I applaud your well-reasoned editorial against basing strategic missile defenses in Maine (“Our View: There’s no place in Maine for missile defense site,” Aug. 20).
Although I agree that non-military considerations are the principal factors behind congressional interest in East Coast siting, I would add an additional “military” reason for skepticism about the concept: There is no sign of an intercontinental missile emerging from Iran.
Unlike North Korea, Iran professes no interest in developing ICBMs. Moreover, alarmist projections of long-range Iranian missile developments by missile defense advocates have been consistently proven wrong.
No Iranian ballistic missiles even remotely capable of reaching the United States have ever been seen or flight-tested. Yet multiple flight tests over a period of years would be necessary for Iran to make such a weapon operational – something which would push even a theoretical Iranian missile threat against the U.S. homeland into the next decade.
Greg Thielmann
Arms Control Association
Washington, D.C.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.