Garhett Armsbury

The United States of America has been in a dispute for a number of years as to deploy a National Missile Defense System or not deploy an NMD in Eastern Europe. The United States should deploy an NMD system. They should do so because third world countries are becoming ever more powerful and capable of building nuclear warheads, the number of nuclear capable countries has doubled since the Cold War, and the threat of the U.S being attacked is ever more realistic. “The question is whether the US will be prepared to defend itself.” (Pawlick). With the number of nuclear capable countries rising every few years the threat of the U.S being attacked is more possible. Rising technological capabilities of the Third World, has given notice to the possibility of more nuclear rivals. We can no longer protect ourselves with threatening countries with retaliation from a strike. If these rouge states don’t value the lives of their citizens or soldiers they may not be deterred by the threat of retaliation. On March 5, 1970 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty went into effect. The treaties purpose was to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to the five countries that possessed them, the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and the Peoples Republic of China. This treaty was also placed to eventually bring these countries to their own disarmament. Now, there are four new nuclear countries which are not part of the NPT. With these facts it should raise the brow of every single citizen in the United States and across the country. Just knowing this should be a huge factor to why the US should deploy an NMD system to protect ourselves. On the other hand there is a down side to deploying an NMD system in Eastern Europe. With countries other than the US hosting a US NMD system could make that country feel like a target in the time of an attack which is not good for public relations with other countries. Also, the “US military budget exceeds that of the other major powers combined” (Anderson) we are more powerful than all other countries so “unless a foreign leader is intent on seeing his country destroyed” (Anderson) they are highly not likely to directly attack the US deeming an NMD system useless. Another reason that an NMD system would not be a wise decision is because they are very costly and ineffective. Since the early 1960’s the US government has spent over $143 billion on missile defense. The money spent on this program so far has not brought any results or progress. “It is very difficult to intercept a missile that travels as fast as five miles per second: one of the problems is that the missile body is much more likely to be hit, as it is a much larger target than the warhead” (Anderson). These systems are purposed to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles from entering our country; but, what about dirty bombs, small portable devices used by terroristic organizations. How is an NMD system going to protect against a suitcase? It can’t. For another example the 9/11 attack “clearly, a missile defense is powerless against this sort of devastating attack.” (Anderson). So, “ at this point, it is unrealistic to assume that a successful, functioning NMD system will be achieved in the next several years.” (Anderson). For our country to have a successful NMD system the US would have to do update their aging stockpile of nuclear weapons. The United States missile systems are becoming closer and closer toward instability. “America’s missile defenses are facing a crisis of funding and political philosophy as automatic budget cuts near” (Hodge). IF the US is cutting budgets toward the defense system they can’t properly update their stockpile. Since Obama was first elected for presidency he has been clear about his support of nuclear disarmament and a goal of “global- zero”. If this is Obama’s goal The United States aging stockpile will be put on a back burner and keep aging. If