Natn'l Missile Defense
Ever since nuclear weapons of mass destruction have existed, people have been attempting to create ways to prevent a war that would bring about a worldwide Arma-geddon. Many of today's top military and government officials have been studying ways in which the United States can protect itself from a nuclear missile attack. What they have come up with is the National Missile Defense program, or NMD. The NMD would consist of a network of satellites, early-warning devices, and missiles pro-grammed to spot an incoming nuclear missile. When a nuclear missile is detected, the NMD would automatically launch the computer-guided interceptor missiles to seek out and destroy the incoming nuclear missile. This program, however, should not be im-plemented or researched any further. There are a few factors to support this claim. First, the NMD program is very costly. According to the website of the Federation of American Scientists, the projected total costs by the year 2005 will be close to $14 bil-lion dollars, obviously a large amount of money that could be well spent elsewhere. Second, the NMD program is ineffective. There are many ways for a rouge state or a terrorist group with nuclear capabilities to get around the NMD.
We think that with these [anti-missile] systems, we are just going to spur swordmakers to intensify their efforts. Now we seek to enlarge the circle of nations that live under those free institutions, for our dream is of a day when the opinions and energies of every person in the world will be given full expression in a world of thriving democracies that cooperate within each other and live in peace. (Mendel-sohn 1999) This totals almost $134 billion dollars in missile defense alone. The more improvements that are made to the shield, the more improvements are made to the sword. Fortunately, that crisis passed without any nuclear missiles launched. During the Cold War, we sought to contain a threat to survival of free institutions. In conclusion, it is evident that the United States has no use for a National Mis-sile Defense system. However, this is probably not the best option for maintaining world peace and security. The same is true for the leakyshield of Star Wars. (Teller 1987, 20) Why does the USA not just dissolve or pull out of its association with the ABM treaty? This is because the ABM is an important settlement, a "cornerstone of strategic stability," as South Korean President Kim Dae Jung described it. The more mis-siles it takes to penetrate a defense shield, the more the enemy is going to manufacture. Jacques Chirac stated in 1999:"If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there's a permanent race between sword and shield. " He states:"Any person with a humane point of view should be opposed to aggression, but why be opposed to defense?The most popular argument is that defense against nuclear missiles is useless unless it is 100 percent effective-the damage would be enormous if only a fewof the rockets penetrated the defense. " (Teller 1987, 8) Needless to say, President Reagan's plan never quite got the support it needed to get past the research and development phases.
Common topics in this essay:
Missile Defense,
Cold War,
Cindy Combs,
III Russia,
Charter Article,
Russia United,
Chafetz LSC,
Vladimir Putin,
Carl Sagan,
NMD NMD,
nmd program,
abm treaty,
missile defense,
winkler 1999,
nuclear weapons,
national missile defense,
nuclear missile,
national missile,
world peace,
nuclear missiles,
defense system,
missile defense program,
maintaining world peace,
missile defense system,
winkler 1999 205,
|
Acceptance Essays
