Missile Defense: a sound choice

Right after every disastrous national event, the political equivalents of "ambulance chasers" jump into the spotlight. I'm talking about pundits and politicians who call for more gun control after a shooting or, most recently, no national missile defense because it could not have prevented last week's "September Massacre."\nOn the afternoon of the bombings, an IU professor had the gall to say, "Well, I guess National Missile Defense is out the window. There's no way that would have stopped this."\nI had planned to talk about America coming together and the genuine strength projected by President George W. Bush. But since the first shots have been fired about the National Missile Defense, I must respond. \nThat professor summed up the new argument used against National Missile Defense: It couldn't have prevented the September Massacre. Well neither could aircraft carriers, Cruise missiles or spy planes. Should we stop investing in those too? Of course not. \nThe end of the Cold War signaled a reduction in the likelihood of open conflict. But the threat from foreign missiles has grown steadily as sophisticated missile technology becomes available on a wider scale. It was President Ronald Reagan who proposed an ambitious missile defense in a March 23, 1983, speech.\nPresident George W. Bush took up the mantle most recently, boldly pushing forward with more research and development. A Cliffs Notes version of National Missile Defense would read, "A space-based missile defense system designed to shoot down Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles headed toward the United States from rogue nations." \nIf anything, last week's suicide attacks made this threat more real. Imagine a country like Iraq or Afghanistan pointing an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile at Los Angeles. Once it's been fired, there's nothing our military could do to stop it. Opinion polls suggest Americans already think we have a missile defense. They are wrong; our military is incapable of shooting down an ICBM once it's launched.\nWe are, in effect, held hostage by the threat. Rogue states like Afghanistan and terrorists like Osama bin Laden are not far from ICBM capabilities. They already have long-range missiles capable of carrying chemical and biological weapons (some even suggest they have nuclear weapons).\nOnce they get a hold of ICBMs, terrorists wouldn't need to sneak onto a plane. They could sit back at home and push the button to launch a missile. Mutually assured destruction does not stop a determined terrorist. The September Massacre proved these extremists are not afraid of losing their life for their cause. The threat of retaliation does not particularly frighten them. Our only true defense is a protective shield of missiles positioned in outer space that would shoot down any missile headed toward America, sort of like an umbrella. As a strictly defensive system, other countries have no reason to fear it.\nThe September Massacre shows the United States has dangerous enemies. They will not always use hijacked planes, and we should prepare.