Martha’s Dome missile shield survives
Defying most expectations, a controversial idea to emplace anti-Iranian ballistic missile defenses on the East Coast of the United States survived a key roadblock in Congress, to the taxpayer tune of $100 million next year. Senate and House conferees merged their defense authorization bills on Thursday and included a requirement to conduct a an ...
Defying most expectations, a controversial idea to emplace anti-Iranian ballistic missile defenses on the East Coast of the United States survived a key roadblock in Congress, to the taxpayer tune of $100 million next year.
Senate and House conferees merged their defense authorization bills on Thursday and included a requirement to conduct a an environmental impact study of "at least" three sites, two of which must be on the EastCoast and “a requirement to develop a contingency plan to implement one of the sites,” according to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides $552 billion in defense spending and an additional $88 billion in “contingency” war spending. That level is $1.7 billion above the president’s request, according to House Armed Services Committee, and above the spending limit set by lastyear’s Budget Control Act. But House Republicans claim they have offsetting spending cut in other non-defense accounts.
But the controversy over the missile defense provision is not about spending $100 million as much as the purpose, which according to the House committee is expressly “to respond to rising ballistic missile threats from states like Iran.”
Iran does not posses ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, but members like Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) said Iran could have them by 2015, during floor debate before passage of the Senate version of the bill.
The administration opposes the measure, which has beenlooked at already inside the Pentagon as a future contingency but not with the urgency conservatives on the Hill gave it this year.
Defying most expectations, a controversial idea to emplace anti-Iranian ballistic missile defenses on the East Coast of the United States survived a key roadblock in Congress, to the taxpayer tune of $100 million next year.
Senate and House conferees merged their defense authorization bills on Thursday and included a requirement to conduct a an environmental impact study of "at least" three sites, two of which must be on the EastCoast and “a requirement to develop a contingency plan to implement one of the sites,” according to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides $552 billion in defense spending and an additional $88 billion in “contingency” war spending. That level is $1.7 billion above the president’s request, according to House Armed Services Committee, and above the spending limit set by lastyear’s Budget Control Act. But House Republicans claim they have offsetting spending cut in other non-defense accounts.
But the controversy over the missile defense provision is not about spending $100 million as much as the purpose, which according to the House committee is expressly “to respond to rising ballistic missile threats from states like Iran.”
Iran does not posses ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, but members like Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) said Iran could have them by 2015, during floor debate before passage of the Senate version of the bill.
The administration opposes the measure, which has beenlooked at already inside the Pentagon as a future contingency but not with the urgency conservatives on the Hill gave it this year.
Kevin Baron is a national security reporter for Foreign Policy, covering defense and military issues in Washington. He is also vice president of the Pentagon Press Association. Baron previously was a national security staff writer for National Journal, covering the "business of war." Prior to that, Baron worked in the resident daily Pentagon press corps as a reporter/photographer for Stars and Stripes. For three years with Stripes, Baron covered the building and traveled overseas extensively with the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, covering official visits to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Middle East and Europe, China, Japan and South Korea, in more than a dozen countries. From 2004 to 2009, Baron was the Boston Globe Washington bureau's investigative projects reporter, covering defense, international affairs, lobbying and other issues. Before that, he muckraked at the Center for Public Integrity. Baron has reported on assignment from Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and the South Pacific. He was won two Polk Awards, among other honors. He has a B.A. in international studies from the University of Richmond and M.A. in media and public affairs from George Washington University. Originally from Orlando, Fla., Baron has lived in the Washington area since 1998 and currently resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, three sons, and the family dog, The Edge. Twitter: @FPBaron
More from Foreign Policy
No, the World Is Not Multipolar
The idea of emerging power centers is popular but wrong—and could lead to serious policy mistakes.
America Prepares for a Pacific War With China It Doesn’t Want
Embedded with U.S. forces in the Pacific, I saw the dilemmas of deterrence firsthand.
America Can’t Stop China’s Rise
And it should stop trying.
The Morality of Ukraine’s War Is Very Murky
The ethical calculations are less clear than you might think.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.