NEWSROOM
Commentary Articles
In The News
News Releases
Experts



Media Inquiries

Kim Cloidt
Director of Marketing & Communications
(510) 632-1366 x116
(202) 725-7722 (cell)
Send Email

Robert Ade
Communications Manager
(510) 632-1366 x114
Send Email


Subscribe



Commentary
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook

Contribute
Your participation will advance liberty. Join us as an Independent Institute member.



Contact Us
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428

510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
Send us email


Interested in working with us?  Click here for more information.

Commentary

Missile Defense Erodes Security


     
 Print 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to withdraw from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. According to Putin, “[NATO countries] are...building up military bases on our borders and, more than that, they are also planning to station elements of anti–missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.” The principal accomplishment of the CFE Treaty has been the large–scale reduction or destruction of conventional military equipment to ensure a military balance of conventional forces between East and West from the Atlantic to the Urals. As such, it is intended to provide an unprecedented basis for lasting European security and stability.

According to the Bush administration, missile defense is intended to protect against the threat of so–called rogue states—none of which currently have the long–range ballistic missile capability to attack the United States (although some might be able to reach parts of Europe). But if missile defense is not needed to defend against rogue states who do not have the capability to attack America, is missile defense primarily about defending the U.S. homeland, or is it intended to support U.S. interventionist policy using military force—including preventive war—throughout the world?

The rationale for missile defense put forward by its advocates is often a “doom and gloom” picture: America and its citizens are defenseless against the threat of ballistic missiles, and missile defense is supposed to protect the American people. Yet the administration’s vision of missile defense is more than a system that protects the United States against long–range missiles, but a global system capable of engaging all classes of ballistic missiles to protect U.S. forces deployed worldwide, U.S. allies, and other friendly countries. That rationale extends the purpose of missile defense well beyond protecting America and Americans, and bolsters the administration’s case for placing some components of a missile defense system in Europe.

Pursuing such an expansive global missile defense to support a strategy of empire would be not only expensive and technically difficult and complex—indeed, building any missile defense system will be the most technically complex and challenging weapon system ever—but downright dangerous.

Ultimately, the real rationale for missile defense is to protect U.S. forces so they can engage in military intervention throughout the world to enforce a Pax Americana—a strategy of empire by another name. But such a strategy ignores the obvious: the result will be increased resentment of and animosity toward what is perceived by the rest of the world as an imperialist America.

To the extent that a missile defense is technically feasible, proven to be operationally effective (via realistic testing, including against decoys and countermeasures), and affordable (none of which has been adequately demonstrated), a limited land–based ballistic missile defense system designed to protect the U.S. homeland makes sense as an insurance policy against the low likelihood of an accidental or unauthorized launch by a nuclear power, or if deterrence were to fail against a rogue state which eventually acquires long–range ballistic missile capability.

But it is not the responsibility of the United States to protect friends and allies, especially when many of them are wealthy enough to pay for their own missile defense if they think it’s important for their own security. And a missile system to defend against rogue states that do not directly threaten the United States is certainly not worth unnecessarily antagonizing the Russian bear and jeopardizing European security.

Finally, any missile defense, no matter how effective, will not protect Americans from terrorists using easier and cheaper means to inflict mass casualties—witness 9/11. And not building a missile defense for directly supporting and promoting a U.S. interventionist policy would demonstrate the recognition that, since terrorist attacks are virtually impossible to deter, prevent, or mitigate, U.S. security would be better served by avoiding unnecessary military deployments and interventions that fuel the flames of vehement anti–American sentiment.


Charles Peña is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, former senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project.






Home | About Us | Blogs | Issues | Newsroom | Multimedia | Events | Publications | Centers | Students | Store | Donate

Product Catalog | RSS | Jobs | Course Adoption | Links | Privacy Policy | Site Map
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook
Copyright 2014 The Independent Institute