India taps Israel for missile shield partnership;
Missile defense agency hopes for a raise;
Iran, U.S. beg to differ on missiles;
Tehran eyes S-300 alternative;
Israel eyes airliner defense...;
...as Obama budget takes bite out of its BMD program
Since its start in 1987, the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival in Austin has become famous for its cutting-edge music and film performances, in addition to a focus on technology. But this year's festivities featured a little something extra: a virtual appearance by controversial National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden.
North Korean missile threat prompts long-term Guam defense;
Amid diplomacy, growing concern over Iranian capabilities;
China strengthens space weapons with an eye toward the U.S...;
...While sending message with nuclear missile drill;
American assistance for Poland's defense;
Back to the drawing board for U.S. interceptors?
If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? The answer clearly depends on how high the bridge is, but what the question really asks is if carelessly following others is in fact sensible.
The question comes to mind when debating whether to protect critical national infrastructure against large scale electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, events. Although EMP is a well-documented security issue, and one of the very few things that experts believe can dramatically alter our modern way of life, the U.S. government has sadly followed the lead of too many others and done little. This inaction could well prove fatal.
Today, the Obama administration and Congress have a variety of options before them for strengthening the defense of the U.S. homeland against ballistic missile attack. The word “options,” however, should not be interpreted as an either/or choice. Official Washington should not—indeed, cannot choose between defending the homeland against ballistic missile attack and erecting regional capabilities against the threat. Rather, it is necessary to treat the variety of programs available for this purpose not as options, but as components of a global plan for development and fielding: essentially, an “all of the above” approach. Only in this way can America achieve the proper balance between missile defense capabilities for the protection of the United States and the protection of our friends and allies and forces in various regions around the world...