Defending America: Save this missile
With China, Russia, North Korea and Iran ramping up cruise and ballistic missile programs, cutting U.S. missile-defense funding makes no sense. Yet the House would nearly halve funding for such a system that's ready to protect the Washington, D.C., area.
Known as JLENS (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor), it can detect and intercept missiles, drones and airplanes long before they reach the United States. Former Navy officer and Defense Department official Chet Nagle tells The Washington Free Beacon that JLENS would provide something America now lacks: “homeland cruise missile defense.”
Developed at a cost of $2.7 billion, JLENS is ready to deploy anywhere it's needed, says defense contractor Raytheon. It had been expected to enter final testing and a three-year test deployment at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Yet the House wants to slash JLENS' $54 million in fiscal-year 2015 funding by $25 million. Defense experts tell The Free Beacon that would force the Army to choose between JLENS maintenance and JLENS integration into the air defense system for the nation's capital.
Thankfully, Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee oppose the House's cut and can protect JLENS funding when lawmakers from both chambers finalize the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act in conference committee. Restoring that $25 million for JLENS, a tiny blip in overall defense spending, will ensure that U.S. missile defense takes a big step forward.
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.