'Star Wars' and the Phantom Menace
By Mark Thompson/Washington
Time
Perhaps it is fitting that the 25th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech falls on Easter Sunday. After all, many had believed Reagan's grand plan for a system that would render Moscow's nuclear-tipped missiles "impotent and obsolete" died along with the Soviet Union. But "Star Wars" has been resurrected, and has been standing guard over America's skies since 2004. But the more than $120 billion spent over 25 years to build the "Star Wars" missile shield has not left the U.S. less vulnerable to attack — some would argue that it has done exactly the opposite, by diverting resources away from dealing with more urgent and plausible threats.
Those who fear a missile strike on the American mainland from North Korea or Iran — not that either is anywhere close to achieving such capability — the investment in a missile shield, even one whose efficacy is far from clearly established, may seem worthwhile. To those who believe the more salient and insidious threats are those of the type we experienced on 9/11, this shield against a handful of rogue missiles represents an unfortunate diversion of funds that could be used far more effectively to defend the U.S.
The growing consensus among national-security professionals is that a deadly weapon targeting the U.S. is far more likely to be delivered hidden in a shipping container than in the warhead of an intercontinental ballistic missile. But the $10 billion a year the Pentagon devotes to missile defenses is almost twice the amount the U.S. spends on defending the nation's borders and ports from smuggled weapons.
The nation "continues to assign a higher priority to programs designed to confront conventional military threats, such as ballistic missiles," says terror expert Stephen Flynn, "than [to] unconventional threats, such as a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into the United States by a ship, train, truck or even private jet." The same logic led the country to spend 20 times more, last year, on protecting military bases than on safeguarding the infrastructure of U.S. cities. "We essentially are hardening military bases," Flynn told Congress recently, "and making civilian assets more attractive, softer targets for our adversaries."
(Continued here.)
Time
Perhaps it is fitting that the 25th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech falls on Easter Sunday. After all, many had believed Reagan's grand plan for a system that would render Moscow's nuclear-tipped missiles "impotent and obsolete" died along with the Soviet Union. But "Star Wars" has been resurrected, and has been standing guard over America's skies since 2004. But the more than $120 billion spent over 25 years to build the "Star Wars" missile shield has not left the U.S. less vulnerable to attack — some would argue that it has done exactly the opposite, by diverting resources away from dealing with more urgent and plausible threats.
Those who fear a missile strike on the American mainland from North Korea or Iran — not that either is anywhere close to achieving such capability — the investment in a missile shield, even one whose efficacy is far from clearly established, may seem worthwhile. To those who believe the more salient and insidious threats are those of the type we experienced on 9/11, this shield against a handful of rogue missiles represents an unfortunate diversion of funds that could be used far more effectively to defend the U.S.
The growing consensus among national-security professionals is that a deadly weapon targeting the U.S. is far more likely to be delivered hidden in a shipping container than in the warhead of an intercontinental ballistic missile. But the $10 billion a year the Pentagon devotes to missile defenses is almost twice the amount the U.S. spends on defending the nation's borders and ports from smuggled weapons.
The nation "continues to assign a higher priority to programs designed to confront conventional military threats, such as ballistic missiles," says terror expert Stephen Flynn, "than [to] unconventional threats, such as a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into the United States by a ship, train, truck or even private jet." The same logic led the country to spend 20 times more, last year, on protecting military bases than on safeguarding the infrastructure of U.S. cities. "We essentially are hardening military bases," Flynn told Congress recently, "and making civilian assets more attractive, softer targets for our adversaries."
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home