AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Being from England, I can fully understand the objections of American liberals to National Missile Defense described by P. J. O'Rourke ("No-Nukes Turn Pro-Nuke," April/May). I think I can explain these objections since I agree with them.
In the 1980s movie WarGames, the warmongering supercomputer discovers the futility of nuclear war by playing out endless tactical scenarios that inevitably end in a "stalemate": the utter destruction of all warring parties involved. The supercomputer eventually realizes that there can only be losers in such a conflict. We are currently living under an uneasy peace when it comes to nuclear war. No nation would be suicidal enough to launch a nuclear attack on another, as it would only result in its own annihilation.
Thus, if one country creates a defense against nuclear attack, it becomes able to successfully launch a nuclear attack without fearing a reprisal in kind. Ironically, nuclear war is made more likely by the existence of such a system. This is why American "liberals" fear National Missile Defense. They feel that no country, not even America, should have this kind of devastating superiority.
Tim Horne London, England
I read with great interest your issue on missile defense systems ("Missile Defense: Ready or Not?" April/May). In America and other countries, logic might prevail as the primary decision-making force but in the majority of "rogue nations" fundamentalist religion and political prowess are the main forces used to hold onto power and control the masses. Iran is a perfect example of the religious mandate, and China a perfect example of the political mandate. The things that societies like ours value the most, such societies value the least. Freedom of thought and expression, individual rights, civil rights, and voting are not high on the priority list of radical groups in the Middle East and China.
Every time Islamic revolutionaries bomb our embassies in Africa or blow up our ships in the Arabian Gulf, they gain more support within their own countries. While extremists may not speak for the majority, sympathy within certain nations lies heavily with the extremists. In order to deal with these nations, America needs to think like they do.
Yet your missile defense issue focused on strictly defensive schemes. Why not develop an offensive posture to put these rogue nations on notice? The secretary of state could quietly call on these folks and advise them of the consequences of belligerent behavior.