|
The issue of a national missile defense (NMD) system has received some attention in the Tartan
over the past month. Regrettably, both
Damian Olesnycky's jingoistic paean to America as military 500 pound gorilla
("NMD Program Deserves US Development," 29 Jan), and David Anderson's
more realistic, though ultimately flawed assessment ("Look at the
Options," 5 Feb) fail to reveal the true motivation of NMD
proponents: the wholesale exchange of
political influence for monetary contributions from the military-industrial
complex.
Advocates of the
NMD argue that the technological challenges of missile defense are within
reasonable grasp. Comparisons are drawn to our much-vaunted space program and
the gains it made during the moon race.
The comparison is valid in that the science involved is fairly well
understood, but the technology is lacking.
But followers of this analogy rarely compare the 10-year deployment time
of NMD proposals to the NASA studies of the 60’s that declared manned missions
to Mars could happen by the early 70's. (I've never been prouder of the USA
than the day the stars and stripes were planted on the red planet.)
As in the space
programs, testing is an essential component of the NMD project. But the long history of failed trials dating
back to the LEAP tests of the early 90s appears to indicate only that the $60
billion (in 1999 dollars) spent on research between 1985 and 1999 couldn’t
create a system capable of working in even the simplest simulations. Even more telling, these trials failed to
address the basic unpredictability of enemy engagement. These challenges are in stark contrast with
the challenges met by our early space program – a program that contended with
environments that were hostile but not malicious. While the concerned NASA policy-maker might be dissuaded from
risking the lives of astronauts on unreliable systems against unpredictable
assays, NMD backers can afford a more cavalier attitude, since protecting
millions of American citizens is only the nominal intent of the
system. NMD proponents benefit most
from continued funding, and by their argument, sub-par performance in missile
trials is the strongest evidence that more research is required.
This rhetorical tactic has been extant since
Reagan's Star-Wars Defense Initiative boondoggle.
Given these
technical infeasibilities, it is unlikely that the NMD would pose a greater
deterrent than the existing threat of unilateral assured destruction, as
Anderson pointed out. Additionally, as
Anderson postulated, and as Hitler demonstrated at Maginot, enemy attack is
unlikely to be cast directly at highly advertised defenses. It is more likely that future attacks
against the United States will incorporate newer weapons with more efficient
deployment. There is little advantage
for a terrorist in spending millions on development of a feasible nuclear
warhead and delivery system when a tenth of a gram of powdered anthrax (sent
undetectably through the mails) can transform the average metropolis into a
necropolis in a matter of days. While
the image of nuclear holocaust is potent for those that remember the Cold War,
we live in different times. When it
should use diplomacy, America is instead continuing its tradition of employing
military strength where it is politically weak, hoping, in the words of
Chairman Mao, that "political power grows out of the barrel of a
gun."
Besides, diplomacy
doesn't have the sheer sex appeal of X-ray lasers in space – or the opportunity
to funnel billions in public dollars into the coffers of defense
contractors. The defense sector
contributed at least $14 million in traceable funds to both parties this
election cycle (OpenSecrets.org). It is
no surprise then that there is bi-partisan support for the NMD, with the
Republicans (receiving approximately 65% of defense contributions according to
FEC data) slightly more enthusiastic on the issue than the Democrats. Even in
those alternate universes where the Supreme Court did not select our President
for us, President of the Alternate United States Al Gore supports the NMD, as
did his predecessor. Clinton’s system
may be deployed in this universe as early as 2006 – with lifetime operational
costs exceeding $50 billion. Contacting your elected representatives in
Congress is likely to be as futile as voting; you will save time by sending a
check for your share of the $50 billion (about $200) directly to the defense
contractor of your choice.
The CMU Progressive Student Alliance will be sponsoring a petition against the
NMD, as well as tracking the progress of a lawsuit filed against Boeing and TRW
for fraud in development of the NMD.
steven e. pav is a graduate student in mathematics.
|
