Once again, I was proud of my country this week when we declined participation in the US missile defence shield. It took our Prime Minister–more custodian than visionary–too long to make the decision, but I’m glad he did what he did.
That got me thinking about the American missile shield. It seems like a stupid waste of money and risks plunging the world into another nuclear arms race. That said, I know precious little about the issue. So, I went and did some reading (and watching). I tried to seek out unbiased resources, or at least resources whose bias was immediately apparent:
- PBS’s Frontline on ‘Missile Wars’.
- Wikipedia entry on the subject.
- Missile defence — how and why
- Scientific American article on missile defence
- Home page of the Missile Defence Agency
Worryingly, no one even knows if missile defence is going to work, or how well it’s going to work. The Pentagon won’t provide access to any test data. Obviously, the number of nuclear missiles launched in the history of the world is zero, so we don’t have a lot of context for success and failure. And the estimated total cost of the system? At least US $200 billion. There’s an interesting quote from a senator at the end of one of the PBS segments: “National missile defence in the United States has become a theology, not a technology.”
So, it still seems like a pretty bad idea. However, I’m ready to be convinced otherwise. Does anybody have compelling arguments in favour of a missile shield?
DarrenBarefoot.com 
The issue of developing missile defense capability is multi-faceted. Overall I am in favor of it. But it will take more than this comment to fully explain why. Perhaps I’ll post a more detailed argument on my own site.
Missile defense is kind of like bullet-proof vests, but on a much larger scale. Arguing against developing missile defense capability is just about as ridiculous as arguing against bullet-proof vests. Why make a bullet-proof vest? The cost may be high, and there is no proof that they always work. Those arguments are true, but the fact is that they have worked very well many times. The people whose lives have been saved would think the cost was well worth it.
Missile defense has worked in the past. Patriot missiles destroyed several scud missiles in mid-air that Iraq fired at Israel during the first gulf war. Ongoing tests are proving that it can work on a much larger scale. True, the scope is very ambitious, and expensive. However, the first time it averts disaster by some renegade dictatorship that has acquired “the bomb” and wants to show off, people won’t be thinking it was a stupid waste of money anymore.
I don’t believe the arguments that it will cause an escallation of the nuclear arms race. It actually has the potential of producing the opposite effect — why develop missiles if they are going to be neutralized?
I do have some concerns, but they mostly center around bureaucratic wasting of money — not on the technology itself.
If one worked, it would be a spectacular thing to have (Although at $200 billion one has to wonder if the risk/reward tradeoff is really there. There aren’t that many folks who can build an ICBM, and they are all pretty sane at the moment).
The problem isn’t with the concept – it’s with the (probable) execution. Have you ever seen ANY complex software system work right? Without a full scale test? To think this thing might work at all is sheer foolishness on the part of my government. The fact that yours decided not to get in on the deal means they are either seeing that the risk/reward equation doesn’t pan out, OR they are seeing that it’s never going to work – so why bother?
Consider this: Global Climate Change gets no money, because it is “not proven” (this despite a worldwide scientific consensus), plus which “think of the economic cost”.
Meanwhile, Missile Defence gets $200 billion, despite the fact that the scientific consensus is that it won’t work.
So if you want money from this administration, go where the science isn’t.
A classic article about missile defence is “The Piper Cub Offence” by the recently-departed Jeff Raskin.
http://jef.raskincenter.org/unpublished/piper_cub_offense.html
Darren:
Interesting question. I don’t think I can make the most sophisticated case for ballistic missle defense, but I’ll give you some of my thoughts.
Q: What is the US trying to do?
To my understanding, the purpose of BMD as proposed is to intercept a small number of incoming missles from a small Nuclear armed state. (like a North Korea, maybe Iran at somepoint in the future).
Nobody today is seriously promising a shield that will protect against a 1000 missle strike from China or Russia. People set up that as a straw man argument all the time – if you can’t stop a full blown attack, don’t even bother. It is a lame argument.
Q: If it is so limited, why bother doing it?
Why do police wear bullet proof vests? A vest won’t stop 10,000 bullets. And it won’t stop a bullet to the head. But it will likely stop one aimed at the body. Interesting to note that Japan is very interested in BMD, especially after North Korea test fired a missle over Japan in 1998:
http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1998/980831-dprk-dcw.htm
This isn’t all altruism, having a city in Japan nuked would definitly be destabilizing.
Q: Will developing BMD be destabilizing?
I don’t think so. I don’t know how long you have been around, but this has been in development since the 1980’s when Ronald Reagan proposed it. The same argument was made then (and remember this was still during the Cold War when many were panicing at the prospect of full blown nuclear war). Nothing happened then, I doubt it will cause any new arms race among the large powers (US, Russia and China).
Q: Isn’t this a huge waste of money?
This argument is weak as well. All goverments waste money and Canada is no different ($80 million on the Cdn Goverment sponsorship inquiry, $1 Billion on the Gun Registry, Billions on Kyoto to dubious benefit).
Often this spending is a subsidy to certain industries (in the US, a lot of defense spending is on R&D – there may be spinoffs like the US Space program – I have not looked for data to argue this pro or con)
If I was an enemy of the US and suspected that this was a waste of money (I don’t believe this myself), I’d let them develop the system. Kind of like “Go ahead and waste your money”. I suspect they will find a way to make a limited system work.
Q: Couldn’t this be spent better on something else?
Maybe, but more likely not. Everyone will have different priorities with who should get money. With respect, if you are living in Canada and aren’t paying the bill for any of this, does it really matter to you, and if so why?
Q: Was this going to cost Canada a whack of money to participate?
I don’t think so (at least from what I have seen). It sounded like this was more “moral” support than anything else. Canada is still part of Norad. Not participating raises interesting questions. What happens if a missle is targetted on a Canadian city, should the US attempt an intercept?
Q: Will Canada non participation stop this development? Is Martin’s decision some wonderful moral stand.
You’re kidding right?
Seriously, in the larger picture Canada doesn’t matter. The system will be developed. Canadian firms will not be allowed to participate. Martin’s decision is politics – Canada’s moral stands tend to be the ones that cost the smallest amount of money (we are big on talking about UN Peacekeeping – we just don’t spend very much on it)
If you are making an argument against BMD, you need to choose one of the following:
1) The system costs too much and won’t work – Argument is countered as tests are successful, this argument gets diminished
2) The system will work but will be destabilizing – Argument is countered by demonstrating that it wasn’t destabilizing 20 years ago, why is it destabilizing now (esp when everyone realizes that it can’t be used to deflect a large scale attack, but might work for a small number of missiles)
Many anti BMD arguments try to make both points at the same time. That’s just fence sitting and logically confusing.
Don’t know if this helps or changes any minds. I would be interested in your opinion though.
Kind regards,
Warren
Ken: Your bulletproof vest metaphor is a little faulty. The missile shield is like creating an exceptionally expensive vest before anyone has ever fired a gun.
Also, my reading has indicated that intercontinental, anti-ballistic missile defence is a very different beast than the much shorter-range Patriot system (whose effective range is only 70 km).
Darren:
Think of this as an insurance policy.
If you could develop an ability to block or deflect a limited nuclear attack, why would you NOT try? I think an argument could be made that it would be immoral to choose NOT to defend your own citizens. In the Cold War, we accepted MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) – do we need to continue to accept it.
In today’s world, if someone pulls off a successful BM attack on a major US city, then your only option is to retaliate with your own nuclear weapons (of which you have plenty of).
Having some shield at least gives you an option to decide what to do next.
Regarding the bulletproof vest analogy, here’s another one. (Don’t know if you will like this one any better).
Imagine you go walking down a street. Someone walks up to you and tells you they have a gun in their pocket.
Should you start worrying before or after you actually see their gun?
Imagine you have a gun in your own pocket. Do you pull it out and shoot first? Could wearing that bulletproof vest give you a few more options to consider?
Is that vest an expensive insurance policy? Yup.
But likely a lot cheaper than replacing a nuked city and a few million lives.
North Korea claims that they do have nuclear weapons (we have no confirmation of that). They have been testing ballistic missiles (we do know that).
So do you wait until NK demonstrate the capability before you get worried or “hope for the best but plan for the worst”
Regards,
W
Warren: The bulletproof vest analogy simply doesn’t work. To compound the problem, the metaphorical wearer has no idea how effective it is at stopping bullets. So, when faced with a man with a gun, the wearer doesn’t know what his options are.
In a vacuum, any argument to protect one’s citizens is reasonable. However, the missile shield seems to be an exceptionally-expensive and dubiously-effective protective measure. That is, there’s a point where an insurance policy becomes too expensive to make sense. Should we accept any defensive measure the government proposes, regardless of effectiveness or cost? Because, based on my reading, the missile shield may turn out to be utterly useless.
I’m no diplomat, but I’ll bet there are more effective ways to curb so-called rogue states with $200 billion. I mean, doesn’t a mere $10 billion buy you a decent espionage program these days? Couldn’t the US then accurately assess these rogue states’ nuclear capability and respond appropriately.
For example, I’ve read that North Korea has no intercontinental missiles–that is, they can only strike regional targets. Is that the case? I sure hope the US government knows whether it is or not.
Of course, we’re talking about the same agency that couldn’t find Osama or any weapons of mass desctruction in Iraq, so maybe that’d be just throwing good money after bad.
Warren – with all due respect, I think two of the major points are ones you are dismissing with a wave of your hand. Countering “Won’t it be a waste of money?” with “Well, all governments waste money” is poor logic. Yes they all do, but that still never makes it a good idea. As to the fact that Canadians aren’t allowed to bring up “Aren’t there better things to do with $200 billion?”, the US is exerting itself globally and should therefore expect global responses. In that spirit, some suggestions of much better ideas for the money would be: why don’t they pay their frickin’ defaulted United Nations dues? They might be surprised that if the US actually bought into the UN it could be much more effective. Why don’t they make REAL, SUBSTANTIAL efforts towards sustainable development in these poor countries, instead of letting poverty and starvation breed dissent and terrorism?
Calling it “insurance” is correct in one way only, I think – the insurance industry is not really about protecting anybody, it has the express purpose of getting the most money they can out of their clients (ie. American military contractors getting cash out of the government) and paying out the least amount of money possible. (ie. eternally “developing” a system that doesn’t work and never pays off with any ACTUAL security benefits).
I guess I just see a MASSIVE government payout to the military-industrial complex (doing better than ever under Bush!) to supposedly guard against something that seems highly unlikely. Doesn’t sound like good governance to me.
What I found strange about the debate over this issue is that everyone talks about “participation” in missile defence as if it’s clear what that means. What specifically did the US want from Canada?
Here’s a thought, even if a US city was attacked by a nuclear missile, does anyone think that they would actually respond in kind (i.e. kill millions of innocent people in another country)? The past few dozen years have shown that US military policy has always been to “strategically” take out possible aggressive targets – not indiscriminately wipe out populations.
If this is true, then why does the US have nuclear arms at all? Only someone with zero moral integrity would ever use one against a populated area and I would hope that some of the people in the US government have some moral integrity.
The bulletproof vest / man with a gun analogy has another flaw in it. There are oodles and oodles of guns all over the world. Billions or trillions of bullets have been fired. The threat posed by a gun is definite and guaranteed. Not the case with intercontinental ballistic missiles. We’ve yet to see one hit its target. In fact have any even been fired? So.. not really in the same kind of risk category as guns and bullets. Also, bulletproof vests are just the latest incarnation of an invention that’s been around since the beginning of warfare – armour! It isn’t like the first bulletproof vest was a big experiment. Now, a device that flies out and stops a bullet in mid-air – that’d be something against which you could compare BMD. Notice how they haven’t come up with those mid-air bullet stoppers yet? You’d think that would be a pretty effective investment.
On another point – I can think of a much better way to stop BMD with $200 billion. How about DIPLOMACY?
er, not “stop BMD”… stop ICBM.
Thank you Canada — countries have got to quit bending over for the Bush administration.
Darren:
Let me tackle this one at a time.
“The bulletproof vest analogy simply doesn’t work. To compound the problem, the metaphorical wearer has no idea how effective it is at stopping bullets. So, when faced with a man with a gun, the wearer doesn’t know what his options are.”
I disagree, the idea of a metaphorical vest or shield is pretty relevant. If you have nuclear weapons and a shiled, you have options. You have commented twice that the analogy is flawed. Would it be possible for you to provide a more detailed explain why it is flawed and what a better description would be?
And as far as having no idea if the system will work…that’s why you do testing. Last short range test was successful (5 successes out of the last 6 tests)
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/24/missile.defense.ap/
There is no Metaphysics involved here. You build prototypes, test them, learn from the failures, then repeat.
“However, the missile shield seems to be an exceptionally-expensive and dubiously-effective protective measure. That is, there’s a point where an insurance policy becomes too expensive to make sense.”
Here is a research exercise for you. What do you think the total cost would be of a successful nuclear strike on an US city (in casulties, property destruction and secondary impacts to the US economy – Use the 9/11 attacks as a baseline). The airline industry alone was claiming $23 Billion in losses.
When you are done, please let me know if you still think that price preventing an attack is too “expensive”.
” Should we accept any defensive measure the government proposes, regardless of effectiveness or cost? Because, based on my reading, the missile shield may turn out to be utterly useless.”
In our system of goverment, we elect people to represent our interests. We don’t get to pick and choose every decisions they make. We can lobby and influence goverment, but in the end they get to make the choice. And as Canadian citizens, we shouldn’t expect a vote in US elections.
“Because, based on my reading, the missile shield may turn out to be utterly useless.”
Read the link I attached above, and spend some time googling other sources pro and con. Do the actual test results indicate this is useless? Apply some critical thinking here.
People do research to determine if something is possible. Should we declare that it is utterly useless to try to cure cancer? We haven’t solved it yet, but we keep going because we have reasonable evidence to believe that it can be done.
“I’m no diplomat, but I’ll bet there are more effective ways to curb so-called rogue states with $200 billion. I mean, doesn’t a mere $10 billion buy you a decent espionage program these days? Couldn’t the US then accurately assess these rogue states’ nuclear capability and respond appropriately.”
Imagine you spend that $10 billion and you do discover the threat is real. So, what do you plan on doing then? Please define “respond appropriately”?Military action? Preemptive Nuclear Strike? What action would you support? How dirty would you want your hands to get?
Specific to North Korea, in 1994 Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter tried a diplomatic solution that offered food, fuel oil and nuclear power reactors if NK gave up its Weapons program. NK took up the offer but continued it’s weapon development.
So, if you tried the Diplomatic route and it didnt’ work the first time. Why do you believe it will work the second time?
“For example, I’ve read that North Korea has no intercontinental missiles–that is, they can only strike regional targets. Is that the case? I sure hope the US government knows whether it is or not.”
Get to know Google. Google is your friend:
Google – “north korea” missile japan 1998 (for the 1998 missle test)
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/factsht.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2564241.stm
Info on the next version of this missle
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/td-2.htm
Reports on testing of the next version of a NK missle (dated November last year)
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/11/wkor11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/11/ixworld.html
So we have NK who has tested missles, and low is very loudly proclaiming they have nuclear weapons.
So..do you still want to wait to see the gun before you start worring?
My apologies to some of the other posters, I can’t respond in detail but here a few quick points:
To Matthew – Regarding the UN, I don’t feel very safe trusting my security to the people who allowed this to happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
No, thank you.
To Chris – Regarding US retaliation, yes I do believe they would. Do an internet search on the phrase “Mutually Assured Destruction – MAD” and convince me why you believe that it no longer applies. It did for well over 40 years, and still applies today.
If all I have is a gun (nuclear weapons), I have no option but to shoot back (and possibly shoot first). If I have a bullet-proof vest (some way to deflect a limited attack), I can choose how to respond.
Kind Regards,
W
I think the BMD is just fearmongering. I like Sue’s idea of spending the money to achieve the same goals in alternate ways.
The first question I would ask is this: is nuclear attack a CREDIBLE and immediate threat? After all, Earth could CONCEIVABLY be hit by a giant meteor (I’ve never seen “Armageddon”, but why would Hollywood lie to me?); should we (or anyone else) spend $200 billion on an anti-meteor defense shield?
Perhaps I’m being naive about the state of world affairs…I hope not.
The BMD strategy has been around for quite some time, as Warren pointed out, but has never come into existence. Why? Expense and performance. I do admit that there can/will/should be a number of spin offs from the R&D work that will be done. Thus from that standpoint the project has merit. Not to mention if the project is successful it would be one more weapon the US could use to protect the homeland or those countries that sign in.
So … is it a bad move to work on it? Not really.
Now, those who state that it will take weapons into space … a current place of peace and tranquillity … that is truly just a matter of time. We have not, as a species, moved off our planet and we have not currently regarded space as a good strategic place for weapons (though it is a great spot of spying). With the development of unmanned attack aircraft and more effect goes into laser weapons space will move into the combat zone. I guaranty that if war were to break out that communication satellites would be taken out if it were to ones advantage and capabilities.
But … it comes down to cost. In todays world, unlike the world of the cold war, we don’t live under a strong threat of ICBM attack. Sure, it is possible … but it is more likely that a car will explode outside your favorite coffee shop. Is it worth the huge cost? Maybe the intelligence and statistics are saying something I don’t know!
It also comes down to politics. This program is being driven by the US … with little or no regard to those other countries affected. So, Canada wanted to sit at the table … but what would the cost have been? Loss of some sovereignty? Loss of some cash? At what point do you, as a nation, decide that you want to separate yourself from US foreign policy – which currently seems to be causing more damage than good.
Then again, could there possibly be a back room deal that allows the US to carry the big sticks while Canada provides the gentle ear?
So … where do I stand? Currently I think there could be a better way to spend $200B … but I do believe that research should be looking towards some kind of missile defense system. One thing I do like is that Canada is defining their own foreign policy based off the voice of the people and not simply riding the coat tails of the US.
Thanks to everyone for their comments. I’m sorry I haven’t been able participate more fully in the conversation over the last 24 hours, but I’ve gotten busy with the day (and too often night) job.
I’ve been fortunate to know people who study missile defense policy professionally. Missile defense is technologically incredibly hard. In the last two tests, the interceptor hasn’t even bothered to leave its silo: laughable. Of itself, this is no reason not to develop it, but there are many problems.
1 – Interception in space or on approach is easy to thwart. Since there is no atmosphere in space, all objects follow ballistic trajectories. Mylar balloons that weigh a few grams are indistinguishable from warheads. Even North Korea has balloon technology.
2 – A realistic interception system would have to be boost-phase (it would intercept before the missile is launched out of the atmosphere). To work, the interception system would have to be in the same country as the missles, or in the air above it. All launch decisions would have to be automated.
3 – The patriot missile had, optimistically, a 10% success rate in Iraq. What made the SCUD missiles so ineffectual is that, well, they’re not very good.
Analysis can be found at http://www.fas.org.
I think the major problem, however, is that once you’ve developed a working BMD system, you still haven’t defended against someone putting a bomb on a container bound for, say, New York. Someone needs to do a cost/benefit analysis.
It is important to have a missle program. The cost ? What price do you put on freedom ? And the price of it don’t matter. Why ? Goverment is going to spend the money anyway. If not on missles, then some kind of crazy studies of insects, or birds or something. Other counties will keep on testing new weapons to destory free counties. And they always come crying to the U.S.A…, to help them. People of today don’t understand about WWII. That was a big cost, money and lives.. But we are free today.Russia is staring up a missle program. Not because of the U.S.A… They use that as a way bulding new weapons.. They really don’t have to have a reason. If you were a gun fighter in the old west, and you got call into to the street for a show down, would you want to go out there with a 22 or a 44 ? I know which one I would pick. We need to keep our nation STRONG!!!!!! Thats my two cents worth. thanks…