Missile defense: Enabling Russia
Ever deferential in foreign policy, the Obama administration verges on reckless, self-defeating idiocy by even discussing declassifying and sharing with Russia critical missile-defense data.
The Washington Free Beacon reports those Pentagon discussions are aimed at convincing Moscow that U.S. missile defense in Europe isn't intended for use against long-range Russian missiles that could target America. This administration, which disadvantaged America in its last nuclear arms deal with Russia, is so desperate to change Moscow's opposition to U.S. missile defense — and for more nuke cuts — that it would imperil U.S. security to achieve those goals.
The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency director said in congressional testimony this month that the administration hasn't asked him to declassify anything but has asked him about what is and isn't classified. He opposes sharing missile-defense data — including U.S. defensive missiles' “velocity burnout rate,” which an enemy with offensive missiles could use to defeat them.
Sharing such data with Russia is foolhardy on its face. And it would violate a 2011 administration agreement with Congress that requires a rigorous security review — and benefit for U.S. security — before declassifying velocity burnout data.
House and Senate Republicans hope to block such data-sharing with Russia. Thank goodness somebody in Washington still puts America's interests first.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- The Connellsville WCVI building: Another fine mess
- The student-loan balloon
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Voter ID: A case reaffirmed
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The Thursday wrap
- Obama’s amnesty tab: Where credit isn’t due