A list of reasons why I don't support strategic missile defense

OP-ED: "A Threat in Every Port," by Lawrence M. Wein, New York Times, 15 June 2009.

Great chart lists "132 ways to bring a bomb to America."

None of them involve a missile fired by a foreign state that would be immediately subject to retaliation.

I would give all that DoD missile defense money to Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. I am certain that office could not possibly manage a more wasteful spending of the same billions.

Plus, we wouldn't end up pissing off other countries or erecting 21st-century Maginot Lines in Eastern Europe or Alaska ("Look, I can see a Russian!").

Comments

[Louis Heberlein]

Reagan used missile defense, and restored obsolete battleships, to distract Soviet military investment and advance the Soviet economic and social collapse. We also gained technology that could later be applied to practical smart weapons. The Reagan period seemed to create a new cycle of technical American jobs that improved public morale after the economic and morale collapse that happened during Ford/Carter period.

Today, there are more practical ways to intercept missiles from North Korea and Iran upon launch. Perhaps the current strategic missile defense initiative also has technology, psychology and political purposes more than it seems today. The only argument for strategic terminal missile defense system that made sense to me was to hinder an attempt by a third party or terrorist group from making it appear that a few missiles had been launched among Russia, West and China ... to create a new world order opportunity.

[sferrin]

Missile defense is a drop in the ocean of spending these days. Besides, I presume Mr. Wein has insurance of various types. Why? Can insurance cure AIDS? Cancer? Prevent him from getting killed by a drunk driver or choking to death on a tootsie roll? What a tremendous waste of money it must be eh?

[Mark Fragale]

Can we just give local law enforcement the missile money? It won't be wasted and the cops could get a good start on finding assorted bad actors, terrorists and other pond scum that want to attack the homeland...in the homeland.

The nuclear detection widget in my police car would be cool. I don't know where I would put it between the radio, pa, siren, computer, radar, lo jack, gear bag, bail out bag, rifle, de fib pack, cones, flares, et gear, ai box, etc. Might impress the odd arrestee or boy scout tour.

Gotta agree with Louis though...no R & D money is ever really wasted.

[Tom Barnett]

It is not a drop in the bucket. $50B to be spent in coming years.

This is buying insurance for tootsie roll choking. That's the point of the article.

[Steven J.]

A book just came out titled "Reagan's Secret War". Does a nice job of explaining Reagan's true position on nukes that both Right and Left seem to usually get wrong.His build up was to catch up w/ Russia, because U.S. was way behind Soviets in 81' when he came into office. And the build up was his Nixonion way of negotiating from a position of strength. But Reagan hated Nukes and his personally negotiated treaty w/ Gorby supports that.Star Wars was an idea where he requested the science community to "volunteer their research into". Those are his words in his own "Reagan Diaries". And he pushed Star Wars along because of the threat of the cheating according to "Secret War".

Let the R&D on this one come from the private sector and who ever has the money can buy the finished product.

[deichmans]

Tom,

"$50B in coming years" without specifying an end date is disingenuous.

MDA's budget for FY10 is $7.8B, less than 2% of total defense outlays. As a grand strategist, I'm sure you'd agree that the best approach is defense in depth -- knowing that no single solution can apply to all threats.

Also, as a grand strategist, I'm certain you recognize that technology is not static. Iran has successfully launched a satellite, and North Korea came close to matching that feat -- all in the past few months. With both publicly pursuing nuclear weapons programs, wouldn't it be prudent to foreclose their options for threatening the rest of the world?

Remember, THAAD and AEGIS both have perfect test records. And "boost phase intercept" (the current focus of MDA) is far more practical technologically than many of the conceptual programs undertaken during SDI.

[sferrin]

My point is missile defense is like insurance in that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Not only that it gives you options and has the deterrent value. 1. it makes the other guy a little less certain that an attack will succeed. 2. It gives you the ability to give those who would try nuclear blackmail the finger. (One could easily see Dear Leader (no, not Zero) threatening a nuclear missile strike).) 3. It gives you the option of shooting down an incoming missile rather than waiting for potentially millions of deaths because the gov. preferred to spend the money on Government Motors. It also enables a more measured response. If an Iranian nuke were to land on D.C. (no, that's not an impossible scenario) would the US sit back and do nothing or would nuking Tehran be manditory? Without missile defense you have potentially millions dead and the moral catch-22 of either doing nothing in response or killing perhaps millions ourselves. On the other hand were the missile shot down not only do you have the obvious benefit of nobody dead, but it makes a more restrained response much more palletable.

Is that scenario "cherry picked"? Sure, just like the nuke-in-container one. There will always, ALWAYS be a way to get a nuke into a country as open as the US. Does that mean we should just stick our heads in the sand and do nothing? Kill missile defense and dump all the money into cargo inspection and the other guy just takes the other wide-open road, ie. a missile.

[Steven J.]

If you want to play out the board, Iran will not bomb U.S. precisely because it will mean their instant extinction. That's what MAD is all about.The reason Iran wants the Big Gun is to balance the power in Middle East vs. Israel who is the only Middle Eastern country to have it.

And the reason missile defense pisses off the guy's who already have the Big Gun is because missile defense out trumps the Gun. Which gets you destablization all over again with the countries you are trying to connect and be global trading partners with.