The National missile defense is a term referring to a program of defense that is aimed at protecting a given country against any incoming missiles, for instance the intercontinental ballistic missile or other missiles. Interception of such missiles might be achieved through various military processes and undertakings. The program is used to refer to the United States nationwide antimissile program the country has had in its program in the 1990’s. The United States nuclear arms program is to a large extent not in line with various key issues. It is a program that should be critically reviewed. Though the definition above might seemingly indicate that the National Missile Defense System is a positive entity in its making, it is actually the opposite. There are numerous factors that help to show that the National Missile Defense Security should be checked. The factors highlighted below will evidently show the importance of scrapping the National Missile Defense System. This factor has been fully endorsed by various individuals. What are some of the reasons that evidently show that the National Missile Defense System should be checked if not wholly scrapped?
Why the National Missile Defense System is not necessary
How effective is the Defense System? The Defense System is not as effective as it is made to look like. Further, it is true to point out that the Defense System has limited chances of success against certain attacks. A massive scale kind of attack or a terrorist attack would render the Defense System useless. For instance, a missile strike from Castro’s Cuba country would only take four minutes to reach Washington. If a terrorist would decide to hit the United States with a nuclear device, it would likely be an attack from inside the country. This means that the missile defense system would be rendered useless in this case. Any massive degree strike from China, Russia, or North Korea in the future could unleash thousands of missiles. It is evidently not realistic to imply that the current defense system would be of any help to the United States. Even in the case that the United States was to deal with such kind of an attack by launching its own counter defense, the aftermath effect would still be devastating. Issues to do with radiation and other fallout problems would be in the list of the problems encountered.
The towering costs for a given system that may actually never get used would be better spent on other issues. The chances of having a war are limited. However, the government is dealing with the issue of the Defense System rather seriously. The cost of this project to a large extent can at a given time reach trillions of dollars. Is it really worth it spending this kind of money in such projects? Given that the system may never be used and has limited chances of success, the overall project seems irrelevant. If the money is spent on the missile system, it means that it would be diverted from other important resources. Money is a finite resource. This implies that other vital undertakings such as education, food programs, AIDS initiatives, and even health insurance would have to be neglected.
Spending large amounts of tax payers’ money on the defense security would lead to unwinnable and even useless arms races. It is vital to note that the nuclear arms race led both the United States and the Soviet Union to keep on building more nuclear weapons. This factor was continuous even after both countries had accumulated enough to wipe the other enemy out of the face of the earth completely. Given that the countries have such kind of power and authority, what is the point of keeping on with the fight? More so since the SDI and other weaponry projects just help in constantly bringing out conflicts. Given countries would engage in useless and unending conflict and competitions. This factor renders the inception of the program unimportant.
The National Missile Defense program is not backed by many individuals. The program faces stiff international opposition from other countries in the world today. The program is viewed by the respective countries as an effort by the United States to enhance their defense capabilities. The Chinese top arms control negotiators imply that the United States efforts to deploy National Missile Defense would risk collapsing the entire architecture of China’s arms control and non-proliferation agreements with the rest of the Western nations. Further, China has discussed their respective considerations of expanding its nuclear forces to compensate for the proposed United States defense system (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 381). Some of the possible consequences of the National Missile Defense program may further result in a renunciation of previous actions in China. This factor therefore bars nuclear or chemical weapons for proliferation and other nuclear testing. It is vital to note that Russia has considered taking actions to stop reducing its nuclear arsenals in the launching if the National Missile Defense program becomes a reality.
The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 was one of the first steps that were used in ending the Cold War. This was achieved by the reached consensus on the factor of downsizing the number of anti ballistic missile programs and systems (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 476). The United States and Russia have evidently conflicted and violated the signed treaty. However, this action does not imply that the signed treaty is not valuable and significant. It is vital to note that the treaty serves as the backbone for the reduction of arms. It is an effective lawful entity that can be effectively used for future arms disarmament. It is evident that the slightest indication of National Missile Defense system construction would highly violate the signed treaty. This aspect further implies that international ties would be alienated and hurt. This is a factor that would eventually lead to the issue of arms race.
It is vital to note that the National Missile Defense system has placed the United States and Russia on a collision course over the issue. China and Russia have rightfully raised grave concerns over the launching of the National Missile Defense, which contradicts the 1972 ABM Treaty (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 476). However, the specified countries should not be advised to join the arms race into space. There is only one way the United States can deploy the system without violating the treaty. This would be to gain Russia’s agreement in amending the treaty. The Russian policy makers and experts are currently dissatisfied with the amendment proposals. They overly view the present ultimatums set by the United States as unacceptable.
A National Missile Defense program would not protect the United States from rogue states. For instance, a National Missile Defense system could not effectively work against missiles launched from ships. Indeed, it is far much easier for some rogue states to stage and launch an attack against the United States with some shorter range nuclear weaponry. This could be carried by a short range ballistic missile from the deck of a given ship.
Further, a National Missile Defense system would not prevent the launching of a given chemical or biological weaponry system. In this case, the warhead can be divided into tiny bombs that would be released from the missile early in a given flight. These numerous targets and undertakings would clearly overwhelm the National Missile Defense system. It is further evident that the National Missile Defense system would fail due to the lack of cooperation from other nations in the world. If the United States launched a National Missile Defense program, it must anticipate that other countries willing to expend the necessary inputs to buy or build a long range missile to effect an attack would also ensure that it had ways to penetrate the defense.
The issue as to whether there is an actual threat to the defense of the United States comes into play. In reality, there is not one country in the world that has deployed ballistic missiles capable of reaching the American soil. It is interesting to note that even North Korea, largely viewed s the rogue state, is years behind the technology of reaching such heights. The country has even made public that any attempt to launch an attack to the United States using ballistic missiles would be foolish. North Korea’s need for support from the international community and more vitally its undertakings and wants towards the reunification of Korea, largely undermines any possibility of it staging any kind of military attack especially to the United States. To loosen trade sanctions with the United States, North Korea has even stopped its missile flight testing. The other rogue state of Iran is also almost a decade behind the technological capability of having a long range missile. With most of its missile infrastructure destroyed in the Gulf War, Iran presents even a lesser kind of threat especially to the United States (Bolt, Coletta & Shackelford, 2008, p. 269). Further, it should be noted that the country is under numerous sanctions and is therefore limited to its capability to acquire missiles and other related technology from other nations.
One of the most basic arguments against the National Missile Defense involves the technology used itself. Currently it is believed that in the Reagan administration it was not possible to create the necessary technology within the next few years. One must however be cautious in using this argument considering that the apocalypse would not fall for it. The apocalypse also known as the billion dollar corporations would evidently retort that the necessary funding regarding this project would prove otherwise. To many engineers and workers working on this program, the NMD is a conspiracy built that allows them to milk the United States government. The government is therefore simply creating more jobs for individuals (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 541). The fact that the jobs in question involve long term contracts should not be underestimated. The lack of adequate technology is not seen as any setback by the corporations. This is because their respective profits are in billions of dollars. This helps in assuring the pentagon that the increasing funds in the bank can make their perhaps personal dreams come true. However, it is evident that the personal satisfaction derived from concerned individuals is not as important as the overall insecurity caused by the National Missile Defense.
Basically the United States should not consider the inception of a National Missile Defense. It is important to note that any Ballistic Defense system that could be launched at any given time would have major negative consequences. Further, big uncertainties as to reliability in the real world setting would be sparked. Evidently, it would not be possible to properly test a launched missile system to assure its reliability without harming the immediate environment.
The points highlighted above clearly indicate my position as to whether the United States National Missile Defense system should be adopted. According to me, the NMD is not feasible. It is not an undertaking that can be safely achieved. Though there might be some advantages of the National Missile Defense system, it is evident that the negatives largely out do the positives.
The weight carried by the negative points regarding the National Missile Defense system cannot be underestimated. The fact that they directly impact on the lives of American citizens helps to further show how critical they are. The highlighted points have indicated that the deployment of any missile defense system would not be in the best interest of not only Americans, but also other individuals the world over. The negative feedback the United States has received from other countries in the World helps to further clarify this issue. Therefore, the bottom line is that the National Missile Defense system is not proper system and should not be endorsed at all by the United States government.
Jordan, A. Taylor, W., Meese, M. Nielsen, S. & Schlesinger, J. (2009). American National
Security (6th ed). Maryland: John Hopkins Press.
Bolt, P., Coletta, D. & Shackelford, C. (2008). American Defense Policy, (8th ed). Maryland:
John Hopkins Press.