In an era of extremely limited military budgets, thanks to Bush's number one priority, tax cuts, it hardly seems a worthwhile first priority.
Well that all depends on what you're trying to accomplish, deterrence of war, or preparing to fight one.
Deterrence is based upon a series of political calculations that are made by the respective parties. Having a large and highly trained and equipped military is quite an asset for fighting a way, but it won't necessarily prevent another nation from provoking you into a war (such as China threatening to nuke LA over Taiwan).
However, were China to understand that the US can neutralize their own nuclear forces, rendering them completely defenseless to a massive retaliatory strike, they would probably be less willing to engage in extreme brinksmanship, let alone conventional military adventures.
Furthermore, missile defense would create a situation where China would have to dedicate incredible resources towards creating its own defense system. Either that, or dedicating massive resources towards building hundreds of missiles, which they simply can't afford to do.
If folks will recall, the Reagan build-up and the futile Russian attempt to keep up led to its downfall. Missile defense, at its least, forces China to dedicate economic resources that it can ill afford to spend on military arms.
And spend those resources on strategic programs, not tactical ones such as building their navy, air force, or army. They will have to build missiles they will never use, or a defense shield of their own.
This is probably one of the most important reasons for building a missile defense. It keeps your rivals/adversaries on the defensive and responding to your initiatives, rather than the other way around.
And missile defense is expensive, but no more so than building a fleet of B-2 bombers that might suddenly find themselves rendered "non-stealthy" by a simple inexpensive cellular phone network used as a detection system.
Hawk |
