SDI or not?
By Staff
Craig Ziemba is a pilot who lives in Meridian.
President Bush's decision to begin deploying the Strategic Defense shield (SDI) to protect our nation from nuclear missiles launched from northeast Asia was harshly criticized not only by North Korea but also by China and Russia.
Opponents of the missile shield both at home and abroad accused America of militarizing space and escalating the arms race. But is their opposition reasonable?
For 30 years, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty barred the United States and Russia from deploying defensive anti-missile systems. Through the Cold War, this ridiculous policy of mutually assured destruction kept both nuclear superpowers in check.
Today, Russia and the United States no longer hold a gun to each other's heads, but several other unpredictable nations have developed silver bullets of their own and are flexing their newly acquired muscles. If this doesn't concern you, it should.
Defensive system
Why would nations like North Korea with the capability to launch inter-continental ballistic missiles at the United States be upset that we have a purely defensive system capable of saving millions of American lives in the event of a nuclear missile attack? If they didn't intend us harm, why would they care?
When President Bush unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty last year and announced plans to begin deploying a missile shield to protect our population from nuclear holocaust, he was castigated as a warmonger. Apparently those with the ability to kill millions of our citizens don't want the United States to be able to knock their missiles harmlessly out of the sky before they reach our shores. "No fair," they cry.
Let's make sure we all understand this: The North Koreans want to be able to launch a nuclear missile at the United States without us having the ability to stop it. That makes about as much sense as drug dealers demanding that policemen stop wearing bullet-proof vests and crying foul when they refuse.
If your enemy asks you to drop your shield, tell him to drop dead.
In addition to the unreasonable arguments of those who prefer that we remain vulnerable to attack, many other critics of strategic missile defense contend that we shouldn't deploy the system because it isn't perfect yet.
Tests
During testing over the Pacific Ocean, three out of eight incoming missiles made it through the defensive umbrella. In other words, five out of eight large cities would have been saved from annihilation during that wave of attacks.
Hypothetical residents of the cities that were saved may think that's better than 0 for 8.
No weapon system is perfect. Designing and testing new aircraft, missiles and submarines take years, and even after they are fielded, they are constantly updated and modified to improve their capabilities. At some point in the development phase, the president and the Pentagon must determine the trade off between weapon system perfection and practicality based upon the threat posed by our enemies.
Defending our nation from harm is the primary responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, and President Bush acted wisely by ordering the deployment of Strategic Defense.
As a member of the military, I am encouraged to see a leader take political heat for doing what's right for a change. Sitting on our hands while North Korea aims nukes at the United States isn't an option.
