Just_Politics_Or_National_Security__The_Argument_Against_A_M

Just Politics Or National Security: The Argument Against A Missile Defense System. Should the U.S. build a missile defense system' A missile defense system would intend to be a defensive screen for America and its allies. Its goal would be to track incoming ballistic missiles and then destroy them. The question is will it work' At what cost' Will it do any good' Robert A. Levine, defense analyst and former official in the U.S. executive and legislative branches, thinks not, he states that: The dirty little truth is that North Korea, or any other terrorist state, not to mention nonstate groups like Osama bin Laden's, will be able to deliver terrorist weapons - biological, chemical, maybe even nuclear - by a number of nonmissile means. All ABM development can do is to spend tens of billions of dollars to force them to develop those alternatives at costs measured in millions. (Levine 2) A missile defense system does not defend against nonmissile means, it costs the government billions and there are many countermeasures, any of which would doom the system. Such a national defense system is also frowned upon by the international community. The case for a missile defense system lies mostly in the argument of that there missile, system, defense, ballistic, states, america, missiles, nuclear, against, rogue, negate, means, likely, billions, attack, weapons, united, threat, deutch, defend, terrorist, national, even, countermeasures, chemical, argument, unlikely, terrorism, technology, spend, race, nonmissile, nations, mass, icbms