Missile Defense System - Buren for the United States

This is well argued. Its weakest point is the lack of dealing with  opposing
arguments.
Thesis: 15;
Summarize opposing arguments: 5
Main point: 15
Particulars: 15
Supporting evidence: 15
Conclusion: 10
MLA style: 4
Grammar, etc: 15
Total: 94/100



     The National Missile Defense System - Burden for the United States
                               Anuar Orumbayev
                                  English I
                                  [ENG 121]
                         Instructor: Kenneth Ziegler
                         Arapahoe Community College



                                 Feb.2.2004
     The National Missile Defense System - Burden for the United States
   Since the beginning of the nuclear age, both the United States and the
                                   Soviet
Union have been searching for effective ways to  defend  themselves  against
nuclear attack. In the early 1960’s, the Soviet Union’s superiority in long-
range ballistic missiles forced the United States  to  reevaluate  its  air-
defense system. This nuclear race was a major facet of the Cold War  between
the United States and the Soviet Union, the  war  that  has  been  a  burden
rather than weapon competition for both the Soviets and America.
      The Cold War was still fully active during the  presidency  of  Ronald
Reagan.   He  proposed  a  National  Missile  Defense  System.   Originally,
President Reagan's plan called for development  of  a  space  based  weapons
system that could  detect  and  destroy  ballistic  missiles  of  any  kind,
launched against the United States from any distance, without  causing  harm
to the people or the environment of the United States.  Due to  the  current
political role of the United States in the world, and especially  after  the
attacks of September 11, 2001, President  George  W.  Bush’s  administration
has reasserted its intention of building this system.
      These recent attacks have increased the  US  awareness  of  a  growing
threat. Proponents state that given the growing ballistic  missile  industry
in other countries, the US has to prepare itself for attacks  of  any  kind.
They claim that the building of a  National  Missile  Defense  will  provide
more security to the people of the United States, and will  in  fact  assure
the safety of every citizen of  the  United  States  within  its  territory.
Especially after the recent attacks,  this  is  what  the  majority  of  the
people want at present.  Even though these reasons seem to indicate that  we
should implement the National Missile Defense System, there are  many  sound
arguments against it.
      Currently, chances of the United States being  attacked  by  ballistic
missiles of long range are very low, or do not exist  at  all.  Even  though
the United States government  suspects  that  countries  like  North  Korea,
Iran, or for that matter any Muslim state may launch such an  attack,  these
countries are  not  in  possession  of  weapons  of  mass  destruction  with
capabilities of harming the United States.  An article published  by  Robert
Joseph and Keith Payne  of  the  Institute  of  National  Strategic  Studies
asserts that “No proliferant state currently has the ability to  strike  the
United  States  with  ballistic  missiles.  If   threats   do   emerge,   US
conventional superiority or, if necessary,  offensive  nuclear  forces  will
deter attacks on the United States” (Joseph and Payne 1).
      Even though the US government is insisting on  building  this  missile
defense system, the Pentagon hasn’t  thoroughly  tested  the  system.  Seven
tests of hitting an airborne target  were  conducted.  The  Pentagon  states
that all seven were successful, and that  the  US  government  is  ready  to
start this project. A group  of  scientists  from  Institute  of  technology
explained  how  the  tests  were  conducted,  and  how  they  were  in  fact
unsuccessful. They clearly state that in the first  two  tests,  the  system
failed to distinguish between the target warhead and a set  of  decoys  that
were shaped like warheads.  Modern  nuclear  missiles  all  launch  multiple
decoys along with one or more warheads.  After this  failure  in  the  first
two tests, the multiple  realistically-shaped  decoys  were  replaced  by  a
single large balloon-shaped decoy in all of the later  tests.  In  order  to
make the tests appear successful, the  unidentifiable  decoys  were  removed
from the test field.
      Another controversial issue about the National Missile Defense  system
is the cost to the American public. This will be the single  most  expensive
project in the history of the United States, estimated to be  between  sixty
billion and one  hundred  billion  dollars.  Assuming  that  some  parts  of
nuclear warheads periodically need to be replaced due to radioactive  decay,
the price might go up to half a trillion dollars,  depending  on  the  exact
system that the US government develops. This amount  will  mean  more  taxes
from every citizen, and increase of national debt. Instead of spending  this
amount of money  building  the  National  Missile  Defense  system,  the  US
government would be better served  paying  off  the  national  debt  to  its
citizens.
      The recent attacks of September 11 weren’t nuclear; they were realized
by using civilian airplanes as a weapon. These  attacks  claimed  more  than
three thousands lives. Considering the unavailability of nuclear weapons  at
present, these kinds of attacks  are  more  likely  to  occur  than  nuclear
attacks. So instead of  focusing  on  nuclear  attacks,  the  US  government
should spend the money on security  at  airports,  malls,  or  other  public
places.
      The  only  state  that  has  the  power  to  launch  weapons  of  mass
destruction against the United States is  Russia.  Although  the  Russia  of
today is not the same as  the  Soviet  Union  of  1984,  it  is  still  very
powerful in the field of nuclear weapons.  Some  think  that  if  US  starts
developing the Missile Defense System it might encourage Russia  to  upgrade
its nuclear arsenal, but it won't happen for one reason: its  too  expensive
for Russia's  current  budget.  Cold  War  brought  Soviets  bankruptcy  and
collapse, and neither Russia nor any  former  Soviet  state  would  like  to
repeat this experiment again.
      Right now the building of a National Missile Defense system should not
be among priorities for the government.   The  building  of  such  a  system
however would not make the United States more  secure,  because  instead  of
launching ballistic missiles  terrorists  target  places  of  high  civilian
concentration, besides this Missile Defense project  is  too  expensive  for
America and it will bring nothing else rather than huge national debt.