<<  <  >  >>

NMD sometimes

uation. According to Republican National

Introduction

Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson, not

resembles a theo-

having the ability to defend against a missile

logical, rather

My fellow Americans, tonight we're

attack could become the "most important

than a public

launching an effort which holds the

[security] issue of the 2000 election . . . I don't

promise of changing the course of

think people in the country fully realize the

policy, issue.

human history. There will be risks,

enormity of the threat we're facing."2 Radio

and results take time. But I believe we

ads in Nevada paid for by Empower America,

can do it. As we cross this threshold, I

to garner support for legislation to deploy a

ask for your prayers and your sup-

national missile defense as soon as possible,

port.

are another example: "We are only one vote

shy of ensuring the safety of you and your

-- Ronald Reagan

family. But the people standing in the way are

Address to the Nation

Nevada's own senators," according to

March 23, 1983

Republican stalwarts William Bennett and

Jack Kemp.3

Ronald Reagan's introduction of the

Since the inception of the SDI program,

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983

the United States has spent at least $45 billion

sparked tremendous controversy. Although

over a 15-year period to develop a national

the national missile defense (NMD) program

missile defense system. Although the effort

being considered today bears little resem-

has yet to be successful, supporters believe

blance to Reagan's "Star Wars" program--

that it is simply a question of money and

which sought to defend against a full-scale

political will. According to Senator Thad

Soviet nuclear attack--the tenor of the debate

Cochran (R-Miss.), there has been no com-

is relatively unchanged 16 years later. Missile

mitment from the White House and thus:

defense remains a contentious issue, with

"There's been no real incentive to push ahead,

advocates and detractors so passionate in

to use all the assets, resources and technology

available."4

their convictions that NMD sometimes re-

sembles a theological, rather than a public

Opponents of missile defense, on the other

policy, issue. Unfortunately, devout ideo-

hand, depict NMD as an outrageously expen-

logues on both sides of the issue often sacri-

sive boondoggle that may destabilize

fice reasoned dialogue in favor of dema-

the strategic nuclear balance. An Atlanta

goguery.

Constitution editorial posed the question:

Proponents of missile defense, especially

"Why waste billions on a system that will not

conservative activists, often portray NMD as a

work, to defend against a threat that does not

benchmark issue separating politicians who

exist?"5 The Oregon Statesman-Journal has

are serious about safeguarding U.S. national

been even more caustic: "Some members of

security from those who would undermine it.

Congress apparently see outer space as a black

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), for example,

hole, to be filled with your tax dollars."6

said of President Clinton: "We have a presi-

Why such ire on both sides of the issue?

dent that vetoed the DoD authorization bill

First, NMD--like SDI before it--has become

because he doesn't want to spend more

something of a political and ideological lit-

money on defending America against ballistic

mus test. Virtually all conservatives support

missile attack. And now you can come to only

NMD and virtually all liberals oppose it.7

one conclusion. . . . We need a new president."1

Second, even though NMD differs greatly

from Reagan's original SDI proposal, many

Proponents of missile defense often paint

opponents of NMD intentionally blur the

a "doom-and-gloom" picture of the sit-

2