December 4, 2003 :: The Economist :: News
The Economist magazine carries a fairly favorable, and faily sound, story on missile defense. While it correctly assesses that the system to be deployed in 2004 does not “make Americans invulnerable,” it does note that it is a step in the right direction.
The Economist sets the right framework for the discussion, namely that missile defenses try to undo the doctrine of mutually assured destruction which allowed politicians to abandon the imperative to provide for the common defense.
At the same time, the magazine notes that common criticisms of the Bush administration’s plans are often ill founded, in part from misconceptions about their relation to more ambitious, but also more effective, outlines of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.
Mr Reagon’s famous exhortation has contributed to two popular misconceptions about America’s current missile-defence effort. One is that it will be based in space; the other is that it will be able to thwart a multiple missile strike by China or Russia.
As for the assessment of the system to be deployed, The Economist calls it “more or less what was proposed by Bill Clinton—whose plans were lambasted for years by Republicans for being insufficiently ambitious,” and cites Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, as quipping that the system should be named after Mr. Clinton, since much of the necessary spending was done on his watch.
(Article)
» More stories on: Policy
