Daniel Stout

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

going about that peace.

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

weapons and their inter-continental ballistic missiles.

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

NMD system, it would make a world where war would be rampant.

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,

NMD is more for accidental launches and rogue attacks.

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

how to use the tech to ensure they are protected.

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

world. (Grossman, p. 15A)

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

address…..full scale nuclear war…..killing everyone in seconds or months because of nuclear

 Stout 6

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)

Mary: But NMD would……

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

Times, 24 May 1999: A1/A23

Cirincione, Joseph. N/A Foreign Policy, Spring 2000: N/A

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

Kaplan, Lawrence. “Offensive Line” New Republic, 12 March 2001: 20

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

N/A “PRI: Missile-Defense Would Bankrupt China’s Economic Tyranny” US Newswire, 22

May 2001: L/N