President Obama may slash funding for ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs, a think tank analyst wrote.
Victoria Samson, with the Center for Defense Information (CDI), said Obama — since taking office Jan. 20 — already has shifted away from some positions seen during prior administrations, such as support for the prison at Guantanamo and funding for abortion groups, and Obama also may drop the Bush administration support for BMD programs.
“It is entirely possible that the George W. Bush administration’s infatuation with missile defense may end up on the list of changes as well,” Samson wrote.
While she conceded that the Obama position is to support BMD programs, she emphasized that he qualified that backing by saying it will be pragmatic and cost-effective.
“Finally, the Obama administration will make sure that missile defense ‘does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public,'” she noted.
She supplied some arguments that BMD opponents could use to sway Obama against BMD programs:
On cost-effective issues, say that the United States has spent $120 billion since 1983 on BMD programs, to gain a “rudimentary” shield against enemy missiles.
Further, she said, BMD opponents could say that plans to install the European Missile Defense (EMD) system have incensed Russian leaders, “a very costly” move.
Also, she continued, say that testing hasn’t proven the BMD systems will work in a real-world scenario in which the United States would be under attack by actual enemy missiles.
And the EMD interceptors, a two-stage version of the existing Ground-based Missile Defense interceptors, haven’t yet been proven to work in tests, she asserted.
‘Wobbly’ Defense
“The Obama administration is wise to double-check on the system’s effectiveness before betting U.S. national security on a wobbly defensive system,” Samson asserted.
While BMD proponents ask how the United States can even consider failing to protect American cities from nuclear attack, Samson differs.
“There are much more pressing national security priorities than the threat of a long-range ballistic missile attack against the United States, and the $10 billion-plus which is being spent annually on missile defense systems could be reallocated and be used in a more efficient manner” if all BMD programs were canceled, she stated.
“For example, one could argue we would be better off spending our money on developing the capability to defend against ‘the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes,’ which the White House website calls ‘[t]he gravest danger to the American people,'” she asserted.
At the same time, even Samson concedes that withering cuts may not eventuate for the BMD programs.
“The sheer amount of missile defense spending (plus the associated political capital and jobs created by that money) may end up largely protecting it from serious cuts,” Samson predicted.