|
|
Leave Europe, Russia and the ABM Treaty in the Cold
Unilateral installation of missile defense is a must for the US
By Jeff Brewer
[email protected]
6/14/2001
"Effective measures to limit antiballistic-missile systems would be a substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms and would lead to a decrease in the risk of outbreak of war involving nuclear weapons." The previous utopian premise, which was the basis for the implementation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) way back in 1972, has been proven false after nearly thirty years. Certainly the world has avoided nuclear confrontation, but the misguided, illogical, unreasonable ABM treaty had nothing to do with it. Credit for sidestepping a nuclear holocaust goes to Mutually Assured Destruction employed by God-fearing Ronald Reagan and pragmatic humanists formerly running the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, the great tax-cutter and patriot is living out his days unawares, and thankfully, the Russian commies have been temporarily muzzled. The Cold War is long over and that terrible but highly effective suicide doctrine known more affectionately by its acronym, MAD, is not really applicable in this day and age.
I won�t get into the popular mantra being batted back and forth by the experts that says the real threats now in this post-Cold War world are the rogue third-worlders in Asia and the impassioned Islamic republics comprising the Middle East, except to say that this analysis is an accurate assessment of the present geopolitical landscape. The question now becomes how does the United States protect itself and even our allies from the likes of a renegade Muslim terrorist or a crazed, anti-American East Asian Bolshevik eager to try out his new ballistic missile toys against us?
For starters, discard the ABM treaty. Never has an agreement so handcuffed its signatories and prevented sovereign nations from defending their own citizens and consequently ensuring accelerated arms proliferation to account for treaty-mandated defenselessness. How dare the United States and the Soviet Union want to protect their respective peoples from nuclear annihilation. The notion is absurd, and runs against common sense. Moreover, it didn�t achieve (predictably) what its preamble aimed to do, which was "curbing the race in strategic offensive arms." On the contrary, with both the USSR and the U.S. knowing of the others vulnerability, the two sides were ostensibly free to destroy the other with the knowledge that the other couldn�t defend itself. Hence the need for SALT II, START I & II and various other non-proliferation attempts.
And even if we allow that the treaty was good policy, and that American and Soviet adherence was desirable, enforcing compliance was a lost cause. During treaty negotiations, the U.S. was concerned about Soviet ability to upgrade their extensive SAM systems to give them ABM capabilities. Article VI of the agreement supposedly "remedied" the American concern with a caveat that expressly prohibited non-ABM systems, such as SAMs, from having "capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles" or from being "tested in an ABM mode." But as documents and records that have recently come to light show, the Soviets didn�t abide by the rules; indeed, they developed missile defenses while honest, yet na�ve American policy makers adhered to the ABM treaty. American intelligence gathering has proven this.
Living by the treaty also weds us to an agreement whose other signatory doesn�t even exist now. Russia hasn�t had to abide by the ABM pact since the dissolution of the USSR in 1990-91. Yet the United States is expected to continue compliance with the agreement. And more than that, does anyone else think Iran or Iraq or North Korea abides by the treaty�s dictates? Missile defense proponents have hammered this point for years now, but the point must be continually made because liberals don�t seem to be listening.
And because they aren�t listening, our enemies are able to arm themselves to the proverbial tooth with ICBM�s, while the U.S. sits defenseless against missile attack. Until missile defense deployment is a reality, American intelligence gatherers must be equipped to counter and even check the widespread proliferation of nukes and delivery systems. That means the CIA and the NSA must be funded to the hilt so they are able to cover the globe intercepting thuggish intentions before they are hellishly hatched by anti-American punks. This necessitates a more vigorous covert actions effort to agitate and weaken foes abroad, and ideally stop any attempts to nuke or otherwise attack the United States.
Covert actions are an integral part of a formidable and comprehensive defensive security strategy. The ability and willingness to successfully undertake covert action renders other elements of national security sustainable. Clandestine operations enable American policy makers, operating without the luxury of missile defense, to check hostile actions before they happen without having to trot out the United States military. Secret intelligence collection often times can serve as a means to illuminate to the world the fiendish intent of a communist rogue or a Muslim extremist about to shower a particular region or even the world in radiation. Reality tells us that Russia and China are so taken with the selling of arms to anyone able to pony up the cash, that the CIA�s ability to counter the acquisition of missiles by America�s enemies is essential as America�s first line of defense. Interdictory covert actions are preemptive measures that, sadly, provide the best means of defending our people -- so long as we are without missile defense.
And seeing as the task before the CIA is daunting, we must finally develop and deploy missile defense. We need land, sea and space based defenses, as well as air-to-air means of downing incoming missiles. We need missile defense regardless of what Russia, China, the EU, NATO or anyone else says. We need the protection because our Constitution demands it. Recall that line in there about "providing for the common defense"? It doesn�t state, "provide for the common defense only if other nations agree." Despite the baseless, illogical out-of-date protests of elitists, socialists and communists operating in places like Moscow or Beijing or London or Paris or Geneva or even New York City and Washington D.C., Americans must have sufficient protection from nuclear strikes be they from Russia, China, Iraq or anyone else because it�s in our best interest. How can anyone be against protecting our citizens from nuclear destruction? Only those people and nations that have intentions of lobbing bombs onto U.S. soil and want to do so unimpeded.
There also seems to be a race of liberal politicians that don�t really care about American sovereignty and defense of Americans. That�s as simple as it gets. Because the notion that missile defense will somehow result in a renewed arms race is just plain silly and provably false. The absence of defensive systems encourages arms races. Just look at the years following the enactment of the ABM Treaty; unfettered proliferation by the U.S. and USSR. Both sides had no other choice since they were forbidden to develop defenses.
Use the example of basketball to illustrate the ridiculous logic of the treaty. If you gave two NBA teams 48 minutes to play a game, but then said that neither team could play any defense, what do you think both teams would do in order to win the game? Each team will increase offensive production by scoring every time down the court in a race to score as many points as possible. This is by and large what the ABM treaty told the Soviets and Americans to go and do. Without the additional deterrence of a defensive system, both sides continue to prepare for the total defeat of the other.
So let�s take this message to our friends and foes alike and persuade them with reason and logic as to why research must be undertaken so that we can develop a workable missile defense system as soon as possible. If we don�t, the liberals will continue to delay testing and deployment by claiming the system is unworkable. Never mind the FACT that the system is unworkable at present and will continue to be until the Congress funds research and development adequate to meet the demands of such a system! We�ve taken people to the moon; we�ve developed surface to air missiles capable of knocking down projectiles (admittedly jets going much slower). The technology is there, and only requires a concerted effort on the part of our government to push the task to its completion.
|