?All members shall settle their international disputes
by peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice, are not violated.?
(UN Charter, Article 2.3)
And paragraph 4 states:
?All members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.? (UN Charter, Article 2.4)
Although democratizing the entire globe may be a long way off, it is most certainly an effective way of maintaining world peace and security.
Supporters of a National Missile Defense system have a few arguments that they use to back the establishment of the NMD program. First, they argue, we need the NMD program not to protect ourselves from the nuclear arsenal of Russia or China, but rather from one of the smaller possible nuclear-capable rouge states and from terrorist groups. They argue that rouge states that acquire ICBMs and nuclear warheads could use their technology for ?coercive purposes? against the United States. (Krepon 1999, 31) Realis-tically, could these coercion techniques really be effective against the US? Not likely, because a rouge state, even a larger one such as Iraq or Iran, could not ever conceivably have enough fire-power to match that of the US, Great Britain, Russia, or other nuclear superpower. It is conceivable, however, for a terrorist group to obtain the tools neces-sary to build and fire a nuclear missile. According to author Cindy Combs:
?The technology and the materials are available to
terrorists today. While the devices may be difficult
to manufacture, it is not impossible to do so, and
they could be stolen, purchased, or supplied by a
supporting state.? (Combs 2000, 124)
However, the likelihood of this occurring is undoubtedly small. As was stated before, it would be much easier for a terrorist group to deliver a nuclear warhead via a vehicle such as a car, truck, or van, or hide it on an airplane, train, or bus.
If the US does not need this complex NMD program, then are there any alterna-tives to ensuring our national security? Most definitely, there are. For instance the US can continue to attempt a dialogue with those states that are considered to be ?dangers? to national security. The US could also work to maintain it?s current defense shield. Or, we could do nothing at all. However, this is probably not the best option for maintaining world peace and security.
In conclusion, it is evident that the United States has no use for a National Mis-sile Defense system. As study has shown, it will benefit nobody to develop and build one, and it will only hinder world peace and stability in the long run. Jacques Chirac stated in 1999:
“If you look at world history, ever since men began
waging war, you will see that there’s a permanent
race between sword and shield. The sword always
wins. The more improvements that are made to the
shield, the more improvements are made to the sword.
We think that with these [anti-missile] systems, we
are just going to spur swordmakers to intensify their
efforts.” (Council for A Livable World, web site )
If even powerful world-leaders fear that the establishment of NMD would only increase the power of attack weapons, Then there must be some validity to the idea. To ensure world peace and stability, NMD program must therefore cease.
Bibliography
Chafetz, Glenn. 1995. ?The Political Psychology of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Regime.? The Journal of Politics 57:743-75.
Cirincoine, Joseph, and Frank Von Hippel. 1999. The Last 15 Minutes: Ballistic Missile Defense in Perspective. Washington, DC: Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers.
Combs, Cindy C. 1999. Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartung, William D. 2001 ?Bush?s Nuclear Revival.? The Nation, March 12.
Hulme, Derick. ?Arms Control.? World Problems and Conflict (class notes, via Brian Somers) Alma College, Alma, MI. 17 November.
Kissinger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Knickerbocker, Brad. ?Allies Keep Balking at Missile Defense.? Christian Science Monitor, 9 March 2001.
Krepon, Michael. 1999. ?Missile Defense: Not Such A Bad Idea.? Bulletin of Atomin Scientists. May/June 31-33.
Mendelsohn, Jack. 1999. ?Missile Defense: and it Still Won?t Work.? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. May/June 29-31.
Nolan, Janne E. 1999. An Elusive Consensus: Nuclear Weapons and American Security After the Cold War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Schorr, Daniel. ?Decoding Defense Speak.? Christian Science Monitor, 16 February 2001.
Teller, Edward. 1987. Better a Shield than a Sword: Perspectives on Defense and Technology. New York: The Free Press.
United Nations. 1945. ?Charter of the United Nations? 3 Bevans 1153 26 June.
Winkler, Allan M. 1999. Life Under a Cloud: American Anxiety About the Atom. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Mendelsohn, Jack. 1999. ?Missile Defense: and it Still Won?t Work.? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. May/June 29-31.