An Information Network

If you will pardon the pun, I would like to take the time to discuss a rather explosive issue: The development and deployment of a National Missile Defense System.

The concept of the system already has a multitude of detractors. Their arguments seem to cling to certain central themes ... one could call it a common mythology. First, that such a project would be a violation of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed by the United States and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in 1972. Second, that if America takes steps to defend itself from nuclear missile attack, it will force Russia and China into a spiral of mass nuclear proliferation. Third, that there is no threat of ballistic missile attack. And, finally, that it is too expensive.

The first argument takes care of itself. The USSR no longer exists; come to think of it, it hasn't existed for ten years. Isn't it ironic that the very same people who use phrases like "The Cold War is over" and "The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore", when they want to argue against maintaining a military capable of fighting in multiple theaters of combat, suddenly and inexplicably reverse themselves for the specific case of honoring this one treaty.

If these people are so genuinely concerned about scrupulously maintaining the integrity of treaties made with long defunct entities, then how about the Austrian-Hungarian Empire ... or the Ottoman Empire for that matter? I'm sure that we must have signed some treaties with them.

It is silly to think that we could violate a treaty signed with a country that has been dead for so long that children will soon graduate from primary school who hadn't even been born when that country existed. If Russia, Ukraine, Belarus or any other country that actually exists wants to negotiate a treaty with the United States regarding a missile defense system, then so be it. But I don't think that America should waive its right to live in peace and safety due to the fear of doing wrong by a figment of some people's disingenuous imaginations.

The second argument is more a spiteful threat than anything else. The reality is that Russia cannot afford to maintain the arsenal of missiles which they already poses today. Further, they can barely afford to maintain a force which is capable of securing these weapons. It is therefore highly doubtful that if the United States were to build a missile defense system, that Russia would begin a program of massive build up in their ICBM arsenal; would we have to guarantee a loan for them from the IMF so that they could do it? But this threat also begs the question: "Why?" ... Why would Russia and China be so vehemently opposed to America having a system for defense against attack? After all, if you were to install a burglar alarm system in your home, it seems that the only one who would be challenged by this would be the burglar who was planning on robbing you.

Think about that one for a second.

The third argument is probably the most insidious, that there is no tactical missile threat to the United States today. This is simply untrue. First of all, people often mistakenly construe the concept of tactical missiles to mean that all missiles will carry nuclear payloads. This is highly erroneous. An intercontinental ballistic missile, or even a theater ballistic missile for that matter, can carry any type of payload desired.

And here in lies the danger. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan and India all have up and coming rocketry programs. In fact, North Korea has a missile that can hit American targets. Iran is within a few months of completing a ballistic missile which can deliver a payload to a target thousands of miles away. Thanks to the Clinton administration's sale of 68 super computers to China in 1996, that rogue nation now has refined guidance system technology and an arsenal of missiles which can be launched from the mainland, that are capable of hitting targets such as Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Portland and other cities on the West Coast of strategic importance.

When you couple this with the fact that Russia produces scores of tons of weapons grade plutonium every year, and is desperately in need of cash ... and that China likes to sell nuclear weapons information to terrorist entities and that it has constructed a highly formidable naval force, right under the nose of US intelligence, which is capable of jeopardizing our Pacific Fleet ... it makes for a very sticky and volatile situation.

Finally, there are those who would say that the cost of defending ourselves from a missile attack is too great, that there are a multitude of other threats to consider and that we should spend our money on them. Most people would say that terrorism is the primary threat, and we should channel most of our funds into safeguards against it.

Where as it is true that you can monitor known terrorist cells, and bolster the security at a couple of government buildings, the truth is that you can never monitor the intentions of everyone all over the world, simultaneously, in perpetuity. This is the reason why terrorism is so effective; it comes from nowhere at a time, and in a place, where you would never expect it to occur. The plain truth is that there is no way to defend against such an attack.

Why should we not be allowed to focus on what we can defend against?

Before people start griping about the monetary cost of constructing a missile defense system, one must first come to an understanding of its value.

What is a human life worth?

The answer is that every human life is priceless. Now multiply that figure by the populations of the cities of Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Honolulu, Grotton, New York, Washington, Newport or Jacksonville. When you are able to multiply the concept of something being priceless and sacred by 285 million, then you will find out how much a missile defense system is worth; however much it costs in a dollar amount for its construction is less by far.

It has often been said that the best defense is a good offence. Well, in my humble opinion, the best defense it to have a defense in the first place.



Ari Adam Spett

# # #

---

© Ari A. Spett, 2001.