Maginot Line?
I don't think the comparison is quite as accurate as you would like to believe.
For one, the maginot line was a static defense that only existed on the immediate border between France and Germany, leaving the Belgium and Holland borders nearly unfortified. This gap permitted the entire German army to flank the Maginot line, rendering it useless.
A ballistic missile defense is not static. It can be projected to cover all nations, not just the US. It creates an alternative to the long-standing policy of mutually assured destruction. It will be deployed not only from missile sites in the US, but also through naval assets that can circuit the globe to trouble spots and extend its umbrella of protection over our allies.
Will it stop all incoming missiles? Who knows? It really doesn't matter because few nations would wish to test the premise.
As it currently stands, nothing prevents the use of nuclear weapons (or other WMDs) between nations (like Pakistan and India) except their own form of M.A.D. After all, what would be the US response to a nuclear attack against one of its allies... nuking the nation that launched it and putting US cities at risk?
Hardly... But that is effectively what our current policy is... that we'll massively retaliate against any nation that uses WMDs against us, or one of our allies. But you and I realize that the US will be completely unwilling to risk a nuclear attack against one of our cities in order to extract revenge for the bombing of someone else's city.
But should the US extend its missile defense protection over allies, it would effectively render nuclear proliferation a futile affair because few nations can afford to build enough nuclear weapons to overload the defense system with any confidence.
As for suitcase bombs... hey.. we have them too. We also have stealthy aircraft that can deliver these SpecOps teams with relative impunity to a target site. We also have the leading research in biological weaponry and could feasibly retaliate in kind were we so inclined (but I believe we would use a nuclear response instead).
The bottom line is that with missile defense, the US retains the initiative in global affairs and keeps any rivals (including Europe) in line. This is what we've done since the US formed the UN in 1947, lead the way...
What "we are after" is maximum flexibility in political and military response. Missile defense will offer a level of international deterrence previously unseen.
And since few nations are willing, or capable of, building their own missile defence, nor are they willing to expend the resources necessary on building hundreds of missiles to penetrate it with any degree of confidence, it becomes a "fait accompli" that helps to remove this "sword of damocles" that's currently hovering over humanity.
As for your cancer cures... they are likely right on the horizons. Speak to the FDA. Plenty of money going into that sector. But the best cure for cancer is not engaging in activities that encourage, or cause, it to occur in the first place.
Hawk |
