May 17, 2004 :: Analysis
An op-ed piece by a Lawrence S. Wittner repeats a tired criticism of missile defense efforts, that it is a “Maginot Line in the sky.” In other words, try our very best, it is impossible to stop a ballistic missile attack, and thus we should not even try.
The response to this analogy is quite simple. There is nothing wrong with border defenses, so long as they are better constructed and defend the whole of one’s territory. The problem with France’s Maginot Line is not that it tried to achieve too much security, but that it did not do enough. Thus Germany took advantage of France’s naive hope that the Black Forest was impenetrable, and thus circumvented the Maginot Line.
But one should not lose sight of the fact that it was not without good reason that France constructed border defenses. Germany still had to employ a great deal of difficulty and ingenuity in order to invade. Of course, France would have been better to extend the Maginot line still further around its border—not because it would be a perfect solution, but because it would render any invasion by Germany more difficult. Of course, even with broader defenses, one can never put complete faith in any one line of defenses; there is no perfect state of security.
But the fact that no technological innovation is impregnable applies to both ballistic missiles and ballistic missile defenses. One must do what one can to construct the best defense possible. To learn from the lessons of the past is not to capitulate, but that one cannot rest with a half-hearted defense. To put forward only a half-hearted missile defense and then do nothing more would be to forget the lesson of the Maginot line. But to do nothing is even worse, to preemptively offer surrender to anyone who wishes to accept it. (Article)
» More stories on: Analysis
