Other Columns by Bobby Eberle
Bobby Eberle Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Now, More Than Ever, America Needs a Missile Defense System
By Bobby Eberle
September 19, 2001

In reading the title of this column, some may scoff and immediately ask, "How can a missile defense system stop an airplane from hitting a building?"

Well, guess what... it can't. In fact, depending on how much notice is given for such an attack, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop an airplane from hitting a building. Are we then helpless to such attacks? Quite the contrary. The way to stop airplanes from hitting buildings is to stop airplanes from getting hijacked. With the resources at our disposal, there is no doubt that security officials can make airports much safer for travel.

However, the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon reveal a deeper security need which extends well beyond the need to stop airplanes from hitting buildings or from allowing such airplanes to be hijacked in the first place. These horrible terrorist attacks paint a clear picture of the need for a missile defense system.

America, as a sovereign and free nation, has an obligation to defend herself and to ensure the safety and well-being of her citizens. This is one of those fundamental functions of our national government upon which both liberals and conservatives easily agree. Thus, in the face of danger -- an aggressor nation or psychotic madman -- the United States must be able to defend herself using whatever means are necessary and appropriate for the situation at hand.

So, what is meant by necessary and appropriate? Let's look at our current situation and construct a possible outcome scenario:

The Taliban refuses to turn over Osama bin Laden. Anticipating this stance, the Bush administration orders the build-up of military personnel. Plans are made to attack Afghanistan through bombing and ground assault in order to give the Taliban no other choice but to give up bin Laden, his lieutenants, and their support of terrorism. The Taliban assemble their forces in an attempt to fend off the U.S. attack. Unsuccessful, and lacking other means of direct retaliation and increased pressure from surrounding countries, the Taliban deliver on America's demands

The above outcome is feasible when attacking a nation which lacks nuclear weapons, but what if the terrorist attack came from a nuclear power or one suspected of having that capability in the near future? The options for the United States quickly become infinitely more complex. As an example, consider a fictional scenario in which the terrorist attack came from people within Pakistan rather than Afghanistan:

September 11, 2001... Terrorists attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Intelligence sources suggest that the culprit has ties to the Pakistani government and is currently being housed in Pakistan. The U.S. denounces these attacks and considers it an act of war. Negotiations begin with the purpose of persuading the Pakistani government to turn over the leader of the terrorist assault. Simultaneously, the U.S. readies an attack plan to bomb Pakistan and apprehend the terrorists. Negotiations fail, and the U.S. begins bombing. In the wake of the bombing, Islamic fundamentalists seize control over the government. Knowing that Pakistan is no match for the strength of America's conventional forces and believing the United States and Israel to be the evils of society, Pakistan launches a nuclear missile at Israel.

What happens next is anyone's guess. However, there is an obvious question which should be asked when contemplating a retalitory strike against other potential enemies (e.g., North Korea, Iran, China, etc.), "How would the U.S. react if attacked by conventional weapons from a nuclear state?" If we were to invade, surely a potential consequence could be the destruction of New York, Los Angeles, or any other major metropolitan area in the U.S. Are we prepared to take that risk in order to obtain justice? Would we launch our own nuclear weapons?

The United States is not a first-strike country. In addition, we are resolved to use nuclear weapons only as a last resort. Thus, we must be able to count on getting the job done through our superior conventional forces. We must be able to use these forces even when facing a nuclear power.

With a strategic and theater missile defense system in place, the second scenario described above would likely have a completely different outcome. Missiles launched against Israel, or long-range missiles launched against the United States could be destroyed, and American conventional forces could do the job they were ordered to do. By significantly reducing the threat of nuclear missile attack, America can remain the lone superpower on this planet.

We cannot allow America to be held hostage to rogue states or unstable governments. The force of our conventional military is greatly reduced if we are afraid to use it because of the consequences that may follow. We owe it to ourselves and to our allies to put up the best defense possible.

No, we can't stop a bomb in a suitcase. Nor can we stop an airplane from hitting a building. We can, however, eliminate one major threat against America and her allies who are now easy targets of any fanatic with his or her finger on the button. We can give America a means by which her hands are not handcuffed when it comes time to take action. The best way to ensure that America's conventional forces are feared is to render the enemy's nuclear weapons ineffective. The clock is ticking. We need a national missile defense system now.