Politicians Will Build it ...(missile defense systems)

... Because the people want protection

President Bush campaigned by promising to build a defense against ballistic missiles as soon as possible. He showed he intended to keep that vow when he appointed Don Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld chaired the national commission that raised the alarm a couple years ago about America's urgent need to protect itself against missile attacks.

Opponents (most, but not all, from the political Left) will attempt to weaken or limit any missile defense the President proposes. Some will insist that a missile defense system could begin a new arms race. Overseas adversaries, and even many of our allies, will attempt to slow down or block development. They know such a system will make America even stronger and more capable of using power abroad with limited risks at home, dramatizing their own relative lack of military capability.

Ironically, though, opponents' noisy objections may actually enhance the chances that a strong missile defense will be built. For there is already a broad and growing bipartisan consensus in favor of constructing at least a limited missile shield. A cycle of national dialogue on this subject will only cement the dimensions of the threat in the minds of Americans, leading to even stronger public demands for protection from such an assault. So I believe Bush and Rumsfeld will get their anti-missile umbrella. The only real question is what kind of system will be deployed, and how rapidly.

In response to rising pressure from public opinion and from Republicans in Congress, the Clinton administration grudgingly began to promote a missile defense design in the late 1990s. It was a very limited assemblage tortuously set up to fit within the confines of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed with the Soviet Union. There would be only a single site for interceptors, they would be carefully limited in number, and there would be no second or third layer of defense.

Clinton's determination to avoid re-negotiating or withdrawing from the ABM Treaty meant we were committed to a small "missile hits a missile" system that is technologically difficult to build and less likely to be effective than other alternatives. This hit-to-kill method intercepts warheads as they re-enter the atmosphere, moving at maximum speed, and potentially in tandem with numerous decoys released from the same rocket. Many experts believe this system was badly conceived and should be shelved and replaced by one more likely to succeed.

The Clinton administration in effect tried to appease opponents by building the weakest possible ABM structure. They did everything they could to tie America into a minimalist and highly limited defense. They put strict technological constraints on the system in order to adhere to the legalisms of the ABM Treaty. And their diplomatic efforts overseas were so feeble and ill-considered they alienated key allies and actually made them more opposed to an American missile defense.