[Robert A Cook PE]

Interesting that Obama’s missile surrender (er, appeasement) strategy is intended to appeal to US-based appeasement interests and Russian-based militarist interests.

Where, I wonder, are the US-based strategic defense “interests” in all this? Are we now appealing to the Russian military interests to look out for our defense? (Rhetorical question, I know.)

[PhilDragoo]

Missile Defense Briefing Report - No. 271

DEBATING THE SHAPE OF U.S. DEFENSES...

The Obama administration is facing stiff criticism in Congress over its missile defense plans. Since taking office last January, the Administration has cancelled plans for ground-based interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic and reduced funding for the same in the United States in favor of the gradual deployment of missile defenses abroad. The current plan involves the near-term deployment of short- and medium-range interceptors in Europe, and the subsequent development of sea-based long-range interceptors to defend the Old Continent. Defense of the U.S. homeland, however, will only emerge significantly later – by 2020, when existing ground-based missile defenses already emplaced in California and Alaska will be bolstered to better protect the continental United States. The April 22nd Politico reports that those priorities have riled Congressional lawmakers, who are reviving their opposition to the Obama plan in the wake of a Pentagon report on Iranian military power that envisions and Iranian ICBM capability by mid-decade. House Armed Services Committee member Representative Michael Turner, for example, has worried publicly that the President’s plan “is not designed to protect our homeland until 2020” – a full five years after a nascent Iranian long-range missile capability could emerge.

The shape of future deployment, moreover, is further complicated by the new START treaty just signed by Russia and the United States. Despite official protestations to the contrary, that document contains both implicit and explicit curbs on U.S. missile defense development, something which has riled Congressional proponents of missile defense..

I called the above referenced Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH-03) 202-225-6465 and thanked him for his vigilance of a dangerous president making a series of intentional defense decisions to weaken our national security vis-a-vis Russia, China, Iran.

We were warned by the Kenyan boy-king himself in his 52-second campaign ad for unilateral disarmament.