Posted on 10/17/2011 6:08:21 AM PDT by nuconvert
We need homeland missile defenses to counter Iran’s growing threat.
As the United States withdraws its combat forces from Iraq and begins a similar drawdown in Afghanistan, Iran is rapidly broadening its reach and presence in and beyond the region — and its technological prowess in weaponry — to undergird a strategy of global proportions, to threaten Americans at home and abroad as well as our overseas friends and allies. As the United States draws down its presence in the region, Iran is moving to fill the resulting power vacuum. U.S. missile-defense plans and programs need to adapt to the likely consequences, including an increasing threat to the U.S. homeland and broadening Iranian influence in the Middle East.
In his July 2011 quarterly report to Congress, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., U.S. special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, concluded that “Iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work. . . . It is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago.” This is in no small part due to Iran’s growing involvement in the Iraqi conflict — which is likely to grow further as U.S. troops are withdrawn.
Last summer, Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed that “Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups which are killing our troops” in Iraq. (The Taliban, meanwhile, has used rockets obtained from Iran to target NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.) And in his final statements as secretary of defense, Robert Gates noted that about 40 percent of American servicemen killed since the end of U.S. combat operations last fall were killed in attacks by Shi’ite militias armed, trained, and funded by Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“...hope is not a strategy; effective defensive capabilities are needed to counter Tehran’s aggressive programs, including nuclear-armed-missile threats to Israel and our other allies in the Middle East and Europe and a nuclear-armed-ICBM threat to the United States by as early as 2015, according to official U.S. estimates.”
First, look at the ranges of the missile systems they are developing. That tells you who they want to be able to hit. No-one bothers to expend resources developing much extra capability. They put the effort into achieving a certain range, and then stop further development on that system - because it can now reach who they want to hit.
Second, look at the numbers of missiles they are building once development halts. That tells you what they want to hit them with. If you're only going to send a few, they are probably not going to have conventional warheads. If you were planning on using HE, you'd send dozens, maybe even a few hundred. If you can only send a few, you're going to send warheads that'll make a difference...
That is why we, and our allies in the region, had better get out in front, and stay out in front of this threat. I really don't care if it is the big ground based interceptors former President Bush wanted in Europe, or the phased adaptive approach hussein wants. Whatever will work, we had better get ready because I think it is going to be needed and used.
YES! And that defense needs to also include a defense against and emergency plan for EMP strikes.
The article is long, but it talks about defense against EMP strikes
Obama’s premature removal of US troops in Iraq seems to coincide with Obama’s newest strategy of threatening the Iranians for attempted terrorism in the US.
It seems odd to be confronting Iran AND drawing downs troops simultaneously.
This will not end well. Obama is is in the process of handing Iraq and then Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to the Iranians
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.