But don't you think we are a day late and a dollar short?
Franklin
Posted on 04/01/2002 4:55:50 AM PST by The American
Newfangled technologies always draw skeptics. Telephones would never catch on, so said a Western Union internal memo. X-Rays are fake, according to Lord Kelvin. Robert Goddard's rocket research defied the laws of physics, wrote the New York Times editorial staff. These predictions made fools out of cynics.
So forgive me when I respectfully disagree with what Michael Dukakis said when he visited campus last week -- "nuclear missile defense isn't going to do diddly."
After hearing of Dukakis's bold statement, I wondered ... how does he know this system is doomed to fail? He cannot see into the future, he lacks top-secret clearance, he has no engineering background. No, he's just a politician, which apparently means we should trust his expert advice regarding our national missile defense program.
I'd rather listen to neurosurgery tips from Mike Tyson.
For those unfamiliar with America's national missile defense (NMD) program, here's a brief explanation. Right now, a handful of countries have nuclear, biological and chemical warheads strapped onto missiles. More countries -- particularly those led by dictators -- are researching frantically so they can launch warheads over long distances. And if those missiles are sent in our direction, we would have no way to protect ourselves.
The goal of the U.S. NMD program is to develop a system to shoot down those missiles. Once implemented, it will defend America from small- to medium-scale strategic ballistic missile attacks. The Pentagon plans for full operational capability no later than 2009, with a $30 billion price tag for the life of the project.
Initial system tests have been encouraging and -- though by no means perfect -- are constantly improving. Yet this has done little to erase the doubts of some naysayers. Say hello to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Claiming 50,000 members (though most are mere citizens), the Union of Concerned Scientists is dedicated to the pursuit of environmental and social causes. It has constituents throughout academia, including my old thermodynamics professor.
There is nothing wrong with being a concerned scientist; in fact it is admirable. Skeptics play an important role in the social processes of modern technological advances; as watchdogs, they help identify design oversights and ensure feasibility.
Ideally, the Union would provide useful feedback, such as "this countermeasure needs to be addressed," resulting in a stronger system. Unfortunately, when it comes to NMD, the Union's feedback is in no way productive. Rather than contributing to the engineering process, the Union of Concerned Scientists pressures the government to abandon NMD completely, citing problems that supposedly cannot be overcome.
We reached our current level of technology by tackling challenges, not by quitting. To give up on NMD because of a few concerns goes against human nature while doing a disservice to the advancement of science.
The true motivation behind the attacks on NMD's practicality is political. Antiwar activists who want to squash the program have cleverly designed a two-pronged attack. Those with scientific backgrounds ensure the Union condemns the system's technical credibility relentlessly, freeing up politically-connected peace mongers to rally international and domestic criticism.
Their favorite platform is the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and they stress that a missile shield would violate the treaty signed by the U.S. and USSR in 1972. True, but the political landscape today is far removed from that of 30 years ago. Restricting our defensive capabilities to comply with the outdated agreement jeopardizes our safety.
Another international critique hails from Europe. Some of our European friends, particularly the French, disapprove of America's pursuit of missile defense. Strange that nations who claim to be our allies would oppose our attempts to defend ourselves. And honestly, France is no expert when it comes to self-defense -- the country repeatedly fails when guarding its borders.
American protesters are even less informed, worrying about the potential for a rejuvenated arms race. What do you think Iran, Iraq and North Korea are doing, twiddling their thumbs? We need to stay a step ahead of everybody else, not allow them to catch up.
Finally, peace activists reference the asymmetric threats dominating headlines. They say that NMD is not worth the cost because it would not protect us from dangers such as terrorist hijackings, suicide bombings and anthrax mailings. Does that mean police officers shouldn't wear bulletproof vests because they provide no head protection? Or airbags are wasteful because they do not prevent all driver fatalities? Please.
With so many nations despising America for everything from our values to our prosperity, we need to support national missile defense. No system is failsafe, but any shield will deter strikes and, in the event of an attack, save millions of lives. To me, that makes national missile defense well worth the price.
This is the most mindless objection of all, since it is actually an argument FOR missile defense.
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.