Breaching Fortress America

International pressure and problems at home dealing with costs and the potential abuse of the shield can be dealt with in a single move that would likely find little opposition. If this system were implemented, America should immediately and completely disarm its nuclear arsenal. This move would save America billions in military costs and would suddenly prove to the world that the missile shield is not a cover for us to launch our own nuclear weapons in a strike on anyone we choose. And with the missile shield, there would be no need for an American nuclear force. Retaliation and mutually assured destruction would be a thing of the past. Unilateral disarmament would also gain for America the moral high ground to condemn the nuclear programs of other nations. Few isolationists would argue against removing every American nuke; proponents of spending cuts would find billions in savings; military officers would not object because of the massive power of American conventional arms. And what argument or condemning statement could Russia or China bring against an America that unilaterally gave up every nuclear warhead in its arsenal?

Opposition to arming space could be dealt with in multiple ways. The simplest is to point out that it is not illegal and is simply the nest step in a logical path; war has moved from the ground to the water to the air. Space is naturally the next step. Why should America, in all her technological superiority, squander any advantage it can muster?

Another way around opposition to arming space could be found with those who cry for every innocent civilian who is hit by fire in a war. Such a missile shield would protect countless innocents around the world. American satellites could intercept not only missiles headed for the American coast but weapons fired at our allies, such as Israel or Great Britain.

And added plus to fighting in space would be that there is no chance of collateral damage. Anything destroyed in space would burn up in the atmosphere before it could impact the ground, and the chances of hitting anything that was not a target are very slim. As Taylor Dinerman put it, “After all, why not fight wars in space? There’s lots of room there and not a lot of civilians to get in the way.”

The United States needs to stop worrying about the feelings of nations like France, China, and Russia and start worrying more about the defenses of its own people. Though the initial costs may be high, in the end, the nuclear disarmament would offset a good deal of the cost and the end result would be infinitely superior to the status quo.

President Ronald Reagan, the first great advocate of missile defense, stated best the responsibility of America and the overall goal of missile defense:

“Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed we must…

“I know this is a formidable technical task; one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Our current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it will be reasonable to begin this effort. It may take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, as well as successes and breakthroughs…

“But isn’t it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We all know it is.”

President Reagan set this goal of securing our nation and rebuilding Fortress America. President George W. Bush has followed in his footsteps. It’s time that we come together and finish the job.