Research Paper

7

Place your Name here

Should The U.S. Build A Missile Defense System? (9:30 a.m. or 12:30 class)

PRO: Yes, the U.S. should build a missile defense system because…

• The missile defense system may discourage terrorist nations from even trying to develop nuclear weapons.
• “Irresponsible nations” continue to break international laws and seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
• Iran is leading the way with its nuclear development and hiding its findings from the IAEA.
• The threat of attack from other countries against America and American interests are growing.
• The nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile trend shows that countries are only increasing armaments.

CON: No the U.S. should NOT build a missile defense system because…

• The system has little chance of success against a massive scale attack or against a terrorist strike.
• Physicists largely agree that the technology to build effective national missile defense does not exist.
• History has shown countries rarely use weapons of mass destruction unless for fear factors/psychological warfare.
• The money could be used for better issues such as fighting poverty, improving education
• Our efforts will continually be matched by other countries.

Some people might consider the strongest reason for supporting missile defense is that it discourages terrorist nations from developing nuclear armaments. Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/missile_defense.htm The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was developed to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including nukes. However, such countries like North Korea haven’t followed the treaty enacted March 5, 1970. With the amount of time, effort and economic funds needed to develop nuclear warfare many experts believe a missile defense system would neutralize any attempts at missile attacks on the country. Ibid J Messerli, balancedpolitics.org If the system is developed our national security may become a little safer against those who intend to seek harm on our way of life.

On July 25, 2000, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated that “North Korea was continuing with ground testing and could break its moratorium and begin flight testing of an intercontinental range Taepo-Dong-2 missile at anytime, with deployment in the next few years. Gary Brown & Gary Klintworth, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01RP16htm This statement concerned American leaders because other “irresponsible nations” could follow their lead and try to acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons making our challenge of national protection even harder to sustain. Mary Cooper, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2000090800&type=hitlist&num=0 The issue is those states of concern in question: Iran, Iraq, and Libya among others are receiving parts from Korea. A national missile defense could be established to ensure when diplomacy fails our back up plan will protect our country’s borders.

Another reason the U.S should pursue missile defense is because the country of Iran is making headway with its suspicious nuclear development and seemingly hiding its findings from the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran is probably one of the most troubling countries that American security must deal with. It has ties with terrorism, “enmity with the U.S,” and involvement with Afghanistan and in Iraq. Peter Brookes, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5725 New intelligence has been building up arguing that Iran’s nuclear prospects are anything but the claimed peaceful means that the country has been pushing at the world. Even the IAEA which released a 9 page report on Iran’s nuclear prospects shifted its view from proving that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program to having to prove that they don’t have one. Ibid P Brookes, hoover.org The news concerned many leaders of the world because if they were truly using the nuclear power to fuel military purposes it would be a clear defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The mounting evidence, suspicions, and lack of cooperation has led the world to wonder what exactly is happening in Iran and if in fact they are developing a nuclear arsenal, the United States could be one of its first targets.

Last but not least, “there are presently over 1000 Russian missiles and 6000 warheads in an unknown state of repair, all capable of targeting US cities. China has just 20-30 missiles and the same number of warheads.” Ibid G Brown & G Klintworth, aph.gov.au This startling statistic shows the vast amount of military preparedness for most of our current allies. The U.S does not believe these communist countries would attack us; however, Russian missile tests have accidentally landed too close for comfort. Ibid G Brown & G Klintworth, aph.gov.au Currently, if these missiles do reach us by unauthorized launch or on accident, the U.S would have no way to stop them from hitting us. According to William Cohen, “there are two dozen countries that have developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction;” knowing this, the U.S may have to intervene in crises around the world as a roundabout way to defend our nation and its allies. These are just a few of the examples why the U.S should have missile defense.

Others have stated that we shouldn’t have a missile defense. The number one reason most have stated is the fact that the system would have a limited chance of success against a widespread attack. Ibid J Messerli, balancedpolitics.org A missile from Cuba could take 5 minutes to deploy and target Washington, D.C. Missiles from China and Russia would most likely be cast in the hundreds and nuclear attacks from terrorists would most likely be set off inside our country. The missile defense would be strained to the limit to defend us from these different scenarios. Even if we could prevent the missile launches we would still have the aftermath of debris and radiation to handle in our U.S states and regions.

Another reason missile defense is not likely nor achievable is the belief that the technology to create such a program does not exist. Timothy Snyder & Philip Snyder, http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0202/p11s2.html It is easier to send a missile into the air than it is to shoot one down, flying at a ground based target. The technicalities of the venture would have to defy physics and would only provide a false sense of security to the American people. History has also proven that in most cases the use of missiles and nuclear warfare were only used as a fear and psychological tactic against other countries such as North Korea and the United States. Philip Coyle & Victoria Samson, http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/22_1/special_report/001.htm Because of the threat from each nation retaliating on one another the nuclear and missile threat is limited for the safety of each nation involved. Joe Biden, http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/missile-defense/history/opposing-missile-defense-act.htm

The U.S should not have a missile defense program because the invested money could be used for better issues such as fighting poverty, and improving education. Ibid J Messerli, balancedpolitics.org The cost of the missile defense projects could one day exceed over trillions of dollars. Our education is, in some eyes, below a world average and adding money to the educational system which in turn could help fight nationwide poverty. The money invested could also be used in medical means by supporting cancer research, aids research and adding to the quality of medicine provided in the United States today.

Last but not least the U.S should not have a missile defense program because our efforts will continually be matched by other countries. Not only will our allies be weakened by our missile defense strategies, our enemies will rise against the challenge and build more missiles and nukes to prevent assumed attacks on their lands. With missile defense in place, enemies become uncontrollable threats, allies lack support and the world would be full of nuclear weapons able to launch at anyone at any time making any peace keeping missions obsolete. Ibid T Snyder & P Snyder, www.csmonitor.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biden, Joe. "Opposing the National Defense Act." Nuclear age peace foundation. Washington, D.C. 16 Mar. 1999. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/missile-defense/history/opposing-missile-defense-act.htm>.

Brookes, Peter. "The Need for Missile Defense." The Hoover Digest 1 Oct. 2008, 151 ed. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5725>.

Brown, Gary, and Gary Klintworth. "The US National Missile Defense Program: Vital Shield or Modern-Day Maginot Line?." Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library. N.p., 5 Dec. 2000. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01RP16.htm>.

Cooper, Mary H. "Missile Defense: Should the U.S build a missile defense system?" C.Q Researcher 10.30 (2000). Web. 17 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2000090800&type=hitlist&num=0>.

Coyle, Philip, and Victoria Samson. "Missile Defense Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defenses in Europe Will Not Work." Ethics & International Affairs 22.1 (2008). Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/22_1/special_report/001.html>.

"Decoy fails to deploy, but missile test ." CNN News. CNN, 5 Dec. 2008. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/05/us.missile.test/index.html>.

Lewis, George N., and Theodore A. Postol. "A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan." Arms Control Today May 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol>.

Messerli, Joe. Should the U.S. Continue to Fund the SDI Anti-Nuclear Missile Defense System?. N.p., 6 Nov. 2007. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.balancedpolitics.org/missile_defense.htm>.

Snyder, Timothy, and Philip Snyder. "Why missile defense is a bad idea." The Christian Science Monitor 2 Feb. 2001. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0202/p11s2.html>.

Trenin, Dmitri. "Missile Defense Could Be the Silver Bullet." The Moscow Times 3 Nov. 2009, 4500 ed. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/missile-defense-could-be-the-silver-bullet/388746.html>.

In light of the evidence, the United States of America should build a missile defense system. It would be beneficial for the U.S to pursue missile defense as a deterrent against terrorist nations. The nations that continue to go against the sanctions on nuclear development like Iran are never going to stop supposed secret operations creating the WMD’s the United Nations fear exist. This has been proven by the lack of obedience North Korea has shown with its testing of missile launches such as the Taepo-Dong-2. The media has been spreading fear about terrorist nations stemming from Iraq and Afghanistan having terrorist clans centered in other parts of the world. This is an unwelcomed issue knowing that at any moment our nation could be attacked and we would have no feasible means to defend ourselves from launches of any type. These attacks are solely targeting American and American interests because of a hidden government agenda.

Even though the cost to develop missile defense could be immense, I believe that overall the benefits would outweigh the costs. Our country has the right to defend itself against enemies both foreign and domestic using whatever means necessary to keep the country and its inhabitants safe. One thing remains true: Our military technology and the hearts of our soldiers on the battlefield and any battlefield in existence have rarely ever been matched in strength, power, courage, or prowess. Missile defense would only add to the might of our already powerful military force.

NOTES