Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Common Sense vs. Missile Defence
There’s a big deal these days about how Paul Martin, the Prime Minister (Lite) of Canada, doesn’t approve of George Bush’s proposed Missile Defence Programme (aka Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars).
I hate to say it, but I agree with Mr. Martin on this issue. Perhaps ‘agree’ isn’t the right word. I’m not aware of an expression in English where you agree with someone, but for completely different reasons. Perhaps other cultures have it, or perhaps it’s a decidedly modern idea. Or perhaps that’s what ‘politics’ really means.
I agree with Mr. Martin that the missile defence is a bad idea. Of course, he opposes the weaponisation of space… as though a ballistic missile travelling through the same space somehow isn’t a weapon. He also feels that this will create a new arms race: everyone will be trying to find a weapon to defeat the missile shield. This is absurd, as the missile shield is currently intended to stop a handful of missiles. The technology already exists to defeat it: MORE MISSILES.
However, this is my point: the missile defense isn’t going to work against a bad guy who really wants ‘us’ dead. So why spend the money at all? I’m not privy to the design details nor contractor costs, but surely if the USA has an enemy who would use the requisitely small number of ballistic missiles for the defence to work, it would cost less to simply invade this Rogue Nation than build this system.
As for people not learning from history, I’ve got two words: Maginot Line.
France hoped to pre-empt WW2 by defending against WW1. I’ve seen Saving Private Ryan enough times to know the Maginot Line didn’t work. The Americans are trying to stop the next war by defending against the Cold War.
If I’m not being clear, history has a number: 9/11.
The missile defence would be useless against another such attack. Terrorists are going to strike from within the USA, not from an ocean away. Spend the money where it’s going to prevent all attacks.
If a nation is going to launch an ICBM at the USA, they’re going to have to be invaded anyway. With the Bush Doctrine in place, why wait?
¶ 10:48 PM
I hate to say it, but I agree with Mr. Martin on this issue. Perhaps ‘agree’ isn’t the right word. I’m not aware of an expression in English where you agree with someone, but for completely different reasons. Perhaps other cultures have it, or perhaps it’s a decidedly modern idea. Or perhaps that’s what ‘politics’ really means.
I agree with Mr. Martin that the missile defence is a bad idea. Of course, he opposes the weaponisation of space… as though a ballistic missile travelling through the same space somehow isn’t a weapon. He also feels that this will create a new arms race: everyone will be trying to find a weapon to defeat the missile shield. This is absurd, as the missile shield is currently intended to stop a handful of missiles. The technology already exists to defeat it: MORE MISSILES.
However, this is my point: the missile defense isn’t going to work against a bad guy who really wants ‘us’ dead. So why spend the money at all? I’m not privy to the design details nor contractor costs, but surely if the USA has an enemy who would use the requisitely small number of ballistic missiles for the defence to work, it would cost less to simply invade this Rogue Nation than build this system.
As for people not learning from history, I’ve got two words: Maginot Line.
France hoped to pre-empt WW2 by defending against WW1. I’ve seen Saving Private Ryan enough times to know the Maginot Line didn’t work. The Americans are trying to stop the next war by defending against the Cold War.
If I’m not being clear, history has a number: 9/11.
The missile defence would be useless against another such attack. Terrorists are going to strike from within the USA, not from an ocean away. Spend the money where it’s going to prevent all attacks.
If a nation is going to launch an ICBM at the USA, they’re going to have to be invaded anyway. With the Bush Doctrine in place, why wait?
¶ 10:48 PM
