By Ted Volskay
Simpsonville, SC
To those of you who do not know me very well, my daughters are on their HS debate team. HS Debate is wonderful because it makes students look at both sides (pro/con) of an issue. As a parent who values what debate has to offer including development of critical thinking skills in-lieu of blind faith, I actively support my daughters and the debate team with my participation as a parent/volunteer judge. I usually judge the Lincoln-Douglas (LD) or Public Forum Debates (PFD). This weekend I was judging PFD and the resolution for debate was “Russia is a threat to United States interests”. Two student teams are randomly selected (by coin toss) to argue the PRO or the CON side of the issue. After hearing several rounds (this week and prior debates), I was bothered by a recurring argument for those who argued in favor (PRO) of the resolution. Their argument was:
Russia is a threat to U.S. interests because Russia has threatened to aim their missiles at proposed U.S. missile defense installations in Eastern Europe which will be installed only for defensive purposes.
The name “Missile Defense,” like many of the Bush Administration initiatives (“Patriot Act” and “Clear Skies Initiative”) is an oxymoron for the following reason:
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the unwritten policy whereby those countries (US, Russia, China) that possess long-range missiles armed with nuclear warheads co-exist in peace. It is very unlikely that a country will initiate a nuclear war with another country that is capable of retaliating with nuclear weapons. In other words, the US won’t launch a nuclear strike against Russia (and visa-versa) because we know that Russia is capable of retaliating with nuclear weapons from remote locations. There is little incentive to wage nuclear war if the likely outcome is mutual/self annihilation. Consequently, the MAD policy apparently works. There have been no nuclear exchanges between countries since the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in 1945.
The Missile “Defense” initiative threatens to change the calculus of the MAD policy. There are many reasons why the Missile “Defense” shield may never work as advertised; however, if it does work to the satisfaction of those who control it, it would enable the United States to launch a first strike against Russia and survive because the Missile “Defense” system would hypothetically protect us against certain nuclear retaliation by Russia. Consequently, the Ronald Reagan/George W. Bush Missile “Defense” initiative accomplishes the following:
1) It disrupts the peaceful equilibrium achieved by the MAD policy;
2) Hypothetically, it would allow the US to launch a nuclear strike against Russia and survive;
3) It resurrects the Cold War between the US and Russia;
4) The response by Russia (Russian missiles aimed at US Missile “Defense” systems in eastern Europe) will foment mistrust between the US and Russia and another layer of irrational fear among an ill-informed and disengaged American electorate; and
5) Most importantly, it provides yet another reason to increase military spending (feed the military-industrial complex that REPUBLICAN President (and Army General) Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell address warned us about:
According to NPR, President Bush’s proposed budget freezes domestic spending and increases military spending. If approved, the military budget alone will be $750,000,000,000 ($750 billion) or more than the entire military budgets of every country in the world combined. If you listen to this link to NPR, you will realise that insane military spending is a bipartisan effort. After all, who wants to be accused of being weak on defense? As a former Navy officer, I agree with General Eisenhower: strong defense? ABSOLUTELY!; self-perpetuating, self-serving out of control military-industrial complex? -NO! I predict that the insanity of out of control defense spending will eventually stop but only when the country is literally bankrupt and the real fear of spiraling inflation, unemployment, and Americans living in third world conditions displaces the irrational fear that cuts in defense spending will lead to imminent attacks by Russia, China, Castro, Hugo Chaves, North Korea, and terrorists sneaking across every border.