The gentleman is asking the question that many Americans have asked or believe they have answered for themselves and believe that we can defend against an incoming ballistic missile attack. I have had a focus group where my constituents said, yes, we think we are defended. Why would not our Government defend us against ballistic missiles? And we had to tell them no, you are not defended. So the answer is no. And Mr. Perry was very honest. The Secretary of Defense is honest when you ask him a direct question. He said no we cannot stop a single incoming ballistic missile coming into an American city.
Andrew P. Hunter: “The gentleman is asking the question that many Americans have asked or believe they have answered for themselves and…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the U.S. government's ability to defend against ballistic missile attacks.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
I think what today's hearing and what this situation and NATO's eastern flank highlights is the fact that we don't have a tremendous amount of time to wait around for the next great Army to show up in 10 to 15 to 20 years.
The government needs to be very discriminating about how it approaches and how it invests its R&D dollars.
I think competition works well when it is driving innovation, and obviously also can work well to control costs.
Advanced technologies such as UAVs and EW can serve as important force multipliers that improve the effectiveness of current U.S.-European force posture but are by themselves insufficient in tipping the balance.





