Now we know why Obama reversed course on missile defense

Article Highlights

  • Part of the U.S. intelligence community now believes North Korea has achieved at least a rudimentary capability to put nuclear weapons on long-range ballistic missiles.

    Tweet This

  • The Obama administration deserves credit for bowing to reality, and taking seriously what may be a real threat in the future.

    Tweet This

  • All of this raises questions about what else we don’t know.

    Tweet This

Last month, the Obama administration abruptly backtracked on cutting continental missile defense, and decided to restore the full amount of interceptors in Alaska to an original Bush administration plan. Given the time and cost of the reversal (costing up to $200 million and taking at least two years), many wondered what could have spooked an administration not known for second-guessing itself. Well, this report may reveal the answer: Part of the U.S. intelligence community now believes North Korea has achieved at least a rudimentary capability to put nuclear weapons on long-range ballistic missiles. That, of course, is a game-changer, even if the North can’t yet depend on the accuracy of its missiles (or weapons, for that matter). 

The Obama administration deserves credit for bowing to reality, and taking seriously what may be a real threat in the future. That raises questions, however, about its initial judgments about other threats to the United States, as well as to allies. In particular, it highlights once again the fact that the administration is caught by surprise on timelines. It may have assumed the North wouldn’t perfect weaponization so quickly. Similarly, the administration’s rationale for killing the F-22 stealth fighter in 2009 was that no other stealth competitor was on the horizon; just months later, the Chinese rolled out not one, but two stealth prototypes, both of which appear to be proceeding much faster than expected. 

All of this raises questions about what else we don’t know. WhenIran might have a bomb? Terrorists getting their hands on WMD? Cyber attacks on America’s infrastructure? It’s possible none of those things will happen, but if they do, we’ll need an immediate response, not one that takes years to prepare. Hence, putting back missile interceptors. There are other things we may find wanting, like having enough stealth fighters or cyber defense. Prudence isn’t always about saving money; it’s also about adequately understanding tomorrow’s threats and preparing today.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Michael
Auslin

What's new on AEI

Holder will regret his refusal to obey the Constitution
image 'Flood Wall Street' climate protesters take aim at their corporate allies
image 3 opportunities for better US-India defense ties
image Is Nicolás Maduro Latin America's new man at the United Nations?
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 29
    MON
  • 30
    TUE
  • 01
    WED
  • 02
    THU
  • 03
    FRI
Thursday, October 02, 2014 | 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Campbell Brown talks teacher tenure

We welcome you to join us as Brown shares her perspective on the role of the courts in seeking educational justice and advocating for continued reform.

Friday, October 03, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Harnessing the power of markets to tackle global poverty: A conversation with Jacqueline Novogratz

AEI welcomes you to this Philanthropic Freedom Project event, in which Novogratz will describe her work investing in early-stage enterprises, what she has learned at the helm of Acumen, and the role entrepreneurship can play in the fight against global poverty.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.