Why Missile Defense Won't Work
A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
| Diplomatic Repercussions |
It is foolish to believe that the world wouldn't react in any way to the deployment of a missile shield for the US and its allies.
Proponents of a missile defense shield say that a missile defense shield would deter non-nuclear nations from aquiring nuclear capabilities. They argue that if the "rouge states" knew that any missile they would launch at the US or its allies would be shot down, these third-world countries with economic problems wouldn't waste money developing nuclear missiles.
Opponents of a missile defense shield believe that nuclear states, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, would feel threatened by the missile defense shield. The deterrent of their nuclear arsenal would be considerably reduced, and opponents of a missile shield argue that they would build up their missiles in hopes of overwhelming it. Russia has stated that it would mount multiple warheads onto its nuclear missiles.
| POLL |
| Do you think missile defense will work? Vote in our poll. |
While both of these predictions may be true, we believe that only a very limited nuclear development deterrence would occur, since any technically informed person would know that there are simple, cost-effective ways of thwarting the missile defense shield. However, we also belive that Russia would not expand its nuclear force, and that its "promise" is merely a bluff. Russia simply doesn't have enough money to waste on nuclear weapons. China might increase its nuclear capability considerably, but North Korea still hasn't been able to build a missile that can strike any part of the US. In any case, this is not the worst part. The worst part is that the United States is unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty, which, apart from being unethical and a bad example to the rest of the world, will allow Russia to pick and choose which treaties suit its national interests. Russia will probably reject the START I and START II nuclear-reduction treaties, and will opt out of non-proliferation agreements. Thus, cash-strapped Russia will begin to sell its nuclear technology to the highest bidder, which would create a world where every country hostile to the US would have advanced nuclear missiles. Yes, no nation will try to develop nuclear capabilities. They won't need to; they'll simply buy them from Russia.
| NEED TO KNOW |
| Russia is actually much closer to developing an effective anti-ballistic missile defense system than the United States. Russia's latest S-400 surface-to-air missile system is currently in its final stage of testing and is due to enter service in 2001-2002. The S-400 is the only SAM system in the world that has been designed from the very start with anti-ballistic missile capability in mind. Development of such systems became possible following the 1997 correction to the 1972 ABM treaty accepted by the US and Russia during negotiations in New York. The correction made a more accurate distinction between strategic and non-strategic ABM defenses. While the S-400, its predecessor - the S-300 and its anti-ballistic adaptation designated "Antey" - are unmatched by any other long-range SAM system in the world, there is already the S-500 in the final stages of development. Successful export of S-300 systems made Russian SAM manufacturers highly productive and competitive. In addition, when the ABM treaty was modified to allow only one ABM system for each the USSR and America, the USSR deployed a limited ABM system to protect its capital, Moscow. |
Well, you may be asking, why would America spend huge amounts of money on a costly missile defense system that could be easily defeated and would reduce worldwide security? No, it's not because a missile defense is the totem of Republicanism, it's not because the Republicans want to enrich their campaign donors or because the military wants more money. No, the "missile defense" system has a purpose, and it's not for shooting down missiles.
| « Counter-Measures | What the US Really Wants » |