July 28, 2004 :: News
Writing for the Slate online magazine, Fred Kaplan comments on the recent installment of the first missile defense interceptor in Alaska, and argues that, despite common sense to the contrary, some defense is indeed worse than none. The subheading to Kaplan’s article is the following: “What’s the optimal number of anti-missile missiles? None.”
Such arguments for the merits of vulnerability enjoyed some measure of plausibility during the Cold War, when only the Soviet Union and China had nuclear armed ICBMs. Kaplan’s updating of the arguments, however, show their absurdity, as he argues that the deployment will only “provoke” North Korea into producing more nuclear weapons and more long range missiles. The Federation of American Scientists, long known for their opposition to all things missile defense, praises Kaplan’s argument by name.
What these arguments ignore, however, is that North Korea and Iran will continue their best efforts regardless of whether or not the United States does anything about it. If North Korea should respond to the initial deployment of ten missile interceptors with, say, 12 long range missiles, the United States should deploy an additional 10. This is an arms race we can win, and we should not be afraid to do so. (Article)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea
