The US perceives itself as the likely target of missile attacks by so-called rogue states, and views the space shield as necessary protection. Nor is the programme a form of destructive isolationism, argues John Bolton, a former assistant secretary of state, in a new Chatham House paper. Instead, missile defence represents a version of the muscular foreign policy practised by Theodore Roosevelt. Unilateralism here is not isolationism but leadership - leadership that is in the interests of other powers. Given the significance of the divide, it is worth considering the sceptics' arguments in turn.
Many European nations feel that diplomacy is the best way to reform nasty regimes.
German invitations have not stopped Tehran from toiling away at an intercontinental ballistic missile that could deliver a several hundred kilogramme payload to parts of the US this decade, according to a 1999 CIA report. Only a few hours after the German visit, Iran bragged that it had successfully test fired its upgraded Shahab missile, which is capable of striking Israel. Nor have US efforts to mellow North Korea ended the latter's work on the Taopodong-2 missile, which may be able to hit Alaska. If you want to stop people from doing something, you should create the impression that it is futile, says Richard Perle, a Bush campaign adviser. This question puts the matter backwards, say the proponents.