Posted on 09/27/2001 1:52:14 PM PDT by Mahone
Missile Defense: Now More Than Ever
Why continue to leave the U.S. open to nuclear blackmail?
By James S. Robbins, a professor of International Relations at the National Defense University. His last piece on NRO was The Taliban's Choice Link
Editor's note: The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of NDU, the Department of Defense, or the government of the United States.
Senator Joseph Biden called it a "theological mission" motivated by an "ideological commitment," resulting in "absolute lunacy." Osama Bin Laden's attack on the United States? No, President Bush's nuclear strategy, particularly his plan for missile defense. Biden made these statements at the National Press Club September 10, 2001 — the day before The Day Everything Changed.
Critics have long argued that missile defense would be a waste of money because weapons of mass destruction can be delivered more effectively with briefcases and backpacks. Furthermore, because terrorists work in secret, their state sponsors can remain anonymous and not risk exposure to a counterstrike. Far better then to spend scarce defense dollars on countering these threats than on a useless, costly and unworkable defensive shield. September 11, we are told, proved it.
Of course the dichotomy between the terror threat and the missile threat is false. There is no doubt that terrorism is a hazard — and no doubt missiles are too. Proponents of full-spectrum Homeland Defense have known this for years. Presumably, people who believe in the dichotomy would at least welcome stronger antiterrorism measures. But those who have positioned themselves on this ground are of the same intellectual stratum that has systematically enfeebled U.S. intelligence assets over the past three decades, and ritualistically thrown up 4th and 5th Amendment roadblocks to increased internal security measures. What September 11 really proved was how dire these policies actually were.
Opponents of missile defense believe that Cold War-style deterrence can be extended indefinitely no matter how many states possess weapons of mass destruction. A rogue state will never have the might to annihilate the United States, and the U.S. will always have the power to visit wide-scale destruction in response. Under the game-based, zero-sum, value-neutral, bipolar, and fairly simplistic assured-destruction deterrence model, this is enough. Fear of the U.S. second strike will hold everything in check.
But the very fact that other countries are pursuing missile and nuclear programs argues to the contrary. Take North Korea for example, an impoverished, isolated, starving "loser state" if ever there was one. The North Koreans are spending huge amounts of their dwindling capital on a missile program while we feed their people. Why, if they are deterred? Why, if the logic of missile defense opponents is correct? Because they aren't, and it isn't.
The North Koreans — or Iraqis, or fill-in-the-blank — are not developing these weapons to mount a surprise attack on the United States. The calculus is much more subtle.
Consider this scenario: A state with missiles that can reach the United States invades its U.S.-aligned neighbor, and promises a nuclear attack if the U.S. intercedes. We of course threaten massive retaliation. But would that be a credible deterrent? If the United States intervened at that point, the president would be trading New York, Washington, L.A., San Francisco, Seattle, or a city or cities of the enemy's choice, for the defense of an ally, e.g. South Korea or Kuwait, which would probably be obliterated in the process. The end result would be two smoking heaps overseas and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead Americans at home.
Is this a reasonable outcome? Would any president take the risk? Would it make our allies feel more secure? Most importantly, would aggressors be deterred? A missile-defense system would bring deterrence back into the equation by giving the president options, and by making the ongoing quest of the rogue states for operational missile systems either prohibitively costly or a fool's errand. True, our potential foes could step up their programs to try to outpace our defensive system — but if an attempted response to SDI bankrupted the Soviet Union, what chance does North Korea have? Besides, missile defense could only spark an arms race if the United States were to get off the sidelines.
Ironically, the September 11 attacks have made the deployment of a missile-defense system more likely. Last week Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, withdrew suggested legislative language restricting testing to the parameters of the ABM Treaty, and a few days later caved on a proposed $1.3 billion missile-defense spending cut. This was not a change of heart but a shift in tactics; it was an acknowledgement of political reality. With President Bush enjoying public approval ratings higher than FDR after Pearl Harbor, the Democrats want to avoid a bruising floor fight they know they can't win. Missile defense will be part of an integrated, full-spectrum Homeland Defense concept, along with critical infrastructure protection and counterintelligence.
It just makes sense. No one suggests reducing defenses in the face of the terrorist threat — so why continue to leave the country open to nuclear blackmail?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.