“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

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.

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?

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.