• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • 25 Years Since September 11
    • Fact Sheets
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Countries
    • Pentagon and Weapons Spending
    • No First Use
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Nuclear Testing
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Missile Defense
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Front and Center / Dueling Quote(s) of the Day: Missile Defense Edition

June 21, 2011

Dueling Quote(s) of the Day: Missile Defense Edition

“It is not credible to promise better relations with Europe—and then stun Poland and the Czech Republic by abruptly abandoning plans to build missile defense bases there.”

Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, June 21, 2011

“And let’s be blunt: The third site in Europe was not going to happen, because the Czech government wouldn’t approve the radar….And so if it was going to happen at all, it would’ve taken years longer [than the Phased Adaptive Approach] and we still hadn’t negotiated the required agreements with the Poles in terms of the interceptors.”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 15, 2011.

Also of note from the hearing was outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen’s comments on the prospects for giving the SM3 Block IIB a boost phase capability:

I’ve been around missile defense for the last 15 years. And the whole issue of boost-phase intercept is an extraordinarily difficult technical challenge. And at least if someone’s broken through on that, I haven’t seen that. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek it, but I’ve seen an awful lot of efforts go after that and I was very supportive of the program adjustments that we made — particularly with respect to that, because I thought — my view was I thought we were throwing good money after bad.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • A Costly Silence: The Choice Is Ours October 29, 2026
  • A Costly Silence: Eisenhower’s Warning October 29, 2026
  • Why aren’t your policymakers talking about the trillion-dollar Pentagon budget? October 29, 2026
  • You can destroy a facility. What about knowledge? October 20, 2026
  • BONUS Episode: The True Costs of War – Moderated Question and Answer Session October 16, 2026

Footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • 25 Years Since September 11
  • Fact Sheets
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Countries
  • Pentagon and Weapons Spending
  • No First Use
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Nuclear Testing
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Missile Defense

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2026 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency