Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mr. Bogner
ENGL 200BE
Debate Essay
30 September 2003
National Missile Defense; the Good, the Bad, and the argument that ensued
One day for one of my classes I had to go and sit in on a high school debate class. This class was
having a discussion, but I soon saw that it was more of an argument between two kids in class.
While the debate room seemed to look like any other, there was one thing that really stood out,
and that is that the debate coach running the show, really wasn’t. She was just simply letting the
two pursue their intellectual desires. So I sat and I watched as Mary defended that a National
Missile Defense is a good idea because of it promotes American Leadership, solves Israeli
anxiety, and solves for the China threat to Taiwan. Derek on the other hand was strongly opposed
and said a National Missile Defense. He thought it would be a bad thing because of Russia’s
reactions to NMD, Cancer that would spread from a successful ICBM stop, and because of what
would occur in India and Pakistan. It seemed as though promoting as much peace as possible
through in this anachronistic world was the common goal from both just with different ways to
Mary: National Missile Defense is a critical thing, and needs to be built because it allows the
United States to protect itself from the evils and risk that other nations pose with their nuclear
Derek: National Missile Defense is nothing but propaganda from the neo-conservatives of the
United States Government. It’s Presidents Bush and Rumsfield’s little baby. They will tell the
Stout 2
people anything in order to get the money needed to full fill their mission. Not to mention that
almost all the inceptors that have ever been tired have failed (Broad, A1). We just don’t need the
Mary: A NMD system will not hurt us in any way even if it doesn’t work. The world lives by
perception, especially the way that countries interact with each other. Even if the technology isn’t
the greatest it will definitely help us as a nation, because now there is doubt in the mind of
countries as to whether their first strike will actually be able to inflict damage upon the United
States or its allies. Just because a nation has NMD does not mean that they will abandon their
nuclear posture or their nuclear weapons. The fear of retaliation will always prevent attack,
The perception one country has of another is truly important when discussing a NMD
system. NMD will significantly increase the nation’s ability to influence and use its leadership
worldwide. Right now in the Status quo nations are able to hold the US and its allies hostage
because they are able to point their nuclear weapons at a city. National Missile defense allows us
to inflict the perception of doubt in countries minds. The US and its allies will no longer have to
hold back from doing what they do best, that’s simply cause the perception of a NMD system
means there is doubt as to whether damage can be inflicted upon the United States. That allows
us to deploy our leadership all over the world, and keep the peace. (Kaplan, p. 20)
Derek: I think there is a fundamental problem with a national missile defense system and that is
our allies. Joseph Nye constantly talks about the need for softpower, which is leadership that
isn’t based off of a military. Softpower is gained by having a strong economy, and most
importantly allies. Countries need their allies’s cooperation and trust for missions. Otherwise the
missions that the United States is pursuing won’t occur. Nye would contend that if the argument
Stout 3
is true that the Europeans and Japanese don’t like the idea of National Missile defense then
softpower would be lowered significantly because the allies are no longer going to trust the
United States. Those countries who are our current allies give us much of our power and
legitimacy to act the way we as a nation do in our foreign policy. Without the other nations of the
world agreeing with American foreign policy, we can’t get the legitimacy needed in order to do
what we want and need to do to solve for the worlds problems. All and all, if NMD pisses off the
neighbors, we can’t go out and play, even when trying to save the day. (Newhouse, p. 97)
If the United States were to build a national missile defense it would require Moscow to
keep its weapons on high alert status. The Russian economy is extremely weak comparably to
the rest of the world, its pretty evident that Russia’s cheapest military expenditures would be
maintain their nuclear weapons. This is because when a country has a low economy and nuclear
weapons they become more dependent upon their nuclear deterrent because they don’t have the
resources to compete in conventional arms races. NMD will take out some of the confidence that
Russia will have in their nuclear deterrent. Their only response is to keep their weapons on high
alert status. They would do this in order to either flood the NMD system or to make countries of
the world know that if they mess with Russia that they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.
The worst thing about high alert status is that it makes accidental launches much more likely
(Collina, p. 9)
Mary: I don’t think that is quite accurate, Kenneth Waltz talks about in his articles about nuclear
proliferation, that you have to ensure that your system is not only safe but protected. Accidental
launch on anyone would spark global retaliation, and when a country like the US is shooting its
mass arsenal against you, there isn’t much room for repairs. It will all be destroyed. Since a
country would know that they have the chance to be totally destroyed if they screw up then, its
Stout 4
pretty safe to assume that every country is going to ensure that their missiles are not only safe but
protected from such things as an accidental launch, cause if nothing else the fear of retaliation
would be too extreme. Not only that but Russia isn’t some new nuclear program that doesn’t
have the technology to do what is needed. They have years and years of experience, and know
Another reason NMD would be a good things is because of Israel. Israel is heavily
dependent upon its nuclear deterrent in order to prevent attacks against it. Isreal, an important
ally to the United States and its Middle East intentions, is extremely vulnerable to Ballistic
missiles, which there is no protection or defense to. Especially for Israel. Israel is a huge target of
the Middle East and constantly has to be watching its back. It’s pretty easy to assume just like
Israel did against Iraq in the 80s that their policy is that of preemption, if there are countries
developing nuclear weapons in the region then it means they have to keep a watchful eye on
them. Israel is very likely to use nuclear weapons once they find a sight of a nuclear program.
The main reason for that would be that if you use a nuclear weapon it’s pretty much 100 percent
guaranteed that the nuclear program would be destroyed. That is why they aren’t likely to resort
to conventional weapons again to preempt like they did in the 80s, because if any of the program
survives then it means there is now a resolve, and a purpose for the nuclear weapons to be
developed quickly and used against Israel. (Peterson, p.5) A National missile defense for the
United States would allow Israel to become less reliant upon the preemption doctrine. A National
missile defense will provide Israel with the perception that they are safe and don’t need to be
blowing up everyone in the region who posses as a threat because the United States National
Missile defense will keep them safe inside the fort of United States Protection.
Stout 5
Derek: Israel is a nation that depends on deterrence, and I personally believe that from the
statements of the prime misters and former prime ministers that they are not afraid of using the
nuclear weapons if there is something that they don’t like going on in the middle east, they are
extremely likely to say “hey I don’t like that going on there, lets influence matters, nuclearerly”.
Israel is going to use nuclear weapons no matter what. Just because you now protect them with a
NMD system, doesn’t mean they will all of a sudden think they are safe. It’s a mentality that the
leaders have, and I would contend if there is a NMD system that it would make Israel feel like
that they can do what they want, because there are safely inside the US fort, and can’t be hurt.
There are other reasons as to why the NMD system is bad outside of the Realist system.
Let’s say that NMD does work, and there is a launch, so the missile is in the air and its coming
its towards the US and going to hit somewhere. Our NMD system comes and saves the day
right? Wrong, if nothing else it blows up the missile in the air, now there is a massive amount of
plutonium in the atmosphere for thousands of years (Babst, Krieger, Aldridge). This would occur
because of the missile warheads are made of plutonium in order to get the nuclear reaction. This
plutonium is highly dangerous because of its chemical status. The plutonium would stay in the
atmosphere for thousands of years as the dust drifted to earth. This plutonium in the atmosphere
would be devastating, as it causes lung cancer and could reach EVERY person in the entire
Mary: Fallout may be bad, but I contend that a nuclear weapons hitting a major city would cause
a MUCH bigger impact in the end. A nuclear weapon hitting a major city, like Los Angles, would
REQUIRE a retaliatory strike against that given country. You saw how blood thirsty we as
Americans were after September 11. Just think about if it was a nuclear weapons with a return
weapons actual detonation, radioactivity and/or the nuclear winter that would ensue. Just like Mr.
Schell talks about in his book from 1982, it’s better to try to handle the risk of lung cancer, than
to see the nuclear war, because nuclear war could cause extinction, and that’s a risk we can’t
take.
While you like to step out of the realist system, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And I
will contend that relations are always changing, and change quicker than your terminal impacts.
That means we must talk further about relations with countries. A Country that I think needs to
be talked about, but hasn’t yet is China. Those reds are always a threat. They are constantly
trying to totally enslave Taiwan. Taiwan doesn’t want that. Taiwan wants independence, and that
really pisses off China. I think there is no reason as to think that a China attack on Taiwan is
inevitable because there is no reason to think that China will continue to let Taiwan become more
independent. Chinese Aggression is inevitable. But as I have been saying all hour, NMD is here
to save the day once again and retain world peace. A US NMD system would crush the Chinese
military capabilities and stop a Chinese lash out (US Newswire p. L/N). When Chinas weapons
are no longer able to prevent US intervention and it becomes a war of conventional forces, the
US has the number one military in the world, and it can’t lose, because the war would be forced
to become a conventional one this would prevent any kind of attack on Taiwan and ensure peace
in the straight. China just isn’t suicidal, they won’t try to take on the US in a conventional war.
Derek: Right, I think the main thing you said that needs to be acknowledged is that you said that
China will not attack if there isn’t an independence movement from the Taiwan people. I think
that NMD would embolden the Taiwan people to declare independence because they would feel
they are inside the US fort and can’t be hurt. That would cause the exact war you said you were
trying to prevent.
Stout 7
There is another thing, if we are going to start naming off regions and conflict lets talk
about India and Pakistan. Rapid proliferation would occur if there is NMD threatening their
deterrent abilities. They would fight the NMD system by trying to obtain as many nuclear
weapons as possible so they could flood the NMD system. Countries like China who empirically
proliferate technology and resources to Pakistan would ensure that India would have to
proliferate also. This Proliferation would increase the chance there is a fight over Kashmir (The
Hindu p. L/N) and ultimately that fight would go nuclear, its just always been a flashpoint for
conflict and will continue to be fought over because its an issue of national pride. (Cirincione)
The teacher interrupted and said while she enjoyed the backfile debate, that there were things
about the ocean that needed to be talked about. She said if they really were that adamant about it
that they could go and research it to update the backfiles. None the less I thought it was
extremely interesting, especially from two high schoolers Derek defending that NMD was bad
because of Russia’s reactions to NMD, Cancer that would spread from a successful ICBM stop,
and because of what would occur in India and Pakistan, Mary defended that a NMD is a good
idea because of it promotes American Leadership, solves Israeli anxiety, and solves for the China
threat to Taiwan. Sometimes, some things just are really surprising, In a good way.
Stout 8
Works Cited
Babst, Dean. Krieger, David. Aldridge, Bob. The Self Destructiveness of Nuclear Weapons Nov
1997: unavailable
Broad, William J. “After Many Misses, Pentagon Still Pursues Missile Defense” New York
Collina, Tom Z. “Build US security on goodwill, not bombs” CSM, 21 June 2001: 9
Grossman, Karl. “US Slinging Plutonium Into Space” Star Tribune, 27 May 1997: 15A
Lamotagne, Steve. “NMD will slow India’s rise” The Hindu, Global News Wire, June 14
2001:L/N
Newshouse, John. “The Missile Defense Debate” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001: 97
Peterson, Scot. “Beyond Iraq: ‘Indefensible’ Missiles Pack Mideast” CSM. 24 November
1997: 5