Arguments for and Against Missile Defence

Some arguments used in favour of Missile Defence

Some arguments used against Missile Defence

>> It is a more uncertain world now. During the Cold War, the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (that both the US and Soviet Union had large nuclear forces and could strike and cause severe damage or even obliterate the other country) was sufficient to deter the countries from launching an attack. Now that the Cold War is over, Bush has said we must acknowledge that the world is no longer bi-polar, with two equally weighted super powers. Instead more unpredictable, less responsible nations possess nuclear weapons and are willing to use them to threaten and intimidate their immediate neighbours and distant enemies.

>> Missile defence will trigger the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction as other countries may upgrade/develop their nuclear arsenals to try to overcome the US missile defence shield. This development would run counter to the attempts of treaties to limit weapons, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), which works towards preventing an increase in nuclear weapons. We will see new arms races and a threat to global security.

>> After September 11th the US is worried about more terrorist attacks and believes missile defence is essential to its continued security.

>> The US is fearful of missile attacks from so-called 'rogue states' such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya and wants to be able to protect itself if such attacks were to take place.

>> Britain's involvement with the missile defence project makes Britain a 'sitting target' for an attack. As former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Timothy Garden, pointed out Fylingdales and Menwith Hill "would become the forward eyes of a defence system". Therefore anyone wanting to launch missiles against the US would benefit from taking out the UK sites first.

>>The US wants to be able to protect itself against accidental missile launches from countries with nuclear weapons such as Russia.

>> Missile defence leads to world political instability and anger. China, Russia, India and Pakistan, all of which have nuclear weapons, have already expressed their concerns.

>> Missile Defence is immensely expensive. It is estimated that Britain's involvement could cost us up to £10 billion a year. The US spends around $8-9 billion per annum on missile defence research and development. This money could be better spent on people's real security needs.

Things to think about:

i) Is the case for or against missile defence more convincing?
ii) Will missile defence undermine disarmament work or make the world a safer place to be?
iii) Why do you think states want nuclear weapons?
iv) What actions do you see being taken towards disarmament?
v) Would missile defence have protected against the attacks of September 11th?
vi) How much money is used on peace making in the world?

>>The technological difficulties around trying to intercept missiles, which some consider is as difficult as trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, means that we could spend lots of money on a project which has little likelihood of success.

>> The development of missile defence meant the end of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. Creating not destroying international agreements and arms control is the way to world peace.

Missile Defence Word Search >>