OPINION:
Washington Times op-eds and editorial rightly continue to support the case for a “Golden Dome” to enhance our national security. Two recent pieces (“Trump’s Golden Dome” and “The Golden Dome peace dividend,” Commentary, June 2) both strongly support the development, but they do not accurately inform readers of past activities or of the complexity of forthcoming activities.
Those working on President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative program recognized early on that space-based interceptors would be an essential component for an effective defense — but Congress refused to allocate the funding for such an element. That is why the U.S. will be starting from scratch nearly 40 years later to develop and incorporate such a capability.
Also alarming: the suggestion in “Trump’s Golden Dome” that cutting red tape to enhance the rate of development will be helpful. While restrictive practices that unnecessarily delay development and fielding should be removed, established and proven procedures have to be respected. It is concerning to read that the president may have to get congressional approval to cut corners in development.
The development of military equipment has to be carefully controlled and thoroughly proven before it gets handed to the military for operation. The Golden Dome cannot be an exception.
STANLEY ORMAN
Rockville, Maryland
Please read our comment policy before commenting.