The Twists and Turns of Missile Defense
Few were indifferent to President Obama’s cancellation last week of a plan by his predecessor to put defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles, presumably from Iran, in Eastern Europe. From Republicans, there was fury. From Russia’s leaders, praise. From critics who see its replacement as costly, unnecessary and unreliable, disappointment.
Related
White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield (September 18, 2009)
News Analysis: New Missile Shield Strategy Scales Back Reagan’s Vision (September 18, 2009)
Russia’s Reaction on Missile Plan Leaves Iran Issue Hanging (September 19, 2009)
NATO Proposes Link With Russia’s Missile Defense (September 19, 2009)
The president’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, had supported the plan while serving George W. Bush. But new intelligence, he said, led him to a different conclusion: Iran poses a more immediate threat to neighbors and parts of Europe with shorter-range missiles, a threat that should be countered quickly and from sites closer to Iran.
The Bush plan had its roots in Ronald Reagan’s vision for a space-based defense against missiles — dubbed “Star Wars” by critics — that collapsed under the weight of its myriad technical challenges.
Star Wars evolved into an earthbound system that exists today in Alaska and California, a multibillion dollar answer to a potential attack by North Korea. An update of that installation, in Poland and the Czech Republic, would have taken nearly a decade to complete.
Skeptics remain legion, not least because the existing sites have a spotty history of performance in testing. Advocates have faith in eventual technical success and say that the European plan was also a bulwark against potential Russian adventurism, recalling last year’s battles in Georgia.
Here are highlights of the Bush plan, and the one President Obama is putting in its place.
