Poland last week announced that it would develop its own missile defense system, in the wake of America’s failure to move ahead with its own system.
The world continues to nervously wait for the next Iranian advance in nuclear weaponry, and new North Korean missile tests. Defense officials worry about the possibility of terrorists obtaining an atomic bomb.
Despite these valid and significant concerns, the Obama Administration remains reluctant to fully fund an adequate missile defense shield for both the American homeland and our allies. Indeed, in 2007, then-Senator Obama advocated cutting the anti-ballistic missile program budget by a greater amount than its entire allocated budget.
The growing international sophistication in missile technology is represented by the endeavors of Iran, which will launch three domestically made satellites next Spring. The technology to accomplish this is essentially the same as that necessary to develop ICBMS. Tehran’s Shabab 3 military missile has a range of almost 2,000 miles, and can strike American allies in the Middle East and Europe.
China continues to accelerate its potent nuclear weapons technology. It recently tested its DF-31A and CSS-4 ICBMs Beijing also has an extensive series of tunnels ideal for masking and protecting its nuclear weaponry.
And, of course, there is Russia.For the first time since the atomic age began, Moscow now has more deployed nuclear weapons than the United States. Indeed, in the realm of tactical nuclear weapons, Moscow has a ten-to-one advantage. In November, The Interpreter publication analyzed Moscow’s intent to maintain the world’s preeminent nuclear force.
“…nuclear weapons have become the key element of ensuring Russia’s national security and presence in international relations. At the expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry on December 10, Putin detailed the efforts at ‘modernizatsiia’, mentioning that Russia is set to receive 40 advanced and upgraded ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). This follows a meeting with the leaders of Russia’s strategic missile forces at the end of [October 2013], where plans detailing the deployment of 22 silo based and 18 mobile RS-24 Yars-M ICBMs were discussed. Russia is also conducting snap readiness checks alongside the introduction of new ICBMs.”
If you are looking for a reliable online pharmacy and buy drugs online only after best price for viagra consulting with your doctor. 2) Tight Foreskin If your penis has a tight foreskin, then you are suffering from any kind of health disorder. Physiotherapy may be of benefit to everyone from generic cialis no rx infancy to extreme old age. Kamagra is a time tested australia viagra drug which is being noted to be about 24 to 36 hours. For further security, FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved Buy amerikabulteni.com getting viagra as the most reliable and trustworthy drug that performs phenomenal and is safe to eat.
In 2011, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen discussed NATO’s needs for missile defense.
“As we sit here discussing missile defense, some people elsewhere are discussing missile attack. Over 30 states already have, or are developing, missile technology. These missiles can be fitted with conventional technology, or with weapons of mass destruction. Some of them can already reach parts of NATO territory. Others can threaten NATO interests. And all the time, technology is advancing. Ranges are increasing. Accuracy and payloads are increasing. And the number of countries with proven capability is increasing. We cannot ignore these trends. We cannot afford to have even one of our cities hit. We cannot take the risk of doing nothing. Missile threats are real. And our defense must be real…At the same time, this will demonstrate that we will not be coerced or intimidated by proliferation programmes. This is why NATO needs missile defense. It is why we agreed that missile defence is a core element of our collective defence. And it is why we have decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect NATO European populations, territory, and forces.”
While the Obama Administration continues to express reluctance to develop a defense shield for the U.S., Moscow has never expressed a similar reluctance. The White House’s priorities is perhaps best exemplified by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s March 15 statement about conducting environmental impact studies for a potential ground based interceptor site within the U.S. The Obama Administration decided in 2009 that the missile threat from countries like North Korea wasn’t significant, and mothballed 14 of the 44 antiballistic missile interceptors. With the escalation of tension from North Korea, the administration reversed its decision. The course correction cost approximately $200 million.
At the same time that the White House reversed its 2009 decision, it essentially repeated the same step by cancelling a missile shield deployment in Europe. According to Congressional representatives, quoted in the Washington Free Beacon , “The Administration’s announcement to terminate the SM-3 block IIB [interceptors], in addition to sending another shockwave throughout our European alliances, also creates a large gap in the defense of the United States from the Iranian missile threat.” Critics contend that this leaves the American East Coast and NATO nations with an inadequate defense.
There are several areas in which the White House has essentially “zeroed-out” any U.S. ABM activity. Despite recommendations from various sources that the nation should have at least 1,000 space-based interceptors, the President committed to not deploying any such devices at all.
The White House funding request for $7.7 billion missile defense in 2014 was the lowest figure in ten years, despite rising international risks. The FY 2015 request will be even lower. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is requesting $7.459 billion in FY 2015.