National Missile Defense
Recently, President Clinton signed into law the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. What is a national missile defense (NMD)? A NMD is in theory "a technological shield that could destroy all incoming missiles" (Cirincione and Von Hippel 1). A NMD would most likely employ ground-based missiles that would intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). ICBMs are missiles that are capable of hitting targets thousands of miles away from their launch site. The National Missile Defense Act "calls for developing a missile-defense system that could protect the United States from an attack by a handful of nuclear armed ballistic missiles" (Ballistic Missile Defenses). It is important to realize the proposed NMD would not be designed to protect against an all out nuclear attack featuring hundreds of missiles. President Clinton is expected to make a decision on whether or not to deploy a NMD as early as June of 2000. Is a NMD a good thing for the !United States? I believe the United States should not develop and deploy a NMD system. The many proponents of a NMD such as President Clinton, Congress, and various military officials have devised a number of reasons why a NMD is needed. According to
"What Proponents of Missile Defense Argue and Rebuttals." Council for a Livable World. n. pag. Online. Internet. 2 Nov. 1999. Available WWW: http://www.clw/org/ef/bmdrebuts.html. A NMD would not really bring much security to the citizens of the United States because of the increase in nuclear weapons of other countries caused by the construction of the NMD. We have worked so hard for nuclear arms reductions to throw all it all away by deploying a NMD. contiguous forty-eight states" (Cooper). Ray, James Lee. Global Politics. 7th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ w from the accord as a move that would free Moscow from its arms-control obligations." Recently, Russia, China, and Belarus submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations "stressing the paramount importance of full and strict compliance with the ABM Treaty by the parties." It is obvious that attempts to alter the ABM Treaty, or pull out of it completely, would severely hinder the United States' image in the world and relations with other states. Members of Congress as well as the President have called for swift development of a NMD. They assert that the new threats to the United States require immediate action. The truth is "the U.S. has faced a threat from long-range missiles for forty years." Policies of "deterrence worked then, and will almost certainly work against the new threats" (What Proponents). These threats are nothing new to the United States and if the policies we have used in the past have worked, we should continue to use them. The proposed NMD system is primarily concerned with the evolving threats from rogue-states such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. However, an attack by a rogue-state would probably be delivered in ways not defended by a NMD. Building and deploying workable ICBMs is very expensive and as previously stated, there is evidence to indicate these "threatening" states will not be able to develop these capabilities in the next fifteen years. If a state wanted to inflict severe damage to the United States, it would seem probable to use methods other than ICBMs to do so. For one thing, by launching an ICBM against the United States, a state is guaranteeing itself a complete and thorough retaliation by the United States. Also, deployment of a NMD "would encourage adversaries to use other means of delivery" (Fetter 9). These other means could include smuggling weapons of mass destruction into the United States by a plane or ship and utilizing them in the same fashion as did th! Nuclear weapons have been used as a deterrent from their inception. Backers of the NMD allege that rogue states that acquire ICBMs while also possessing nuclear capabilities could use this for "coercive purposes" (Krepon 31). This is true; however, would this coercion really be effective against the United States? As discussed by Graig and George, there are three conditions which must be met for a successful coercive diplomacy policy: "the coercing power must create in the opponent's mind a sense of urgency for compliance... a belief that the coercing power is more highly motivated to achieve its stated demand... and a fear of unacceptable escalation if the demand is not met" (197). The first two of these conditions might easily be met by a rogue state, but a rog
Some common words found in the essay are:
Russia China, ABM Treaty, Graig George, Chat Edwards, Race Stability, Program Mendolsohn, United States-would, Congress President, ICBM United, Agency Russia, missile defense, ballistic missile, abm treaty, nov 1999, von hippel, pag online internet, arms control, proposed nmd, russia china, deploy nmd, 1999 available, ballistic missile defense, nov 1999 available, nuclear dangers 1999, reduce nuclear dangers,
Approximate Word count = 2284
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
