Consequence of building the National Missile Defense
Consequence of building the National Missile Defense.
The Bush
administration states that given the growing ballistic missile industry in
other countries and the current political role of the United States in the
world, and especially after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United
States government has to prepare itself for attacks of any kind. The claim is
that the building of a National Missile Defense will provide more security to
the people of the United States, and will in fact ensure the safety of every
citizen of the United States within its territory (Handberg 13). But the
proponents forget to take into account the dire consequences of building such a
horrendous space weapons system.
Since the
beginning of the nuclear age, both the United States and the Soviet
Union have been searching for
effective ways to defend themselves against nuclear attack. In the early
1960’s, the Soviet Union’s superiority of invention in long-range ballistic
missiles forced the United States to reevaluate its air-defense system. This
nuclear race was a major facet of the cold war between the United States and
the Soviet Union. The cold war was still fully active when president Ronald
Reagan proposed the building of National Missile Defense System. Originally,
this plan called for development of a space based weapons system that could
detect and destroy ballistic missiles of any kind, launched against the United
States from any distance, without causing harm to the people or the environment
of the United States. (Rip 3)
Currently,
chances of the United States being attacked by ballistic missiles of long range
are very low, or do not exist at all (Ellis 1). Even though the United States
government suspects that countries like North Korea and Iran or for that matter
any Islamic state, may launch such an attack, these countries are not in
possession of weapons of mass destruction with capabilities of harming the
United States. In the book by Anthony Cordesman called Strategic Threats
and National Missile Defenses: Defending the U.S. Homeland he states “No
proliferant state currently has the ability to strike the United States with
ballistic missiles. If threats do emerge, US conventional superiority or, if
necessary, offensive nuclear forces will deter attacks on the United States” (Cordesman
87).
Up to this day Iraq was on the top list of
‘potential nuclear threat’ to the United States. The Bush administration
publicly announced that they had evidence of Iraq’s possession of weapons of
mass destruction. With that promise many soldiers were herded down there only
to find these nuclear weapons and free the people of Iraq and secure the United
States. As it turned out, this was not the case. In fact weapons of destruction
of any kind, were not present in the territory of Iraq. But as the search for
“imagined” nukes went on, so did the death toll kept going up. This of course
brings out an excellent question. Maybe, just maybe sources other than the
Central Intelligence Agency are correct in saying that “currently there no
country is capable of striking the US with ballistic missiles.” The author of The
Missile Defense Controversies, Earnest Yanarealla puts it best the US’s
role as ultimate judge, as the following:
The United States sees itself as a redemptive force
with a God-given responsibility to root out evil and spread goodness throughout
the world either by shining moral example or, when necessary, by the swift and
sure military sword of justice”(Yanarealla). Of course these assumptions do
leave one to question the necessity of such extreme measures.
Although the US government is insisting on building
this missile defense system, the Pentagon hasn’t thoroughly tested the system.
Seven tests of hitting an airborne target were conducted. The Pentagon states
that all seven were successful, and that the US government is ready to start
this project. But a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Theodore A. Postol, in his article “Why Missile Defense Won’t Work” explains
how the tests were conducted, and how they were in fact unsuccessful. In his
detailed article, he clearly explains that in the first two tests, the system
failed to distinguish between the target warhead and a set of decoys that were
shaped like warheads. Modern nuclear missiles all launch multiple decoys along
with one or more warheads. After this failure in the first two tests, the
multiple realistically-shaped decoys were replaced by a single large
balloon-shaped decoy in all of the later tests. In order to make the tests
appear successful, the unidentifiable decoys were removed from the test field.
Dr. Postol states:
“All the
problematic shortfalls in the defense system discovered in the first two
experiments have been removed through the painstaking designing of a set of
decoys that would never used by any adversary, but would make it possible to
distinguish warheads from decoys in flight test” (Yanarella 86).
This of course does
not stop the Bush administration from building this system. The administration
insists on pursuing this until they get the results they need. Given enough
time and money this system will work. This project is given the top priority
and it has unlimited budget (GPO par11).
Another
controversial issue about the National Missile Defense system is the cost to
the American public. In his book David Multimer called ‘The Weapons State:
Proliferation and the Framing of Security ‘ says that:
“Effective
missile defenses are difficult to build – not the least because America’s
adversaries have every incentive to find ways to defeat them – and that the
investment of billions would produce only a high-tech sieve.”
This project will be the
single most expensive project in the history of the United States. The Chairman
of the Missile Defense Program and the AMB Treaty Committee, Senator Joseph R.
Biden, estimates the cost to be between sixty billion and one hundred billion
dollars (2). And perhaps the price might go up to half a trillion dollars,
depending on the exact system that the US government develops (GPO 15). This
amount will mean more taxes from every citizen. Instead of spending this amount
of money building the National Missile Defense system, the US government would
be better served paying off the national debt to its citizens.
As we all know
the recent attacks of September 11 weren’t nuclear; they were realized by using
civilian airplanes as a weapon. These attacks claimed more than three thousands
lives. Considering the unavailability of nuclear weapons at present, these
kinds of attacks are more likely to occur than nuclear attacks. With this
notion in mind, the US government will be better of focusing its attention, and
money on increasing security at airports, malls, or other public places. More
attention should be paid on water reserves, or campuses.
One of more
serious consequence of building the National Missile Defense is that it would
be a violation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, signed between the
Soviet Union and the United States as a way to control the danger of nuclear
war. The treaty bans the building of weapons of such capacity (Nordeen 226).
The US government can start this project only with the consent of Russia, and
the Russian president didn’t give its approval for the violation of this
treaty. The Bush administration did violate this treaty in 2002. The Us
government has to remember that, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
Russia still is in possession of all of its nuclear arsenal. This violation
means that now the Russian Federation has all right to start developing counter
measure so that the United States defense system could be penetrated. The
violation of this treaty also means that the Russian Federation is allowed to
help any country in the development of its nuclear weapons. Already, Russia is
helping Iran in developing its nuclear facilities, and as we know Iran is one
of potential threats to the US. The violation of this treaty puts no restraints
on Russia’s assistance to any country willing to build nuclear weapons. There
are many countries willing to develop such facilities for offensive or
defensive purposes, and they are willing to pay handsome amount for such
assistance. Of course this has not started as of yet, but surely implications
are there.
At present the only state that has the power to
launch weapons of mass destruction against the United States is Russia. Dean
Rusk, Secretary of State in 1984 stated, “It would be foolish in the extreme to
suppose that we could obtain any significant or lasting advantage over the
Soviets in space weaponry” (Cordesman). Although the Russia of today is not the
same as the Soviet Union of 1984, it is still very powerful in the field of
nuclear weapons. The violation of this treaty would greatly encourage Russia
to upgrade its weapons. An upgrade of nuclear weapons by Russia could trigger another
dangerous arm race, which would lead to Cold War once again. The author of
‘Defending America’ James Lindsay states that:
“Most countries, including many of America’s
closest allies, warn that missile defense will trigger an arms race jeopardize
three decades of arms control efforts.”
Everybody remembers how
dreadful those times were. The infusion of constant fear and anxiety on
peoples’ minds were beyond what words could express.
But in the absence of a National Missile Defense
system, Russia is currently willing to decrease its production of nuclear
weapons (Ellis 89). These statistics show the superiority of Russia in nuclear
weapons. It would be a good move by the United States to do the same. In fact,
these two nations could cooperate in fighting against the unconventional
production of nuclear weapons by other states. The statistics in the book
called ‘Strategic Threats and National Missile Defenses’ by Anthony Cordesman
show that the US posses 33,500 nuclear weapons, and Russia posses 62,500 nuclear
weapons. If the United States agreed on nuclear arm reduction, then this move
would reduce the risk of the United States being attacked by weapons of mass
destruction. Once this nuclear arms race between the Russian Federation and the
United States begins, the consequences of could be devastating, both for the US
and Russia as well as for the entire globe, resulting in ultimate destruction
of the planet earth.
With Russia’s
help, the US government could actually avoid the threat of being attacked with
weapons of mass destruction, and reduce the nuclear production of both nations.
Building bigger weapons could make the United States more powerful, but this
will increase our enemy’s desire to harm the US more. This will create more
hatred against Americans. Having a more powerful nuclear arsenal is not what
makes a number one nation. The United States and Russia could really change the
world, and stop this nuclear race, and bring peace to earth, rather than
attempting to find security in a technological solution.
No one should be
surprised, then, that Beijing looks skeptically on President George W. Bush’s
claim that ‘America’s development of defenses is a search of security, not a
search of advantage.’”
So as we can see China doesn’t look
too favorably on this issue either, and China should be considered in making
such decisions.
Right now the building of a National Missile
Defense system should not be the main concern of the United States government.
The government should carefully consider everything before jumping to any
conclusions. The building of such a system would make the United States
less
secure rather than more secure at present. Besides we need to stop this madness
of nuclear race. As Albert Einstein best put it in 1946, “There is no defense
in science against the weapon which can destroy civilization.”