|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. STRATCOM Chief Backs Limited Missile Defense
The U.S. Strategic Command chief has said that long-range missile defenses are necessary to deter potential enemies even if the defenses are not foolproof and take away resources from other areas, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, May 12). Missile defense “ought to be discussed, it ought to be debated, which is what Congress is doing,” James Cartwright, Marine Corps general and head of U.S. Strategic Command said recently. “But I think you have to think about the regret factors in this one. If something were to happen [involving] a weapon of mass destruction in the United States, what price would you pay to make sure it didn’t happen again? And [don’t] you really want to get into a preventative rather than a reactive state?” Cartwright used North Korea as an example of why robust missile defenses are necessary. He argued that North Korea could launch missiles at the western United States, and expressed concern that Pyongyang was belligerent in diplomatic negotiations and cruel to its people. “In light of that, what would you do to create the environment where they wouldn’t just get up in the morning and decide to lob some weapon of mass destruction at the United States?” asked Cartwright in a second interview. “To me, you’ve got to have a credible offense and defense. The offense is not enough to bother them.” Strong missile defense also could give confidence to U.S forces overseas, Cartwright said. “You wouldn’t send Lance Cpl. Cartwright into the streets of Mogadishu without body armor [or with] no weapon,” Cartwright explained. “When you put the two together, it really changes the calculus of Lance Cpl. Cartwright because he feels safer. So he’ll go into harm’s way a little more freely.” Cartwright added that a nuclear strike would take a great financial toll on the United States (Elaine Grossman, Inside Missile Defense, May 25).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
