Good thing we canceled the missile shield
September 25, 2009
Just eight days ago Obama announced that we were not going to build the missile defense shield. The ground based system was to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama made the decision to cancel the missile shield after reviewing a report suggesting Iran was five years behind on their nuclear missile program. The May 2009 report suggested that Iran’s intercontinental missile capability would be live by 2020, instead of the 2015 the last National Intelligence Estimate reported. When I read the reasoning I thought to myself, “I hope they aren’t wrong.”
This morning we learned that Iran began construction on a secret underground nuclear fuel plant five years ago. The facility is now largely completed and will begin generating nuclear fuel early next year. I guess the NIE report might be a little off. What if Iran is capable of launching an intercontinental missile before 2015? I guess the good news is that our original missile shield wouldn’t have been ready anyway. The bad news is that we won’t be ready until at least 2020 – and the planned shield is a ‘theater shield’ for Europe. The original shield was designed to protect Europe AND the United States. Note in the image below the red area originating in Iran – the flight path of any missile would fly directly over Poland or the Czech Republic – evidently location is important when intercepting nuclear missiles.
So what will Obama do? Will he call the Polish or Czech representatives and ask them if we can go ahead with the shield? I guess that is what he should do, but I suspect he won’t. Iran promises their secret nuclear program is for peaceful medical and energy purposes. Maybe we should just believe them. What do you think?
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
That’s easy. The entire program is unconstitutional, so shut it down.
All language in the Constitution grants powers to “provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States…” So, until Poland, The Czech Republic, or the entirety of the EU are part of the United States, our government really has no authority to install missile defense systems in these countries.
Now, you may argue that they are necessary or whatever, that’s fine. Amend the Constitution in the relevant fashion to include the US’s authority to defend other nations. Or declare war on Iran in accordance with Article 1 Section 8 in the Constitution and gain authority from our allies to bring our troops and weapons into their country, another perfectly good way of legally solving this problem. Don’t just ignore the parts of the Constitution that limit the scope of your powers because you feel like it’s necessary.
The Constitution exists to limit the scope of government to prevent it’s expansion to the point of collapse and constantly assure individual rights. If we ignore it’s restrictions whenever we feel like it, whether it’s to defend another nation or enact a new entitlement program, we expand the role of the state at the expense of the individual. We take one more step away from being “the land of the free” any time the state takes powers that aren’t authorized.
Comment by AxiomThree — September 25, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
@AxiomThree- you’re forgetting the protection of our troops stationed in those countries and the members of our foreign services. Should we pull those guys too?
Comment by KJ — September 25, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
[...] Covering: The Daily Dish, ArmsControlWonk, Weekly Standard, Conservative Dallas, Pajamas Media, Reuters, And So it Goes in Shreveport, Israel Matzav, , FP Passport, The New [...]
Pingback by The obligatory Iran has a second nuke facility posting | Political Byline — September 25, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
@AxiomThree I agree completely. The Czech and Polish deployed program was a shield for the US (and the EU). This would have been Constitutional. The theater missile shield Obama is building instead ONLY works for the EU area – and not for the US and as a result the EU should bear most of the cost.
Why are we paying 100% of the cost for a theater defense system when we don’t live in the theater? I get why we would pay for the system that would protect the US from Iranian (or Russian) missiles.
Do you agree? Isn’t this madness?
Comment by Alexander Muse — September 25, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
@KJ:
Yes, absolutely. Our country spends way too much money quartering troops in foreign countries. Many times our presence is an encroachment on their national sovereignty. American troops should defend American soil.
I understand there are scenarios that the foreign troops need to be there, such as embassies. I think that needs to be balanced between the host country and the visiting army.
@AMuse:
I’m not 100% informed on this subject, but is there a reason why a missile defense system intending to defeat incoming missiles from Iran and Russia needs to be located in the EU and therefore also spend resources defending the EU? Like, we’re not smart enough to develop a missile defense system that works from the East and West coasts? (If there’s some honest scientific, military, or other reason why that’s fine, I’m just not informed enough.)
As I said, not our responsibility to rescue the EU from military attack. If they want a missile defense system, and we do too, and we want to work together to build 2 for a lower cost, so be it. But there’s no authority for the US to defend the EU without a formal declaration of War or a change in the Constitution, regardless of which president suggested it.
Comment by AxiomThree — September 25, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
A missile program and a nuclear enrichment program are separate issues.
Comment by Ryan — September 25, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
AxiomThree — the map posted above ought to say it all, but Closing Velocity, a blog by a real live ABM-rocket scientist, has more. For me, the money quote is
“By scuttling the long range interceptors in Poland, Obama has chosen to make the Eastern (and Southeastern) US more vulnerable. The dirty secret of missile defense is our lack of an East Coast interceptor base. While they can boogie cross-continent to intercept an East Coast ICBM threat very late in its flight, our West Coast interceptors in Alaska and California are primarily tasked with defending against North Korea.”
We can’t build ABM sites on the East Coast because they’d just become peacenik-protester magnets. Furthermore, the closer the sites (and, especially, the radars) are to the launch point, the more likely they are to work.
I would agree with AlexanderMuse: deploying ABM systems in Eastern Europe would be for the defense of the United States and thus Constitutional; the fact that they would also defend Europe is lagniappe that helps pay for the privilege of establishing the bases. If there’s a Constitutional question, it’s whether or not Obama’s proposal fits — it doesn’t defend the United States at all.
A little more at my blog, under the name (above).
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Ric Locke — September 25, 2009 @ 7:00 pm