Pages Navigation Menu

Missile Defense Contradiction

I just want to be certain of the U.S. Congress and President’s position on missile defense.  They seem to believe that such a defense system is unworkable, destabilizing and too expensive.  Thus,we were more than willing to give up George W’s hard won defense system in exchange for a mutual reduction in nuclear arms with Russia.

On the other hand, missile defense is entirely workable and cost effective for Israel.  So we are willing to give them $205 million to develop a shield for them.  How is such logic reconciled?

Israel, as well as the U.S., is entitled to develop whatever defense system is necessary to prevent or deter hostile action in a dangerous world.  Why are we in the U.S. depriving ourselves from a workable technology that can save lives?  Because of cost?  That has never stopped Congress before.  Because of some idealistic and academic notion of collective security trumping any need for self reliance?  Maybe.  Or is it also because of some complex problem solving response influenced by a latent socialistic ideal or communist romanticism taught by educators at elite universities when our world leaders were more susceptible to academic persuasion?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>