> The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | July 20, 2001 > Visit <http://www.claremont.org> | | No. 289 > > Claremont Institute Precepts: America is Worth Defending > By Thomas Krannawitter and Brian Kennedy > > So, it's possible to hit a bullet with a bullet after all. > > Late last Saturday night, the Pentagon launched a missile > from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California equipped with > a mock warhead and a decoy to evade detection in space. > Minutes later the missile was targeted and destroyed 144 > miles above the earth by a "hit-to-kill" interceptor fired > from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. This wasn't > the first or the last test of missile defense technology. > But it reaffirmed what American scientists proved over 40 > years ago: We can shoot down ballistic missiles aimed at > the United States. > > Knowing this, what are we to make of congressional liberals > who continue to oppose missile defense? Surely they agree > America is worth defending, don't they? > > Liberals offer three basic arguments against building a > missile defense system. The first is silly; the second > dishonest; the third anachronistic. All three aim to disarm > America. > > First, liberals say missile defense won't work. Saturday's > success suggests otherwise. True, several recent tests have > failed. But those failures represented nothing but a lack > of quality control within the Clinton Pentagon. In one > case, the first stage of an interceptor rocket didn't > separate from the second stage as planned -- a problem > rocket scientists solved in the 1950s. > > At any rate, correcting problems and improving technology > is precisely why we test things. To say something cannot > be done because a couple of tests failed is, well, silly. > Imagine telling the Wright brothers after their first > couple of crashes that it is impossible for man to fly. > > And it should not be overlooked that this form of missile > defense -- hitting an enemy warhead with a hit-to-kill > interceptor -- is far more challenging technologically than > the system of space-based lasers and interceptors the U.S. > has spent billions of dollars researching. > > Second, liberal critics say we can't afford missile > defense, that social spending is a higher priority. Here > liberals are particularly disingenuous. The Bush > Administration's proposed missile defense budget may amount > to a modest 2% to 3% of the total annual defense budget, or > roughly $8 billion. Americans spend more than that on > pornography and prostitution in any given year. Further, > even the most strident opponents of missile defense vote > consistently to support missile defense research to the > tune of tens of billions of dollars, as they don't want to > appear soft on national security. > > Third, liberals think missile defense unnecessary because > of two outdated relics of the Cold War: The theory of > Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) -- which suggested the > most stable relations among nuclear countries happens when > each maintains a powerful offensive strike force, but no > defense capability, ensuring that any nation that launches > a nuclear first strike must absorb a similar strike in > return, thereby deterring all nations from using nuclear > weapons -- and the 1972 ABM Treaty that forbade the > construction of national missile defenses. > > With the end of the Cold War, however, the public now knows > from Soviet scholar William T. Lee that the Soviets > deployed a national missile defense, with some 9,000 anti > missile interceptors placed around Moscow, in clear > violation of the ABM Treaty, and with little concern for > the theoretical posturing required by MAD. While American > liberals patted themselves on the back for obstructing > American missile defense development, the Soviets gained a > strategic advantage over the U.S. Today, the Soviet-era > anti-missile system protects 70 percent of Russia's > population, while Americans remain defenseless. > > More alarming, liberals downplay nuclear proliferation > among Third World countries. The Communist Chinese possess > some 30 ICBMs capable of hitting the United States. Why > should we trust China, North Korea, Iran, or Iraq -- brutal > dictatorships that place a low premium on human life -- to > refrain from using their nuclear arsenals against America? > And if these countries have no plan to use them, why are > they pouring what little resources they have into nuclear > missile technology? > > Unlike liberals in Congress, most Americans think it > important to defend ourselves against missile attacks as > best we can. But the greatest obstacle we face is > ignorance: Recent surveys show that more than half of > Americans believe we already possess a national missile > defense. The reality is that we cannot stop one missile > from destroying a U.S. city today. Americans need to > understand our current vulnerability, and support the > effort to protect our citizens. > > Thomas Krannawitter is Director of Academic Programs at the > Claremont Institute. > > Brian Kennedy is Vice President of the Claremont Institute. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Copyright (c) 2001 The Claremont Institute > > To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/1_precepts.cfm , or e-mail us at [email protected] . > To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at [email protected] . > For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : [email protected] , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org . > Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : [email protected] . > For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at [email protected] or (202) 265-9010. > Author and Claremont Institute attribution are required if used for publication. Please contact [email protected] for Tear Sheet information. > > > The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship > and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American > Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. > > The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont, > CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724 > > > > > >