President Bush's missile
defense plan is sober, sensible policy
Times have changed. The Cold War is over,
and mutually assured destruction is no longer the sole lens through which
nuclear policy is viewed.
Nuclear and missile technology proliferation
is a reality and rogue states are busy trying to gain such capabilities.
Combining nuclear payload with an intercontinental
ballistic missile yields near parity with the United States in the nuclear
sense, because it only takes one nuke
to destroy an American city and coercive
power comes with that ability.
This near parity is achieved because U.S.
leaders do not want to see an entire city eliminated, unlike Kim Jong of
North Korea for example, who does not care
about the well-being of his citizens.
The United States will do anything to stop this situation, and Jong II
would not care as long as he was not within the blast
This danger must be eliminated, and the
solution is missile defense. President Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty
was the obvious choice to better ensure the
safety of the country because we will
be able to design, test and eventually implement these systems. It will
be costly, and setbacks may occur as with any new
technology, but it has been shown to work.
The technology for consistency is possible and human ingenuity is behind
It won't be able to withstand the full
force of Russia's nuclear arsenal, but that is not what the system is designed
for. The system is designed to neutralize a
deployment of about 20 missiles, an attack
that a rogue state would be able to muster. The continuation of the technology
in missile defense could eventually
realize former President Reagan's dream
of making a Russia-sized arsenal "impotent and obsolete."
The most immediate domestic threat missile
defense would negate would be North Korea. This Stalinist country is gaining
weapons of mass destruction at the
expense of its people, true to Bush's
"axis of evil" characterization.
The North Koreans have a rocket called
the Taepo Dong II, which is an expensive, inaccurate, but constantly improving
ICBM. The most recent test launch of this
missile was surprising to our intelligence
operations because it reached the critical third stage in its trajectory.
It cannot reach our shores now, but it will in at most
Democrats point out that the most probable
delivery of a weapon of mass destruction would be a chemical, biological
or nuclear device in a suitcase. I don't think
the average man would be able to carry
a nuclear device, but let us assume this is true.
If the Democrats are right, the situation
is different than the threat of an ICBM with such a payload. Every real
and viable threat must be addressed regardless of
likelihood. The suitcase problem is being
fixed by federalizing airport security and closely controlling what enters
Now we must deal with ballistic missiles.
Democrats also don't like this measure because it takes away money from
their various vote-garnering social programs.
But defense is the paramount responsibility
of any government and should be funded as such. With the exception of the
British, Europe has allowed its defense
and military to fall into neglect. The
other countries have seen their efficacy disappear, and are reduced to
whining about U.S. hegemony.
Many people don't expect a rogue nation
to fire an ICBM at the United States, but it was not expected that an airplane
would be flown into the Twin Towers. Keeping
America safe and denying America's enemies'
bargaining chips is the goal of a weapons system that is on its way to
becoming a reality — just in time.