• 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
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • 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 / Missile Defense / Quote of the Day: East Coast Missile Defense Site Not Needed Edition

May 2, 2012

Quote of the Day: East Coast Missile Defense Site Not Needed Edition

 

SEN. LEVIN: And there have been suggestions by some in Congress that we should deploy a ground based interceptor or interceptors on the East Coast of the United States, to defend the homeland against a possible future long range Iranian missile threat. Now, you’re the combatant commander who establishes the requirements for homeland missile defense capability. Is there a requirement for deploying an East Coast GBI site? And are you seeking to deploy such a site on the East Coast?

Army General Charles Jacoby Jr., (Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command): Chairman, today’s threats do not require an East Coast missile field and we do not have plans to do so.

Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Future Years Defense Program, March 13, 2012.

Recall that House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)  included a requirement in his mark of the defense bill that the Missile Defense Agency develop a plan for the deployment of missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States to be operational not later than the end of 2015.

Posted in: Missile Defense, Nukes of Hazard blog

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Does the Trump administration understand how ‘enriched’ uranium is made into weapons? April 1, 2026
  • Will the Iran war set off a new nuclear arms race? “No one speaks of taking out Kim Jong Un” March 25, 2026
  • Front and Center: March 22, 2026 March 22, 2026
  • Why Did the United States Lift Sanctions on Assad’s Chemical Weapons Scientists? March 20, 2026
  • Iran’s Stockpile of Highly Enriched Uranium: Worth Bargaining For? March 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

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

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