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 Michael Krepon, the president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, "nuclear threats have become more diffuse and more troubling now that the cold war is over" (31). The United States is no longer only threatened by Russia; it also has to be concerned over emerging rogue-states such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Is a NMD really an effective countermeasure to these new threats? Currently, "there is no rogue-state long range missile threat...it is unlikely that one will emerge in the next decade" (Mendelsohn 30). In a statement written for the House National Security Committee, Richard Cooper, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, stated that "in t...