National Missile Defense System, Political_Science, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Political Science

National Missile Defense System

National Missile Defense System As we begin the twenty-first century, an increasing number of states around the world are acquiring nuclear capabilities. The sense of insecurity by individual governments is driving many states into developing and testing ballistic missiles. In the mean time, the United States finds itself in a position to develop new technology that will protect themselves against these potential missile strikes. The development of a national anti-ballistic missile defense system has sparked many controversies around the United States. Advocates of the system argue that it is only a defensive measure, but they fail to see the consequences that would result in a missile defense deployment. Within the Department of Defense, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) is responsible for managing the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. One of its goals is to build a barrier against the emergence of long-range ballistic missile that threatens the United States by developing a National Missile Defense (NMD) System. The system is designed to track any incoming missiles once it is launched toward the U.S. with thermal imagery radars, and then destroy the missile with an interceptor before it reaches its target. The proposed plan consist of building a site based in Alaska with 100 interceptors that would protect all fifty states against any ballistic missiles attack. (Ballistic) One of the events that sparked the NMD System was the Rumsfeld Commission report in July of 1998. Named after the former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, a nine-member bipartisan commission reported that several states already have access to ballistic missiles while other “rogue states” will have the same technology within five years. The report also stated that the threat is greater than the intelligence community had initially thought, citing these “rogue states” will be acquiring ballistic missiles that will have intercontinental attack range that capable of striking the United States. (Beard) Disturbed by the Rumsfeld report, Capital Hill responded immediately by passing two bills. The first bill known as S. 257 stated, “It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of United States against limited ballistic missile attack”. The S.257 was followed by a second bill named H.R. 4 passed in March of 1999 that stated, “It is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.” (Policy.com) The proposal of the National Missile Defense System by Capitol Hill is a clear example of the international security dilemma, where the United States’ desire to become more secure compromises other states’ security. By setting up a missile defense to escape the power of other states, this will only create insecurity in the international arena that will prompt other states to react with their own missile defense system. This dynamia can also be seen through the prisoner’s dilemma diagram (Figure 1). The United States fears for the worst possibility so it arms itself to increase its protection. It does not trust the other players in the international community and does not want to find itself in a position of vulnerability. In the prisoner’s dilemma, this “self-help” approach equates to the lack of trust between the states, this feeling of insecurity leads to all states arming themselves. For this very reason, the United States should not deploy the NMD system because it will lead to a new arms race between all states. Termination of National Missile Defense Continual of National Missile Defense Other states Termination of National Missile Defense If all states can trust one another, a NMD system would not be necessary. United States feels vulnerable and does not trust the other states, so it arms itself. Continual of National Missile Defense Other states do not trust the United States, so it arms itself just in case. Both states did not trust one another, so they both armed themselves, resulting in a new arms race. Another event that triggered prompt attention were missile testing conducted by China, Iran, and North Korea. In 1996, China conducted missile tests by launching ballistic missiles toward Taiwan. Iran has also conducted its own long-range missile test with their Shahab-3 ballistic missile that has a range of eight hundred miles. (Cohens) But perhaps the state that the United States worries about the most is North Korea. Since the end of the Cold War, North Korea has remained aggressive toward the U.S. by taking hostile actions. For example, the North Korean army maintains a million soldiers in their armed forces that continues to threaten their South Korean neighbor plus the 37,000 U.S. soldiers stationed there. North Korea has also been attaining nuclear technology while purchasing missile components from China. The most alarming sign is North Korean’s testing of their medium-range Taepo Dong-1 missile that has a maximum range of 1000 kilometers. But the United States is most concerned about the North Korean’s development of the inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology with its current testing of the long-range Taepo Dong-2 missile. (Pike) Capital Hill and Pentagon officials use these potential threats by these “rogue states” to fuel their argument to deploy the NMD system. The alarm of a Scud missile cutting through America’s airspace is enough to persuade many non-believers into supporting the NMD system. Upon closer examination, despite these signs of potential aggression by some states, the realistic threat remains unlikely and non-credible to the United States and the international community. There are many solutions if aggression is caused by states such as North Korea and Iran who are acquiring nuclear capabilities. The international community can choose to implement collective security. Any “unlawful aggression” by one state (e.g. North Korea) will be meet by collective action against the aggressor. One of the keys to a successful collective security is that the states involved must have confidence and commitment to universalism. Collective deterrence has proven to work during the period of Long Peace from 1945 – 1989. Analogously, many major principles that were established during the Long Peace can be applied in the NMD scenario. 1) The role of nuclear deterrence – the mere threat of nuclear weapons can dampen conflicts; 2) Reconnaissance Revolution – states knows more about each other today than they do in the 1960’s due to reconnaissance and espionage, states are less likely to start a war if they know there is a strong opposition against them in the international community; 3) Economic Liberalism – economic trades have established stronger relationships between states, thus providing a stronger allies system in the international community. In recent years, terrorists have bombed the World Trade Center in New York, the Oklahoma Federal Building, and American Embassies overseas. The possibility of a missile attack is minute compared to the possibility of terrorist attack. No one denies the threat of a missile strike does not exist, but it is just not probable. Even if the U.S. is engaged in a war with one of these “rogue states”, the Gulf War demonstrates how these potential threats can be rather harmless. In 1990, the international community publicly announced to Iraq that any use of a weapon of mass destruction would result in an equal response by the United States. Iraq undoubtedly had numerous chemical and biological weapons in their arsenal that they could have launched, but they consciously choose not to use it. This is a clear sign that even rogue states recognize the consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction. Since these potential threats are improbable, the research and deployment of a NMD system would not be necessary. Seeking deterrence diplomatically would serve the U.S.’s best interest in the long run. If the U.S. does decide to deploy the NMD system, they have failed in their obligation to the international community. The United States should only deploy the NMD system after all the possible alternatives to deter these rogue states have been exhausted. The Pentagon has placed a deadline for the NMD deployment by 2005 because that is when the CIA predicts the North Koreans will have achieved inter-continental ballistic missile technology capable of striking U.S. soil. (Karon) This speedy schedule has left the missile defense system with its fair share of technological problems. A troubling factor is the technology in the NMD system originated from the Patriot missile system that is used to intercept anti-aircrafts. Utilized in the Gulf War, the success of the Patriot missiles was highly ineffective when it made a total of four intercepts during the Gulf War but saw twenty-six Army soldiers killed in a barrack when a Scud missile strike. (Baliga) The complex NMD project is sometimes described as “trying to hit a bullet with a bullet” may not be technologically feasible. Numerous missile tryouts have consistently failed to hit the dummied target with problems ranging from a minor glitch in the battery unit to “near misses”. With a steep estimated cost of $68 billion for the entire project, the Department of Defense will have a hard time explaining these “near misses” when a real missile crashes into an American city. The combination of the lack of technology and the costly $68-billion price tag are just more reasons to terminate the NMD program. The hard push for technology readiness is a clear sign that the United States desires to attain first strike capability again. This technology would empower the United States a first strike capability, the ability to strike first without the opponent’s ability to strike back. A workable NMD system would render all the ballistic missiles launched toward the U.S. useless. The U.S. should not be a stranger to the monopoly on first-strike capability. Reminiscence of the U.S. nuclear monopoly from 1945 to 1950, history would likely repeat itself by throwing the international communities into a second Cold War if the NMD system is build. The difference between the Cold War of the 1960’s and this potential Cold War is polarity. Instead of the bipolar superpowers (U.S. and U.S.S.R.) competing against each other, this potential Cold War would be worst because the world is now multipolar with multiple states competing for power. Hypothetically, if a practical NMD system is installed, it would result in an arms race with China and Russia, which have both openly condemned U.S.’s NMD system. This will create a domino effect in ballistic missile proliferation that will affect the entire international community. Behind the principle of security dilemma, my security will make you insecure. Thus, India would consequently feel threaten by China’s armament and will begin its own arms buildup. As a result, Pakistan would do the same to deter India, and Iran and Iraq will soon follow afterward. This would all lead to the development of more destructive weapons and another arms race between all states. The deployment of a National Missile Defense also raises problems with the violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 between the United States and the U.S.S.R. During the Cold War, both states began to rely on long-range ballistic missiles. In an attempt to control the number of nuclear weapons, the two signed the ABM treaty that brought a halt to the production of strategic ballistic missiles. The treaty originally limited the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from developing, testing, and deploying an ABM system. The agreement permitted partial regional defense at two ABM sites with 200 launchers and interceptors, but it prohibited any establishment of a nationwide defense. The ABM peace treaty ended an arms race while establishing an open channel to negotiate the limitations of strategic arms control that prevented any major confrontation between the two states for decades. If the United States abandons the ABM treaty, we will be virtually trading in our reputation for an unnecessary and unreliable missile defense system. The U.S.’s role as a superpower in international politics is too valuable, the creation of a missile defense must not jeopardize the United States’ role in global political affairs. In the end, diplomacy should be the United States’ first line of defense, only resulting to ballistic missile defense as a last resort. After decades of mending our relationship with Russia, the United States must not throw away the peace progress by promoting another arms race by initiating a NMD system. Working with our allies to deter the threat of these “rogue states” is far better than working against our allies by building an unpopular NMD system. The price of peace is by far greater than the occurrence of a second Cold War. Granted that we should not totally abandon the concept of a national defense system, we should take into account the following factors when considering the research and construction of a national defense system. Bibliography:

Word Count: 2119