Is a nuclear weapons defense system necessary for the united states? Why or why not?

Question

I'm debating on why it IS necessary, but I need to know both sides... ;] THANKS!!!

OMG. first of all, it's just a 5 minute speech. second, don't answer the question if you don't say something meaningful. geez.

Answer 1

it's all about bargaining chips.

Answer 2

It is not necessary for a few reasons:

1. The only people capable of launching a nuclear missile strike on America are major players on the world power scene. Britain, France, China, Russia, Israel, India (maybe capable - not necessarily though) are about the only countries with the rocket technology for that long range a strike and with nuclear warheads. None of these countries are even close to looking like intent on a nuclear war with America. Terrorists, were they even close to being able to attempt a nuclear strike, would likely have to try to smuggle bomb components into the country or else put it on a ship hidden and detonate it at a port and a nuclear weapons defense system won't help defend against this. Better monitoring of all countries nuclear weapons and of radioactive isotopes that are usable in a nuclear weapon would be a better bet in terms of protection.

2. The consequence of building a nuclear weapons defense system without a pressing need for one is that it looks to other countries like you're preparing to strike them since you're building up your defences when they're not intending an attack. Essentially to China at the very least it's going to look like you're building up in preparation to attack them, why else would you need additional protection from them when they aren't planning to attack you?
I note that China has been building up it's military recently but only since after their complaints against the idea of the US building a nuclear defense system went unheard. This is infact making the world less safe, not more.

3. Nuclear weapon defense systems are pretty much useless for a simple reason, they can't even come close to contending with modern multiple warhead nuclear weapons. Further if say China or Russia attacked the number of missiles heading the US's way would be far too much for the system to handle. Even a few warheads hitting would be too many, it's far better to work towards preventing nuclear war than to risk encouraging it and wasting billions on a flawed defense system.

Therefore the money would be better spent on diplomatic efforts or problem solving - for a tiny fraction of the cost of this system the probelm of global climate change could be remedied (for example, there are other problems too), that in turn would increase global respect for America and would make war less likely in the first place.

Answer 3

Haven't we tried star wars before and found it did not work and it was a massive taxpayer rip-off!

Published on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 by the Associated Press
Going Backwards
Pentagon Revives Reagan-Era Star Wars Proposal
by Robert Burns

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. –– The Pentagon's blueprint for expanding missile defense research includes the first-ever test of a space-based interceptor by 2005-06, a senior defense official said Tuesday.
Details of the test are not yet worked out, and space-based weaponry – though a long-range possibility – is not the Pentagon's first priority for missile defense, said Robert Snyder, executive director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, which manages the Pentagon missile defense research.

Speaking to reporters at an Army-sponsored briefing on missile defense, Snyder said the experiment would be designed to prove the concept of hitting a ballistic missile early in its flight with a projectile launched from space.

This is a concept first pursued in the 1980s as part of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, which aimed to create an impenetrable shield against attack on the United States by thousands of Soviet missiles. It never progressed to an actual test in space and was shelved in the early 1990s.

Baker Spring, a missile defense expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, said in an interview Tuesday that it is debatable whether the experiment planned for 2005-06 would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. It clearly would be a violation, he said, if a spaced-based interceptor were deployed.

He said the issue of treaty violation is probably moot since the Bush administration has said it intends to go beyond the ABM treaty with other kinds of tests even before 2005. President Bush wants to either replace the treaty with some other arrangement that would permit missile defense deployment, or exercise the U.S. right to withdraw from it after a six-month notice.

The Bush administration has not publicly emphasized the space-based weapon concept because it recalls the "Star Wars" tag that Reagan's critics attached to his Strategic Defense Initiative. The administration is focusing most of its missile defense efforts on anti-missile weapons based on land, at sea and in the air.

Billions for Missile Defense, peanuts for anti-terrorism.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002, at 5:58 PM ET
With all the concern about dirty bombs, bioterrorism, and suicide bombers smashing airplanes into power plants, the public has pretty much forgotten about the Pentagon's ballistic-missile-defense program. (Wasn't that some nutty dream of Ronald Reagan's?) So, it may come as a shock to learn that President Bush will spend $7.4 billion on R&D for missile defenses next year. That's twice the sum that Reagan spent on "star wars" in his final year of office—and for a system that remains sketchily defined and technologically dubious, against an unlikely threat that lies years, if not decades, off. Meanwhile, to defend against "weapons of mass destruction" that we all fear might blow up on American streets next week, the administration is spending—well, not quite zip, but far, far less than would be needed for a minimally serious effort, on technology that exists right now.

What's more, Congress has approved this $7.4 billion, for what is now simply called the Missile Defense Agency, without knowing where the money is going. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has been an avid MD supporter from way back, restructured the program into five budget categories, responding to the program's broad missions. These are, along with the amount appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget:

Answer 4

While at the moment it is not necessary, it would be quite reassuring to know that we are defended against a nuclear missile attack. It would also give us a large advantage over the rest of the world, for we would be the only nation to have a missile defense system. Having a defense system would give us the ability to attack a nation and not have to worry about retaliation via ICBM.

Answer 5

This question shouldn't even be asked. Of course its necessary. What goofy class is this for and in what state???

Answer 6

Yes, because it can be a powerful deterrent to enemies who would attack us. Even if we never used it (which I hope we never do), it's important to instill enough fear in hostile nations to keep them back.

Answer 7

if you have to ask this question than you have no clue!you should revisit this topic when you are older.