FEASIBILITY: NMD STRATEGIC CONCEPTIONS ARE FAULTY
CLAIMING THE NEED FOR NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE MEANS RECOGNIZING SELF-DEFEATING CONCEPTS THAT DETERRENCE WILL FAIL AND THAT OTHER LEADERS ARE IRRATIONAL
Richard Durbin St. Louis Post-Dispatch March 23, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. B7, HEADLINE: STAR WARS PLAN WOULD UNDERMINE U.S. SECURITY // lnu-acs
No one is underestimating the capacity for so-called rogue nations to act in ways that seem irrational to us. However, in deciding that we must spend billions of dollars to build a missile defense system to protect ourselves against these third-world powers, we are making one of two assumptions. Either we are tacitly admitting that we would not respond to an attack by one of them against us with overwhelming force - whether nuclear or conventional - or else we are assuming that these leaders are so crazy that they would risk the destruction of their nations and the loss of their own power or lives for one shot at the United States.
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE OPPONENTS ARE WEDDED TO OUTMODED COLD WAR CONCEPTS OF DETERRENCE
Bill Walsh The Times-Picayune July 28, 1999; Pg. A3 HEADLINE: VITTER FILES BILL TO FORCE UPGRADE OF U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM; FRESHMAN'S FIRST BILL PAINTS HIM AS A HAWK // lnu-acs
"There is a tremendous reluctance with this administration to go full bore with a missile defense system because they are so tied to the outdated theology that discourages any defensive systems and puts all our emphasis on mutually assured destruction," Vitter said. "They are still wedded to this pre-1980s notion that you shouldn't focus on defenses, but on treaties."