June 24, 2006 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
Rich Lowry, editor of
National Review, argues that missile defense can be a “stabilizing force” rather than a “destabilizing” one, as critics often claim. In the context a possible North Korean long-range missile test, missile defense is itself a kind of deterrence, for it provides the North Korean leadership with good reason not to launch. “If a Kim Jong-il knows that a launch against the U.S. might not even succeed but risks calling down a devastating response, he would be that much less likely to try in the first place,” writes Lowry. “Just as importantly, by rendering his nuclear arsenal less reliable, missile defense limits Kim’s ability to deter and/or coerce the U.S. (from attacking him in the first instance and into giving him aid in the second).” It is ironic, he adds, that those who oppose missile defense, including two top Clinton-administration defense officials, are now advocating a preemptive U.S. strike against the North Korean launch site. Such a strike would be an act of war against a sovereign state. “It is passing strange that liberals should want our only option in the event of a nuclear missile attack from North Korea or another rogue state to be absorbing the blow, then annihilating the offending country,” he writes.
(Article)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea
