The official motive for building a BMD

A threat from the so-called Rogue States has provided the rationale for a ballistic missile defense (BMD) system. The White House and the Republicans are currently marketing the BMD as a "thin shield" to protect us from countries not friendly to us, with North Korea the leading bogey because it successfully test-fired a missile of medium range (not an ICBM).

It never took much mental effort to see through this rationale for spending $60 billion and abrogating the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, thereby reversing three decades of progress toward a safer world. One only had to ask why a nation like Libya or North Korea would launch a few ICBMs against the U.S. knowing that doing so would mean its own utter destruction. Even if they wanted to attack us so badly that they might run some risks, they would have a much better chance of evading detection if they delivered a nuclear weapon by boat into, say, New York harbor, or dumped anthrax into Chicago’s water supply. Even a Cruise missile launched from a ship offshore would be less risky. Assuming a BMD worked as designed, it would be useless against these kinds of attacks.

Actually, building an ICBM is so massive a task that U.S. spy satellites would detect preparations long before a small nation could complete and launch it. We would have ample time to end the threat either by pressure or preemptive strike.

So the pretext for deploying a BMD has never made sense, though the media has been all too willing to present the issue on official Washington’s own terms.

The real motives for building a BMD

Two of the three motive are 1. Continuing the huge welfare system for the military-industrial complex, which gives enormous campaign contributions to both major parties and their candidates; 2. Political competition for the "though on defense" vote. Probably, Bill Clinton (and Al Gore) is motivated by both of these since he has proved willing to do anything for electoral reasons.

But the third and more threatening motive is the quest for global domination through military control of space. This quest fascinates the Republicans, who cannot be persuaded that Star Wars is technically unfeasible no matter what the evidence. Some of the Congressional leadership has been upfront about their commitment to the old Reagan dream. They speak openly of tearing up the ABM Treaty, even if that means the end of all nuclear arms control, because they are so enamoured with the impregnable shield. Parts (but only parts) of the Pentagon and armed services are also fully persuaded that, with enough time and money, they can pull this off.

For these people, the shield is also a sword. The space-based weapons they dream of (some of which are being worked on) are also offensive, designed to hit targets on the ground. As Gen. Joseph Ashby, former commander of the U.S. Space Command, has said, "we’re going to fight in space. We’re going to fight from space and we’re going to fight into space."

For a clear statement of this dream, consult the U.S. Space Command’s "Vision for 2020," which is on the web at http://www.spacecom.mil. Note its repeated and prominently displayed slogan, "US Space Command—dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investments."