 'Star Wars' -- The Washington Times

Obama bluffs on defending Hawaii.

July 4 could be another day that will live in infamy. The Obama administration seized headlines June 18 when the Defense Department stated that the United States would deploy ground- and sea-based missile-defense assets to protect Hawaii. This was a response to North Korea's threat to launch a long-range missile on July 4 toward the islands. However, new information suggests that the administration is bluffing and our defenses are inadequate to get the job done.

Read more ....

Target: Hawaii -- Wall Street Journal

Missile defenses for Oahu, but cuts for the rest of us.

The Pentagon recently announced that it is repositioning ground-to-air radar and missile defenses near Hawaii in case North Korea decides to launch another long-range missile, this time toward the Aloha State. So at least 1.3 million Hawaiians will benefit from defenses that many officials in the current Administration didn't even want to build.

Read more ....

My Comment: When the missile defense program started in the 1980s, critics labeled it as a waste of money .... and that it would produce negligible benefits. 25 years and 100 billion dollars later, the U.S. missile defense program has revolutionized missile technologies as well as non-ballistic anti-missile technologies, and it has changed the geopolitical landscape because of its preliminary successes and steady progress.

But even with this background, President Obama and his Congressional allies have made it very clear that they want the program dead. Will they succeed .... they are certainly a few steps away from a complete shutdown.

21st Century Threats -- A Commentary

Photo: U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas

From Defense News:

'Unproven Technology' Lays Basis for Missile Defense.

On April 5, North Korea launched a missile - and sent the world a wake-up call.

Ballistic missiles in the hands of rogue states, potentially armed with weapons of mass destruction, remain one of the most serious security threats of the 21st century. Change of administrations in Washington does not change this strategic imperative: Free nations must defend themselves from ballistic missile attack through robust and layered missile defense capabilities.

North Korea's launch continues a ballistic missile development program that is now four decades old, and which many believe is the most advanced in the developing world. North Korea's Taepo Dong-2 long-range missile has the potential capability to strike Hawaii, Alaska and possibly the West Coast of the United States.

Read more ....

My Comment: A good commentary of support for America's Missile Defense program from a well known and influential Republican Senator.

U.S. Will Now Bargain With Russia Over European Missile Defense

Photo: An SM-3 missile interceptor is launched from the Japanese destroyer Kongo in the Pacific Ocean on Monday. The interceptor destroyed a dummy ballistic missile in a test. Japanese MOD via Reuters

From Westhawk:

The Obama administration has elected to bargain with Russia over the future of the U.S. missile defense project, which is (was) to be installed in Poland and the Czech Republic. According to this article in Friday’s New York Times, William Burns, currently U.S. Under-secretary of State for Political Affairs and formerly U.S. ambassador to Russia, will lead the U.S. negotiations in Moscow.

What does the U.S. hope to get out this concession to Russia? The New York Times article explains:

Plans for the shield have contributed to a deterioration in the relationship between the United States and Russia over the past few years, but the administration of President Obama has said it wants to press the “reset button” and build better relations with Moscow.

Read more ....

My Comment: Westahwk's commentary is excellent. A must read.

Missile Defense Success -- A Commentary

From The Washington Times:

The spectacular intercept of a long-range ballistic missile over the Pacific on Dec. 5 shows once again that the technology works. The ground-based national missile defense now has destroyed its target in eight intercept attempts. It is simply inaccurate for critics to keep saying it does not work. This defense now should be placed in Europe.

Today, 22 of these ground-based midcourse interceptors are operational in Alaska and California, protecting against North Korea and other Asian threats, and 22 more are being fielded. That technology also should be used to protect the Eastern United States and Europe against Iran and other Middle Eastern threats, by installing the interceptors planned for Poland.

Read more ....

Obama's Indecision On Star Wars -- A Commentary

From Foreign Policy:

When it comes to whether President-elect Obama should follow through on plans to base a missile defense shield in Europe, everyone's got an opinion. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says dropping the shield program would pave the way toward improving U.S.-Russia ties. French President Nicholas Sarkozy says the shield isn't worth all the trouble and should be scrapped. The LA Times editorial board says Obama should make up his own mind, before basically telling him to ditch the shield.

Read more ....

Missile Defense: Stakes Rising On Obama's 1st Test -- A Commentary

From New York Post:

Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of "change," but one change the president-elect may be planning on - not deploying a US missile defense in Eastern Europe - would be a big mistake.

Indeed, it's exactly the type of about-face that nations like Russia, Iran and North Korea hope for from the incoming administration.

Worse, it will likely be seen abroad as knuckling to Russian bullying.

Read more ....