Topic: National Security
Answer for a Missile-Free World With missile defense, there will be no need for a nuclear deterrent.by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
It is a fact that any nuclear detonation would result in many non-combatant deaths. It could be used as a deterrent threat against civilian populations rather than a known military target. All destruction and lingering radiation violates any representation of a "just war". The answer is so simple that few have realized it gives everything one should want. Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien [OSV | Our Sunday Visitor August 23, 2009 | No nukes] likely knows.
O'Brien realizes if all nuclear missiles are eliminated, mutual destruction becomes a non-issue. Residual radiation, prolonged death, possibility of a second or third response, terrorist or rogue states using stolen technology--everything becomes a thing of the past.
The US currently has the technology to shoot down a missile fired anywhere on the earth, and has the ability to hit a spot on the proverbial bullet with a bullet. The Navy has been trying to keep pace with missile defense by having 73 Aegis ships around the world armed with missile defense capabilities [North Korea, China, U.S., Japan: Missiles, Missile Defense, Naval ...]. They're mobile, they're more numerous than ground-based missiles, but have a particular weakness that ground-based missiles don't have.
The US also has an airborne laser system (ABL). Even though the ABL is considered highly advanced, it is far from science fiction. In actuality the ABL has a proven history of continuous testing achievement. Later this year it will to complete a lethal shoot down of a missile during the boost phase (immediate after launch).
The ABL is also cost effective. As few as seven ABL's could provide a highly mobile and stunningly high tech defense against missile attack. Even with the cutting edge technology that it employs, the annual cost of the ABL is comparable with other large military jets (i.e., AWACS and B-1).
Incredibly no one is killed or injured with the shoot-down of a missile by either method. Any weapon of mass destruction nuclear, gas, or toxin--can be destroyed before it reaches its destination. We will have the delivering address from the exact trajectory, however. It is known that ~30 countries have missile systems that can be used for any desired purpose.
Other nation states, rogue states, and potential terrorist attackers would know that America can shoot down any missile threat at will. No people dead. No one held hostage.
No one will want to spend millions, or billions, on any kind of system that can be blotted from the sky long before it reaches its target destination.
Countries have already asked for assistance from the US for some sort of missile shield. Those countries include Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Japan, and a number of others.
After a successful destruction of a launched missile, countries will likely pay for US technology without having to pay billions for a self-devised system that may not work at all.
According to the Global Security Newswire, the US allegedly has a backlog of 4200 nuclear warheads slated for dismantlement. Include any warheads scheduled for dismantling by the Obama administration, and that job will take a minimum of 15 years. Without a clear price tag, this project could take billions to complete once started.
Already in Defense Secretary Robert Gates' proposed 2010 budget, there are plans for the 44 interceptors in Alaska and California to be reduced to 30 [North Korea's Nuclear Program]. That includes $1.2 billion worth of cuts in missile defense in just 2010. The ABL system is not even on the expenditure radar screen for the current administration.
If the current administration realizes that the present systems will work better than expected, then sharing this technology could eliminate the possibility of missile attack by anyone, anytime.
Trying to determine why a country would not want a "missile shield" against any marauding nation, that no person would be injured or killed, that defense expenditures would likely decrease, that any missiles would likely be sent to the dustbin of history, that more humans could eat more food with the money disappearing for "nukes", that man would take the next step towards a missile-free world, that the clock ticking towards nuclear annihilation would be destroyed must be too much to fathom for the present administration.
As Pope Benedict XVI said about governments that count on nuclear weapons for national security, "One can state that this point of view is not only baneful but completely fallacious. In a nuclear war, there would be no victors, only victims."
Fr. O'Brien's dreams could become a reality. Unfortunately a slight majority actually voted for rule by Obama. This sounds exactly like the answer to nuclear Armageddon, but it can't wait another twenty years.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kevin Roeten only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kevin Roeten is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The timing of your article is interesting as I was thinking of this topic just the other day. I am exactly opposite of where you sit in regards to nukes. I believe that we should no longer involve ourselves in conventional warfare such as in Vietnam, Korea, and the Middle East. I don't believe that the U.S. should meddle in other countries' affairs or attempt to spread "democracy."
I would argue that the majority of people in America and the rest of the world have forgotten the horrors of war. They get to watch the action on TV every night (if the media even deems it important enough to show) and read about it in the papers the next day. As you know, we even have rules for war. Do you know what rules for war do? Rules for war makes war last longer and, possibly, allows more people to die.
If you want wars to stop, you need massive destruction and civilian deaths. I think the America voter might be more hesitant to drop a nuke and killing a million men, women and children, than he is sending in a few soldiers.
Close our bases overseas; stop supporting, protecting, and attacking other nations; and let the world know that any attack on the United States will result in an overwhelming retaliation.
As for our missile defenses, I think they are great and we should certainly employ them to defend our country.
You obviously aren't Catholic, and you seem to have absolutely no knowledge of what a "just war" theory is. I'll bet you haven't been elected to any position either.
Please tell me I'm wrong on this. May God have mercy on your soul...
I was raised catholic. I studied just war in grad school. And, (you'll like this one) I have never run for nor held office.
All I am saying is that this in one way to avoid or stop a war. I am a realist who believes that the main motivation of humanity as a whole is fear and greed. The quote below sort of illustrates what I am saying ...
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"
But with me, after he pulled the knife, I would drop the bomb. There is no sense is killing people one at a time when you can end it with one or two blows.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
