July 21, 2006 :: The Wall Street Journal :: Analysis
Today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal lambastes “Taep’o-dong Democrats” for their continued opposition to missile defense, even after North Korea’s test launch of its long-range Taep’o-dong 2 ballistic missile. The editorial provides a succinct history of Democratic opposition to missile defense, dating back to 1983 when Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) dismissed President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative as a fanciful “Star Wars” program. Ten years later, with President Clinton in the Oval Office, Democrats starved SDI of funding and eliminated promising research and development initiatives such as Brilliant Pebbles. Congressional Republicans managed to keep the program alive as part of their Contract with America, although they were forced to spend the greater part of the 1990s battling the Clinton administration on the issue. When President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the defunct 1972 ABM Treaty, thus allowing the U.S. to develop missile defense assets to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War era, Democrats stood in firm opposition. Former Vice President Al Gore had actually campaigned in 2000 to keep the treaty; Senator Joe Biden (D-DW) predicted that dropping out of the treaty to build missile defenses would turn the U.S. into “a kind of bully nation”; and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) warned that “we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years.” Democrats remained staunchly opposed to missile defense even after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Just this year, Representative John Tierney (D-MA) attempted to cut the Pentagon’s missile defense budget by over 50 percent, a proposal that won the support of more over half of his Democratic colleagues, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). This June, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) attempted to cut off all funding for the ground-based interceptor program, which was recently activated to defend the U.S. against a potential North Korean missile attack.
The Wall Street Journal rightfully takes Democrats to task for maintaining their rigid anti-BMD positions, even after North Korea’s test launching of its long-range Taep’o-dong 2 ballistic missile, which is capable of hitting the continental U.S., the growing nuclear threat from Iran, and the further proliferation of missile technology from rouge nations such as Iran and Syria to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. The editorial correctly states that, although no defense system is perfect, the U.S. BMD shield has made significant progress in recent SM-3, PAC-3, and THAAD tests, provides a limited defense against North Korean missiles, adds to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, reassures our allies abroad, and enhances U.S. influence on the global stage. (Article)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
