A Bipartisan Call To Stay The Course On US Homeland Missile Defense
The Missile Defense Review sets "the stage for a high-stakes policy debate between those who value missile defense as an enabler of US grand strategy, and those who fear enhanced missile defense may start an arms race with Russia and China," write Walter Slocombe and Robert Soofer.
By Walter Slocombe and Robert Soofer on September 10, 2021 at 8:15 AM
A Ground-Based Interceptor is lowered into its missile silo in Alaska. (File)
The Biden administration’s strategic review, including its work on the Missile Defense Review, is expected to be completed by the end of the year. One major decision facing Pentagon leadership is whether to alter the current homeland defense posture. In this op-ed, Walter Slocombe and Robert Soofer — who served in the Clinton and Trump administrations, respectively — argue the bipartisan case for keeping the current strategy.
At the recent Space and Missile Defense conference in Huntsville, Ala., senior defense officials confirmed that the Biden administration’s missile defense policy review is well underway. And one of the most consequential questions for that review concerns whether to stay the course on improving US homeland missile defenses.
Early indications are promising. In March, the Department of Defense approved the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI) to proceed, and it has received strong support from Congress. It has also received support from both STRATCOM head Adm. Charles Richard and NORTHCOM leader Gen. Glen VanHerck, who would operate the system in a time of crisis.
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/09/staying-the-course-on-us-homeland-missile-defense/
