In a recent appearance on Meet The Press, Sen. John Kerry outlined his opposition to plans for a missile defense system as follows: That they have not been discussed on a mutual basis among nations through the United Nations and related forums, but are being developed unilaterally; that the approach of the Bush administration is provocative to potential adversaries who will respond by committing resources to finding ways around the defense; and that we should not gut the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This, in a capsule, defines the philosophy of the multilateral internationalists as opposed to an internationalism based on American exceptionalism that should be at the heart of American defense policy. An additional objection to a missile defense system has it that we have not yet proven that it works. By this reasoning, John Kennedy was foolish in his 1961 commitment to land a man on the moon. But the most antiquated objection is the defense of the ABM Treaty, a 1972 relic with no legal standing, executed with a regime that no longer exists and which commits us to a porous “arms control” approach to nuclear threats. As usual, Lady Margaret Thatcher has it right: “On this (European) side of the Atlantic, there is a tendency to suggest that the problem of proliferation can be solved by diplomatic means and by control regimes designed to halt the flow of military technology. The possibilities were always much slimmer than the optimists thought. Now they are all but a dead letter.” One source of delay in developing the system is the fear of upsetting Russia and China, the same fear that paralyzed doves during the Cold War. Thanks to the boldness of Reagan, Thatcher, and the now defunct Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, we won that one, remember?
You are here: / / Thoughts On Strategic Defense