Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
precepts at claremont.org wrote:
> The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | July 20, 2001
> Visit <http://www.claremont.org> | | No. 289
>
> Claremont Institute Precepts: America is Worth Defending
> By Thomas Krannawitter and Brian Kennedy
>
> So, it's possible to hit a bullet with a bullet after all.
>
> Late last Saturday night, the Pentagon launched a missile
> from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California equipped with
> a mock warhead and a decoy to evade detection in space.
> Minutes later the missile was targeted and destroyed 144
> miles above the earth by a "hit-to-kill" interceptor fired
> from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. This wasn't
> the first or the last test of missile defense technology.
> But it reaffirmed what American scientists proved over 40
> years ago: We can shoot down ballistic missiles aimed at
> the United States.
>
> Knowing this, what are we to make of congressional liberals
> who continue to oppose missile defense? Surely they agree
> America is worth defending, don't they?
>
> Liberals offer three basic arguments against building a
> missile defense system. The first is silly; the second
> dishonest; the third anachronistic. All three aim to disarm
> America.
>
> First, liberals say missile defense won't work. Saturday's
> success suggests otherwise. True, several recent tests have
> failed. But those failures represented nothing but a lack
> of quality control within the Clinton Pentagon. In one
> case, the first stage of an interceptor rocket didn't
> separate from the second stage as planned -- a problem
> rocket scientists solved in the 1950s.
>
> At any rate, correcting problems and improving technology
> is precisely why we test things. To say something cannot
> be done because a couple of tests failed is, well, silly.
> Imagine telling the Wright brothers after their first
> couple of crashes that it is impossible for man to fly.
>
> And it should not be overlooked that this form of missile
> defense -- hitting an enemy warhead with a hit-to-kill
> interceptor -- is far more challenging technologically than
> the system of space-based lasers and interceptors the U.S.
> has spent billions of dollars researching.
>
> Second, liberal critics say we can't afford missile
> defense, that social spending is a higher priority. Here
> liberals are particularly disingenuous. The Bush
> Administration's proposed missile defense budget may amount
> to a modest 2% to 3% of the total annual defense budget, or
> roughly $8 billion. Americans spend more than that on
> pornography and prostitution in any given year. Further,
> even the most strident opponents of missile defense vote
> consistently to support missile defense research to the
> tune of tens of billions of dollars, as they don't want to
> appear soft on national security.
>
> Third, liberals think missile defense unnecessary because
> of two outdated relics of the Cold War: The theory of
> Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) -- which suggested the
> most stable relations among nuclear countries happens when
> each maintains a powerful offensive strike force, but no
> defense capability, ensuring that any nation that launches
> a nuclear first strike must absorb a similar strike in
> return, thereby deterring all nations from using nuclear
> weapons -- and the 1972 ABM Treaty that forbade the
> construction of national missile defenses.
>
> With the end of the Cold War, however, the public now knows
> from Soviet scholar William T. Lee that the Soviets
> deployed a national missile defense, with some 9,000 anti
> missile interceptors placed around Moscow, in clear
> violation of the ABM Treaty, and with little concern for
> the theoretical posturing required by MAD. While American
> liberals patted themselves on the back for obstructing
> American missile defense development, the Soviets gained a
> strategic advantage over the U.S. Today, the Soviet-era
> anti-missile system protects 70 percent of Russia's
> population, while Americans remain defenseless.
>
> More alarming, liberals downplay nuclear proliferation
> among Third World countries. The Communist Chinese possess
> some 30 ICBMs capable of hitting the United States. Why
> should we trust China, North Korea, Iran, or Iraq -- brutal
> dictatorships that place a low premium on human life -- to
> refrain from using their nuclear arsenals against America?
> And if these countries have no plan to use them, why are
> they pouring what little resources they have into nuclear
> missile technology?
>
> Unlike liberals in Congress, most Americans think it
> important to defend ourselves against missile attacks as
> best we can. But the greatest obstacle we face is
> ignorance: Recent surveys show that more than half of
> Americans believe we already possess a national missile
> defense. The reality is that we cannot stop one missile
> from destroying a U.S. city today. Americans need to
> understand our current vulnerability, and support the
> effort to protect our citizens.
>
> Thomas Krannawitter is Director of Academic Programs at the
> Claremont Institute.
>
> Brian Kennedy is Vice President of the Claremont Institute.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright (c) 2001 The Claremont Institute
>
> To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/1_precepts.cfm , or e-mail us at info at claremont.org .
> To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at info at claremont.org .
> For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : info at claremont.org , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org .
> Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : info at claremont.org .
> For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at topalian at msn.com or (202) 265-9010.
> Author and Claremont Institute attribution are required if used for publication. Please contact Topalian at msn.com for Tear Sheet information.
>
> The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship
> and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American
> Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.
>
> The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont,
> CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724