The development of an accurately working national missile defense system would be ineffective and counterproductive. Currently our system used to deter a nuclear missile attack has always been, that any country that would take such a hostile action towards the United States would suffer a complete and total annihilation with our counter attack. This policy has been able to keep the peace for over fifty years. Unfortunately this policy has been put into question recently with the emergence of rogue nations with nuclear capabilities. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld explains:I believe we need to recognize that the deterrence of the Cold War—mutual assured destruction and the concept of massive retaliation—worked reasonably well during the Cold War. But as senator McCain said this morning in answer to a question, the problems today are different. The demands are different. And we have an obligation to plan for these changing circumstances to make sure that we are arranged—first and foremost—to dissuade rash and reckless aggressors from taking action or threatening action. Terror weapons don’t need to be fired. They just need to be in the hands of people who would threaten their use. (Rumsfeld 3)While Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld feels that a national missile defense would “…dissuade rash and reckless aggressors from taking action or threatening action” (3). Many experts say “instead of eliminating the mutual-assured-destruction polices of the Cold War, Bush’s formula will make it more difficult to deal with lingering Cold War dangers and create new proliferation problems” (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Arms 2). With the emplacement of a national missile defense system our allies as well as our enemies would adapt their nuclear weapons and launching procedures to increase their chances of penetrating our defensives. It is these adaptations that could lead to...
