Skip to comments.Obama's Dangerous Approach to Missile Defense
Posted on 05/03/2012 4:36:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Congress returns after recess, the astronomical levels of spending included in President Obamas budget will face a vicious show down in this election year, which will make the debt ceiling debate look tame. And while our Campaigner in Chief is busy making jokes about eating dogs and claiming credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama is facing intense scrutiny for his proposed changes to the military which will leave American vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.
Last week in my leadership role at the Faith and Freedom Coalition of Ohio, I signed a letter along with leading conservative organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, The National Center for Public Policy Research, and the Institute for Liberty to encourage members of Congress to reject the Administrations proposal to shift resources away from proven missile defense systems toward the development of untested systems which are routinely off schedule and over budget. While conservatives always support a strong military, America is overwhelmed in debt and we cannot afford extravagant missile experimentation.
This debate involves Americas first line of defense against airborne attacks -- the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), which can intercept enemy missiles while in flight. The missiles proven track record is why they are also essential to the NATO effort in Europe to defend against missiles from hostile nations such as Iran, which will have the capacity to launch a nuclear missile at America soon.
Yet, despite the SM-3s impressive performance history and expanding homeland defense capabilities, President Obama has all but turned his back on the missile. In his 2013 budget, the President cuts funding for the newest evolution of SM-3 (known as IB), which will result in 52 percent fewer missiles while commanders in theater have consistently complained about shortages.
President Obama took his dangerous approach to defense a step farther by not just chopping funding for the first missile that will be able to protect us against an ICBM attack; he also chose to pour $224 million into a sophisticated and tedious missile program that is on life support.
The missile, known as IIB, is but a theoretical concept which could not be built until 2021, if you believe optimistic government timelines. In a bipartisan move this past December, Congress virtually eliminated the 2012 budget for the program and the message was clear: We have more urgent budget priorities and current threats demand we deploy a missile to protect the continental United States much sooner than 2021.
These conservative organizations and I are not pretending to be experts in aerospace engineering or defense strategy. However, we believe this is a fiscally responsible approach to defense and many members of Congress agree. For Example, House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner recently told Missile Defense Agency Director Patrick OReilly that the Subcommittee is concerned we may be throwing paper wads of designs of SM-3 IIBs rather than throwing actual interceptors that could make a difference for the defense of our nation. In the same March 2012 hearing, Chairman Turner referred to SM-3 II-B as a next decade development.
Key Senators have similar concerns. In a hearing last week, Alabama Senator Jeff Session told OReilly, SM3 Block IIB is not developed, not on an assembly line, not ready to be deployed, not a mature technology. We have gone from a bird in the hand for two in the bush...We have gone from a virtual certainty to a very uncertain situation I am uneasy about it, frankly."
As of today, President Obama still has not received that consistent, bipartisan message from Congress. After spending millions on development, Obama has decided to shift resources toward more complex future missile variantsa process notorious for being obscenely over budget and off schedulewhile rejecting the Congress more sensible approach to fiscal responsibility and a more robust national defense.
By rejecting Obamas position on homeland missile defense, Congress would both ensure taxpayer dollars are used more effectively and our country is well-protected. That approach would be a new way of doing business at the Department of Defense and real change that Americans can embrace.
"In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.
This is my last election, Obama told Medvedev. After my election I have more flexibility.
I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin."
Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:
Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but its important for him to give me space.
Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...
Obama: This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.
Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility. That statement tells us much about the presidents mindset.
The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the presidents comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.
In addition, there is the phrase on all these issues, implying more is at stake than just missile defense.
Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldnt be too flexible:
We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multipolar world, Chavez told reporters during a visit to Communist China, one of many. His new world order includes [RUSSIA], China, Iran,... and a significantly weakened United States, he explained.
Resurgent Communism in Latin America
by Alex Newman, March 16, 2010:
From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."
Russia's Medvedev hails "comrade" Obama
Associated Foreign Press (AFP) ^ | April 2, 2009 | Anna Smolchenko
"Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks"
April 1, 2009:
"Obama, Medvedev pledge new era of relations":
President Obama and Venezuela dictator Hugo
Chavez at the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad.
Note the "soul bro" handshake. (my caption)
Obama, Chavez shake hands at Americas Summit:
From CBS-News, July 29, 2006:
Chavez Vows To 'Stand By Iran'
After Oil Talks In Tehran, Venezuelan Leader Called 'Brother' By Ahmedinejad
"Chavez pledged that his country would 'stay by Iran at any time and under any condition,' state television reported. Ahmadinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit." "'We do not have any limitation in cooperation,' Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. 'Iran and Venezuela are next to each other and supporters of each other. Chavez is a source of a progressive and revolutionary current in South America and his stance in restricting imperialism is tangible.'":
Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs
February 29, 2008 :: News
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[not win it -etl]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert [they are NOT on "hair-trigger alert" now -etl], and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
"I will not weaponize space"
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"
2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008
GOLDEN, Colorado A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.
Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.
Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."
To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.
It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.
He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 linchpin of our missile defense might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.
Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.
The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
I'm with him however on the SM-3 Blk IB cuts - a very bad idea. Having fewer shots available greatly, greatly reduces options and effectiveness.
Vladimir Putin praised Cold War-era scientists on Thursday for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets so that United States would not be the world's sole atomic power, in comments reflecting his vision of Russia as a counterweight to U.S. power.
Spies with suitcases full of data helped the Soviet Union build its atomic bomb, he told military commanders.
"You know, when the States already had nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union was only building them, we got a significant amount of information through Soviet foreign intelligence channels," Putin said, according to state-run Itar-Tass.
"The were carrying the information away not on microfilm but literally in suitcases. Suitcases!"
Putin's remarks referred to the dawn of the Cold War more than half a century ago, but they echoed a message he has made loud and clear more recently: that the United States needs to be restrained, and Russia is the country to do it.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Re: "a very bad idea"
Not from the perspective of someone like Obama who seeks to compromise US defenses and strengthen Russia and China's: "New World Order" agenda. In other words, these things he does are done DELIBERATELY, not out of well-intentioned "bad judgement".