At the very least, the 110th
Congress should
- endorse only a truly
"national" limited land-based national missile
defense (NMD) system;
- eschew grandiose sea- and
space-based missile defenses— which are unnecessary,
expensive "international" systems designed to
protect wealthy U.S. allies and friends and provide a robust
shield for unneeded U.S. interventions overseas;
- pressure the new administration to
slow development of land-based missile defense so that the
system can be thoroughly tested under realistic conditions
before a decision is made to deploy it;
- encourage the U.S. administration
to offer deep cuts in offensive strategic nuclear forces—down
to a maximum of 1,500 war-heads (the Russian proposal)—in
exchange for Russian acquiescence to a limited U.S. land-based
NMD; and
- reduce the triad of U.S. nuclear
forces—nuclear-capable bombers, intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBMs), and sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)—to
a dyad.
One of the most indisputably legitimate functions of government
-- from a constitutional and historical perspective -- is defense
of the nation from foreign attack. The 13 original States united
for protection against Britain, France, etc.
The post 9-11 world presents us with very different realities:
- There is no Britain, France -- or even Russia or China --
that seeks to colonize the New World, or take control of an
infant U.S.A.
- U.S. military intervention in and against foreign nations --
opposed by our Founding Fathers
-- creates a context in which a comprehensive system of
defense takes on an offensive character, diminishing our
national security;
- small nations that fear the U.S. -- with boxcutters and suitcase
nukes -- are more of a threat than "evil
empires" like the "former" Soviet Union.
No sensible defense policy can be formulated without
simultaneously admitting that current policy:
next: Problems with the New
NATO
|