SOLVENCY: NMD IS NOT DESIGNED TO WORK AGAINST TERRORISM, SO THAT IS NO INDICTMENT
NMD ISNT DESIGNED TO WORK AGAINST TERRORISTS, BUT AGAINST ROGUE STATES WITH MISSILES
Bruce Anderson January 15, 2001, The Independent (London) SECTION: COMMENT; Pg. 3 HEADLINE: WHY NOT SHELTER BENEATH AMERICA'S DEFENCE UMBRELLA? //VT2002acsln
NMD would not eliminate the threat of mass destruction, for it would make no contribution to the fight against nuclear terrorism - a danger of which the Americans are well aware. But it would remove the threat of ballistic missiles fired by rogue states, so it would make the world a much safer place. To refuse to support NMD because it cannot solve all problems would be like telling the police that there is no point in trying to catch rapists, because this would not prevent burglary. The Americans may receive little gratitude for NMD, but yet again, they will be making a large and disinterested financial sacrifice in the cause of world peace.
TERRORIST WEAPONS NOT BEING SOLVED BY NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD NOT ACT TO STOP MISSILE THREATS
Joseph Perkins The San Diego Union-Tribune March 12, 1999, SECTION: OPINION Pg. B-11: HEADLINE: Why we need full speed ahead on a national missile defense system; As Perhaps the most disingenuous argument against national missile defense is that the biggest threat to American civilians is terrorism, an undetected bomb planted in a building (like the World Trade Center) or nerve gas sprayed into a crowded subway (like Tokyo) or highly toxic chemicals dumped into a municipal water supply (a future Oliver Stone movie?).
These are legitimate threats to the U.S. civilian population. And the government ought to do everything possible to protect the public against such acts. But that doesn't mean that the United States should ignore the future threat of nuclear missile attack.