Terrorist Attack May Galvanize Support For Administration's Missile-Defense Plan

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, September 13, 2001 | ROBERT S. GREENBERGER

[TroutStalker]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's missile-defense plans would have done nothing to prevent this week's deadly terrorist attacks. Yet the heightened sense of national vulnerability the strikes have created may galvanize new support for an antimissile shield.

Advocates of such a plan argue that as long as the U.S. remains unprotected from a missile attack, a terrorist group could be tempted to launch such a weapon against an American city. Critics of the missile-shield concept counter that this week's attack, in which conventional aircraft were used as armaments, shows that a relatively crude weapon can wreak unimaginable destruction. They prefer to allocate more money for antiterrorism measures that would help thwart such attacks.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Isn't this what we predicted?

[Jethro Tull]

Does the Bush administration's Missile-Defense Plan have the ability to seal our borders from the scum that creeps into this country illegally?

I understand the "Human Bombs" that butchered thousands of Americans Tuesday were in this country illegally via Canada.

Given the threat of chemical and biological attacks, the MDP is an absurd idea...

[12B]

This attack has completely changed my thinking on NMD. At this point I think the best thing to do with funds earmarked for NMD is to plow them into HUMINT, the war against the Jihad, and helping the Russians do something with their nukes.

The NYC attack proves that terrorists are best served by formulating a relatively inexpensive low-tech attack as opposed to taking the time to develop sophisticated missiles. Why build a missile when you can just buy a nuke from a starving Russian and deliver it via cargo ship?

[syriacus]

"It hardly matters if we're defending against missiles if we can't stop a terrorist attack like this one," says Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan defense think tank in Arlington, Va. "On the other hand, it hardly matters if we can defend against terrorism if we can't stop a missile."

This is what makes the most sense.

We live in complex times and need to be prepared to fight on BOTH fronts. If it is expensive, to do so, so be it.

During WWII we didn't say "Don't build planes, we'll use subs only." We built both.

[TroutStalker]

Well said.

[meenie]

Missile defense has to be a small part of an overall security strategy. The problem with relying entirely on one particular defense is that the enemy will figure a way to counteract it. The tendency for a military, including our own, is to fight the last war with the tactics and equipment used in that war.

Internal security is where we are most vulnerable. Borders have to be closed, aliens rounded up and sent home, and a general tightening of security. The enemy within is more dangerous than the enemy without. We had a reasonably good security system in WW II without jeopardizing America's personal freedoms. We need to look at the Swiss model of having a personally armed population as a measure of defense.

Civil defense of our power plants, dams, water purification plants, public transportation, and other parts of our infastructure have to be guarded. Putting our troops world-wide as a part of the drive to the New World Order has to be re-examined and brought home to protect our borders.

America is NOT the world's policeman. We were never hired for that purpose. Where our leader's got that idea is beside the point. They are needed at home.

[arielb]

missile defense is one part but an important part of our defense. We can't say "don't build tanks because we have planes." We can't say "protect us hijacked planes but not terrorists using suitcase bombs" We can't say "go after Osama Bin Laden but not Saddam and other terrorists" We have to cover all fronts...yet someone will always find yet another way. What we can do is make it much harder for them

[arielb]

another thing this incident proves is that the entire Mutual Assured Destruction theory is completely meaningless when people are willing to kill themselves just to kill us. What would have happened if Osama and friends decided to send a nuclear missile at NYC? Well, I wouldn't even be here typing this post. We should've been able to shoot down the planes before they hit their targets (especially the pentagon). But we can't

[DonQ]

I cannot see how this attack strengthens the missile defense notion. These stole our own commercial aircraft to bomb our cities. No anti-missile system could have stopped that. In fact, reliance on an anti-missile system could have led to lapses that would make more such hijack bombings possible.