Denuding American power: Misguided missile cuts
If the Obama administration has its way regarding two time-tested naval missiles, U.S. warships might as well run up white flags.
For fiscal year 2015, the administration would cut the Tomahawk program, which produces one of the world's most advanced cruise missiles, by $128 million and, for fiscal 2016, eliminate it. Tomahawk acquisitions would be cut by nearly half, to 100, in 2015 — and to zero in 2016, virtually ensuring depletion of the Navy's Tomahawk stock by around 2018, budget documents show.
The Navy also would have to stop acquiring Hellfire missiles in 2015. And all this is proposed despite the critical roles these missiles have played in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans — and despite their proven, continuing capacity to deter aggression and project U.S. power abroad.
The administration wants to shift funding to the still-experimental Long Range Anti Ship Missile, which The Washington Free Beacon says “has underperformed when tested” and run up “extremely expensive development costs” — and which experts say is as least 10 years away from battle readiness.
Seth Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for American Seapower, says the decision “really moves the U.S. away from a position of influence and military dominance.”
No doubt North Korea, China and Iran gleefully anticipate a U.S. Navy deprived of credible missile capabilities — as do terrorists seeking to cripple the global economy, which depends on our Navy to guarantee free sea access worldwide. Congress cannot allow the Obama administration to further weaken America's defenses.
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.
- McCaffery’s suspension: Castille’s concurrence
- For U.S. House in Ohio & West Virginia: Bill Johnson and David McKinley
- Early voting: Hardly healthy
- U.N. Watch: Gun-grabbers unite!
- For the Pennsylvania House: Ortitay, Krieger and Logan
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Tom Wolf’s ‘Fresh Start’: Vague & stale
- Saturday essay: A box of Halloween
- Tom Wolf & taxes: Let’s get ‘granular’
- The Paycheck Fairness Act: It’s not needed