August 7, 2008

Missilethreat.com

IWG Report 2007

  
Independent Working Group Report: Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century.  »»

Search


Search MissileThreat.com or go directly to a list of authors, or news by date or subject.

Home :: News Archive

Print This

NYT Swipes at Missile Defense

October 10, 2004 :: New York Times :: Analysis

An editorial in today’s New York Times attacks the missile defense system soon to be deployed as “exorbitantly wasteful,” and having as its primary aim, base political objectives, namely reelection.
        The Times admits there is a threat: “There is no disputing the idea that North Korea or some other rogue nation might someday present a nuclear missile threat.” Yet the Times recites the tired argument that deployment is undesirable unless it can be perfect, and that, barring perfection, deployment constitutes a “rush” towards a “faith-based” defense.
        The Pentagon argues that the testing has been adequate, and that more testing is on the way. Indeed, the Alaska system was designed by the Clinton administration and is now being implemented as a “test bed,” a location from which further, more realistic, tests will be conducted. If it is indisputable that a rogue nation will soon pose a missile threat to the U.S., just how long are we supposed to wait before actually doing something about it?
        Of course, the most “realistic” test would involve an actual attack on America by a ballistic missile. Had such an attack already taken place, the issue would be moot, and the political parties tripping over each other about who would more quickly deploy a robust defense, to prevent such an attack from ever taking place again.
        Barring the clarity of hindsight which catastrophe can bring, it remains all too easy to drone on irresponsibly, looking for this or that reason to delay deployment in favor of more “research and development.” The testing argument is not now, and has never been, the central question in the missile defense debate. Were there a glut of superfluous testing, the opponents of missile defense would effortlessly shift to another objection.
        To be clear: if more testing is needed, more testing should be done. But there is no satisfactory argument for prolonging one minute longer our decades long vulnerability to missile attack.  (Article)

Home :: News Archive

 

Powered by eResources.com