A Missile Defense System

"I don't see what is so bad about a missile defense system. We have a couple setup now in Alaska and California (note there are a couple in Calf. and a couple in Alaska). There are bases in Russia too. Also, they have new bases planned to be built in Poland/Czech Republic, Boston, Greenland, more in Alaska." The missile defense system is still considered experimental by the US government. While there are "a couple" set up now, they are not established and operating to be able to directly ward off a nuclear threat. America's attempts at establishing a missile system are harmful to the security of the US because of the: 1)Great publicity given to any projects involving the expansion of the STAR or missile defense programs. a)Any developments are made public and available to both America's allies and enemies. An incomplete missile defense program would expedite enemy WMD and nuclear programs, similar to the effect that the USSR and US space programs had on one another to compete for superiority. b)Despite any significant developments that may come in the future, it is unknown whether missile defense could actually work. "It is real simple, a country like North Korea, deploys a nuclear bomb headed for New York. A military base in Alaska detetcs it on a radar. Now we can evacuate New York City and shoot off defence missile. That missile can unarm or blow it up before it ever reaches the US coast. Our next step is to deploy missiles into that nation (but that is another debate)" This argument is severely flawed. It assumes that there is an imminent nuclear threat, which is entirely untrue. On July 4 2006 NK tested its tae-pae-dong II missile that has the capability of launching a nuclear warhead to the US, but only to as far as California. Regardless, the test failed as the missile exploded in the sky. So not only does NK not pose a threat to call for a missile program, but also, if its technology were functional, an attack on NYC is entirely unrealistic. If NK COULD fire a missile to reach California, this would allot much less time to detect and shoot the missile out of the sky. The missile defense tests have only proven effective if the US were given significant time to react and had a direct course of fire to eliminate the missile. Let's assume that the US develops an effective missile defense system by the year 2020, which is a generously early estimate. Between today and January 1 2020, enemies of the United States will be aware of America developing a capable and functional missile defense program and have the opportunity to attack before the US can defend itself or refocus its efforts to detonating a nuclear weapon on the ground, not in the sky. Michael O'Hanlon in his book "Defense Strategy for the Post-Saddam Era" warns of the ties between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations, saying that Iran and Syria can use terrorist organizations in its efforts against the US by supplying them with weapons and nuclear capabilities while keeping their own people out of danger. So, while the US may protect itself from international threats, it will lose its security on the ground. "Without a system like that, New York City would be blown to pieces. OUr biggest city, the world's biggest market gone just like that. You can't rebuild it, It will just be like that for a while." With or without the system, it's not going to happen any time soon. Russia can't reach NYC either, regardless of which way across the globe the nuclear missile is deployed. "The argument will be made that it cost too much. So? does it really matter what it cost if it's a matter of national security. What is a few dollars more in taxes?" The cost is astronomical. You propose that taxes must be risen to pay for the project. That is a severe underestimation. The US government already has such a large budget deficit that it must borrow money from other countries, depreciating the dollar to the minute value that it holds today. Adding another great cost to the budget without cutting other projects would call for the rollback of the Bush Tax cuts AND require the US to borrow even more money. The US has refocused its efforts, dating back to 1983 when Reagan began to push the missile defense project forward, from a Soviet Union threatening the US to fighting the War on Terror against rogue states and terrorist organizations who pose a grave threat to the US on the grassroots level.