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 • Free Essays • My Term Papers • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Technology nationalmissle nationalmissle The development of an accurately working national missile defense system would be ineffective and counterproductive. Currently our system used to deter a nuclear missile attack has always been, that any country that would take such a hostile action towards the United States would suffer a complete and total annihilation with our counter attack. This policy has been able to keep the peace for over fifty years. Unfortunately this policy has been put into question recently with the emergence of rogue nations with nuclear capabilities. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld explains: I believe we need to recognize that the deterrence of the Cold War—mutual assured destruction and the concept of massive retaliation—worked reasonably well during the Cold War. But as senator McCain said this morning in answer to a question, the problems today are different. The demands are different. And we have an obligation to plan for these changing circumstances to make sure that we are arranged—first and foremost—to dissuade rash and reckless aggressors from taking action or threatening action. Terror weapons don’t need to be fired. They just need to be in the hands of people who would threaten their use. (Rumsfeld 3) While Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld feels that a national missile defense would “…dissuade rash and reckless aggressors from taking action or threatening action” (3). Many experts say “instead of eliminating the mutual-assured-destruction polices of the Cold War, Bush’s formula will make it more difficult to deal with lingering Cold War dangers and create new proliferation problems” (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Arms 2). With the emplacement of a national missile defense system our allies as well as our enemies would adapt their nuclear weapons and launching procedures to increase their chances of penetrating our defensives. It is these adaptations that could lead to a large-scale nuclear attack. A United States “national missile defense deployment would prod Russia into keeping a larger number of its strategic weapons on hair-trigger alert, thus perpetuating the dangerous nuclear standoff and risk of accidental nuclear war” (The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Arms 2). Currently the United States has been unable to produce an accurately working national missile defense. It is these adaptations caused by the proposal of a national missile defense that would bring back the nuclear arms race, on an even larger scale then previously during the Cold War. Many rogue nations now have the ability to launch a small-scale nuclear attack on their neighboring enemies. While a national missile defense system would allow for the ability to defend from such an attack, this would cause smaller rogue nations to revert back to their former tactics of terrorist assaults. This would increase the already current threat of having a small portable nuclear device smuggled into the United States. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld says, “…we are more vulnerable now to the suitcase bomb” (2). It is this statement that shows that the United States should be pursuing alternative means to eliminate the threats of an untraditional nuclear attack other then the possibility of a small-scale nuclear missile attack. Security protocols for nuclear material in other countries have become a growing concern for the United States, with nuclear arsenal surplus making its way to the black market. The United States should be negotiating with our allies as well as our enemies to reach an agreement of nuclear arms reduction that would decrease the possibility of a terrorist group obtaining the materials necessary to construct and detonate an unconventional nuclear device. Any emplacement of a national missile defense system violates a 1972 anti ballistic missile treaty, banning all development of national missile defenses. President Bush claims “that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty is irrelevant, the agreement continues to stabilize the strategic nuclear balance and does not impede research and early development of national missile defense systems planned in the near future” (The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Arms 2). Many feel that this treaty is vital to maintain our current stability, a former U.S. legal advisor for the Nixon Administration’s ABM Treaty negotiation team says “The ABM Treaty remains essential to arms control as well as nuclear non-proliferation because it promotes stability and facilitates offensive nuclear weapons reductions. We must work with Russia, China, and others to accomplish our global security goals and not act unilaterally” (The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Arms 2). This treaty in the foundation of our safety we would be putting ourselves at risk as well as our allies if we were to violate the terms of the agreement. The risk of the consequences we would face from developing a national missile defense system would be overwhelming, with the perceived safety of being able to defend from a small-scale nuclear attack being a very small advantage in comparison. The fear of a single nuclear missile attack from a rogue nation is a strong motivation to proceed with the development of a national missile defense. . If the United States were able to develop an accurately working national missile defense system the results would be ineffective and counterproductive. While there is no single solution to our current threat of nuclear war we should not allow for the national missile defense system to put at risk all that we have obtained to this point. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Munich Conference on European Security Policy. Germany: Munich, 2001. *http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010203-secdef.htm*. Nuclear Experts Say Bush Missile Plan Will Decrease Overall Security: Urge action on Missile Defense Reductions and Nuclear ‘Stand-Down’. 1 May 2001The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Arms. 18 June 2001 *http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/rel050101.htm*. Bibliography: Word Count: 929
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests