October 2001 -- When the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City took 168 lives, it was by far the worst terrorist attack in American history. Now the destruction of the World Trade Center has taken nearly twenty times as many lives. As horrific as it was, however, it was far from a worst-case disaster scenario. A single nuclear-armed ballistic missile could take a hundred times again as many lives, and we are completely helpless to defend against it. Incredible though it may seem, many believe we should deliberately stay helpless. Apparently, common sense is not as common as it should be, but the WTC disaster should inoculate us against such nonsense.
The detractors of ballistic missile defense say it is too costly. Apparently they haven't considered the potential cost of defenselessness. A single missile carrying a nuclear warhead of moderate size could kill several hundred thousand men, women, and children, severely maim and disfigure millions more, and destroy hundreds of buildings and other infrastructure. In addition to the inconceivable death and suffering, the medical costs and property damage alone could exceed a trillion dollars. Now do the math for ten missiles -- and remember the result the next time you hear that missile defense is "too expensive."
Because so few missiles can do so much damage, opponents of missile defense argue that an imperfect shield is unacceptable. They are perfectly content, however, with no shield at all. In other words, their answer to an imperfect defense is a perfect lack of defense. Because the horror of a missile attack is unthinkable, they've apparently decided to stop thinking and simply assume it won't happen. But ignoring the threat does not eliminate it anymore than burying its head in the sand protects an ostrich. If a major US city is ever hit, their defense of defenselessness should be very interesting -- to those in another city, that is.
The doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" has effectively deterred nuclear war so far, but it is impotent against accidental or unauthorized launches. MAD is also of dubious value against murderous tyrants with weapons of mass destruction. MAD advocates claim that even tyrants are rational enough to preserve their own fiefdoms, but how wise are we to bet millions of lives on the rationality and enlightened self-interest of tyrants -- or anyone else, for that matter? Some Chinese or Russian General could become mentally unstable someday, or some despot under attack or nearing his final days might decide to depart in a blaze of glory.
A common misconception is that ballistic missile defense must replace counter-offensive deterrence. But a good offense and a good defense are not mutually exclusive. They compliment each other very effectively, in fact. What could better deter a Saddam Hussein from launching a missile attack on America than the prospect that, not only would his nation be obliterated in retaliation, but his missiles might also be intercepted and rendered impotent? Even if he cares little about the security of his own people, he would certainly care about being deprived of the sick satisfaction of murdering millions of Americans -- after sacrificing his own country.
Nobody denies that knocking missiles out of the sky is a huge technical challenge. Many experts believe the problem is so difficult that we should simply give up even trying to intercept ballistic missiles. Expert dismissals of new technologies often turn out to be ridiculous in hindsight, however. The Wright brothers claimed the helicopter would be useless if it ever flew; Thomas Edison maintained that alternating current is too dangerous to ever be practical; the head of IBM once said that the worldwide demand for computers would never exceed five machines. So much for the infallibility of expert opinion!
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction can only get worse in the coming decades. The problem was bad enough even before Clinton, but the massive security leaks he presided over (not to mention the alleged selling of nuclear technology to China for campaign cash) may have accelerated it dramatically. If some counterbalancing defensive technology cannot be developed that is at least partially effective, the long-term future of security and freedom could be bleak. That is why it must be pursued vigorously, regardless of how technically difficult it is. If missile defense never works, the money "wasted" on it will be the least of our concerns.
No debate over missile defense is complete without a discussion of terrorism. As long as terrorists can simply smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the country, missile defense is widely considered irrelevant. If we can't secure the back door, why even bother to install a lock on the front door? The fact is that both doors must be secured or we will have no security. The notion that missile defense is futile is based on the defeatist attitude that terrorism cannot be eliminated (or at least kept in check). That may have seemed true before the WTC disaster, but it is no longer the case now that America has been awakened to the threat.
The absurdity of this argument can be seen by turning it around: with no missile defense, as soon as one terrorist nation gets long-range missiles, we might as well give up on fighting terrorism. What is the point of an expensive war against homeland terrorism, after all, if the terrorists can simply launch a missile our way? That's the logical conclusion of the defeatist attitude. In deciding what to defend ourselves against, we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what appeals to us. Reality mandates that we defend ourselves against the real threats. If we don't get a missile defense before terrorist nations get missiles, we could end up looking back at September llth as a "minor" incident.
As serious as the threat of terrorism is, furthermore, it does not compare to the potential threat posed by long-range ballistic missiles. A suitcase or truck bomb detonated at ground level (or airplanes crashed into tall buildings, for that matter) cannot do anywhere near as much damage as a nuclear bomb delivered by missile and detonated in the air. More importantly, a terrorist weapon is nowhere near as effective as a long-range missile for holding hostages. An ambitious tyrant may not be satisfied with killing a few thousand Americans, particularly since he cannot even take credit without incurring massive retaliation. No, the ambitious tyrant of the future will want to hold millions of Americans hostage and call the shots himself.
A suitcase or truck bomb can be used to hold only a few thousand hostages at most, but long-range missiles can be used to effectively hold millions of hostages. If the targeted area is evacuated (assuming it is even known), the missile can simply be re-targeted with the push of a button. With no missile defense, we could eventually be at the mercy of a murderous tyrant far away in the comfort of his bunker, with his finger on the launch button. The threat of retaliation alone may not deter him from attempting to impose his will on us, but in conjunction with an effective missile shield it certainly will. That is one lesson we cannot afford to learn the hard way.
The absurdity of the debate over ballistic missile defense is epitomized by the controversy over the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union way back in 1972. The fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists might be considered sufficient to nullify the treaty, but strangely it is not. And never mind that the Soviets routinely and blatantly violated the treaty, or that the treaty itself allows for unconditional withdrawal with a six-month notice. To its proponents, this ill-conceived and obsolete treaty is a sacred covenant, comparable to the US Constitution, that we are duty-bound to honor into perpetuity.
A reasonable person might wonder how the ABM treaty serves US interests today. Nobody seriously believes it is restraining the development of Russian missile defense technology, after all. Although the Russians have a respectable launch capacity, their technology base is obviously far behind the state of the art. The ABM treaty, therefore, serves only to restrain US efforts. Why do we need a treaty with another country to unilaterally tie our own hands behind our back? The answer, of course, is that it serves as a useful political propaganda tool for the adversaries of missile defense.
Although the ABM treaty does not explicitly restrict offensive weapons, it is widely assumed to indirectly restrain a new arms race. This assumption is based, however, on the ridiculous premise that a missile defense capability could induce the United States to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia. But the same folks who are so concerned about the offensive implications of missile defense claim that it can't even work defensively. They can't have it both ways. Even if they could, Russia can't afford a new arms race anyway (at least not without US money), and other hostile nations, including China, are developing weapons of mass destruction as fast as they can anyway.
The ABM treaty was signed way back when the United States and the Soviet Union were the only nuclear powers in the world, but those days are long gone. In today's world, The ABM treaty essentially requires the United States to get permission from Russia to defend itself against China, North Korea, Iraq, and all the other hostile nations that could emerge as nuclear powers in the coming decades. In effect, it gives Russia veto power over US national security. What kind of deal could be more foolish than that? Even Henry Kissinger, the principal architect of the ABM treaty, considers it obsolete.
Ultimately, the most formidable obstacle to ballistic missile defense is simple ignorance. Polls consistently find that the vast majority of Americans have enough common sense to want a defense against ballistic missiles, but amazingly, those same polls also show that most think we already have it! Such ignorance explains the political strength of the opposition to missile defense. If all Americans understood how vulnerable we are becoming to attacks a hundred times worse than the assault on the World Trade Center, politicians who refuse to defend us would be run out of town on a rail.
The first responsibility of government is to defend its citizens, and the primary purpose of the US Department of Defense should be to defend the US homeland. Yet today we neglect to defend ourselves against the most serious military threat we may ever face. The threat can only get worse if the foolish opposition to missile defense prevails in the face of continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Common sense demands that missile defense be pursued in parallel with the war against terrorism. We can bury our heads in the sand and ignore the threat, or we can face reality and defend ourselves.
Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
High Frontier
Claremont Institute -- Ballistic Missile Defense
Missile Defense -- The Heritage Foundation Publications Library
Actual text of the ABM Treaty
Templegate: cover-up of a massive fund-raising scandal