Missile offense

Missile defense system puts U.S. at risk

Last Saturday in Ann Arbor and 60 other cites around the world, demonstrators protested the use of military technology in space. Even though it might be hard to take someone dressed like Darth Vader seriously, the U.S. should listen to these protesters and thoroughly reevaluate its defense policies - specifically with respect to the proposed National Missile Defense system (the continuation of Reagan's "Star Wars").

The system is intended to protect the U.S. against a nuclear attack. Supposedly, the greatest nuclear threats in the world today come from so-called "rogue states" like Iran, Iraq and North Korea, who might launch nuclear weapons at the U.S. (intentionally or otherwise). In order to safeguard against these perceived threats, legislation was passed through Congress that called for the deployment of a limited ballistic-defense system as soon as technically feasible.

While the system might seem like a good idea at first glance, the impact of deploying it would be disastrous. First of all, the likelihood of a nuclear attack is highly exaggerated. Any attacking country would undoubtedly face swift retribution and possible annihilation. Leaders in these countries are not likely to embrace that possibility. Even if they would, they do not have the missile technology to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the U.S.

The system is counterproductive as well as unnecessary. The implementation of a missile-defense system would destroy our current arms control agreements. Even a limited system would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty on which the global non-proliferation regime hinges. Russia has already said that if the United States were to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system that it would neither adhere to previous arms control agreements nor would it sign any future ones. Other countries would be likely to follow suit. Without such agreements the U.S. might begin to have a real problem to worry about as nuclear weapons spread across the globe.

The missile-defense system would also give countries incentives to gain bigger and better nuclear arsenals. For example, if the U.S. were to effectively nullify China's missiles by acquiring the ability to shoot them down, China has stated it would modernize its weapons to recreate a useful deterrent against America. India would likely modernize in response, prompting their adversaries to do the same, and so on. The ensuing arms race would threaten global stability and lead to the possibility that these horrible weapons would actually be used.

Even if the National Missile Defense system was a good idea in theory, its unfeasibility makes it a terrible investment. Most major tests of the system have failed miserably and Secretary of Defense William Cohen has already said, "major problems have called into question the realism of the timetable" of the project. Clearly there are better things to do with $60 billion dollars - the current projected cost of the program.

The government should not develop this unnecessary, infeasible and dangerous program. It will jeopardize every arms control agreement currently in force in the world and is likely to bring about a new arms race.