Offense Is Best Missile Defense
AMERICA NEEDS A SYSTEM TO PROTECT DEPLOYED TROOPS, BUT SHOULD TAKE OUT ATTACK CAPABILITY OF ROGUE NATION
Should the United States develop and deploy a system to destroy incoming missiles fired by a rogue state, such as Iran or North Korea?
That is the issue in what the House leadership has dubbed `Defend America Week,' as it considers legislation that would deploy a missile defense system by the year 2003.
At stake, Republicans argue, is the nation's security in a world where all sorts of nations are equipping themselves with or seeking weapons of mass destruction.
Also at stake are billions of dollars, and perhaps the ability of our military forces to carry out more conventional missions, for the defense pot isn't likely to get much bigger even if Congress votes for deployment of expensive defensive missiles.
Is such a deployment necessary? The Clinton administration proposes to spend $600 million annually for five years to develop a system, but not deploy it unless a clear threat emerges. No nation that might pose such a threat has the capability to launch a missile that can reach American shores. And the best intelligence estimate is that such capability is at least 15 years away.
It should be noted that the administration does propose to fund the development and deployment of a theater anti-missile system to protect American military forces overseas from attacks such as those by Scud missiles we saw during the Persian Gulf War.
Not only is there no immediate threat that would require deployment of a national missile-defense system, the so-called `Defend America Act' doesn't even define the type of system that would be developed or deployed. That suggests a considerable gap between the idea and an actual system capable of picking off a missile before it inflicts harm on this country.
Indeed, one of the arguments against early deployment is that the pace of technology could well render such a system obsolete in the estimated three years required for it to become operational.
The costs are not inconsequential. Deployment of even a modest, single site, ground-based system could amount to $5 billion, though it would be of doubtful worth. A more ambitious system would cost on the order of $25 billion. A multi-site system could run $44 billion or more, but would also violate the ABM treaty with Russia, which limits each country to one ABM site.
More to the point, if a nation hostile to the United States should acquire the capability to send a missile our way, dare we wait until it is fired and see if our missile defense system actually works? Or would we in fact use other military means to go in and put it out of commission before it was fired?
The answer surely is that you do not place the fate of thousands of American lives on unproven technology of uncertain proficiency. You eliminate the threat before it eliminates you, a strategy that would make deployment of a missile defense system pointless and redundant.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
