November 28, 2004

 

Dear Delbert Joo,

I have read your Literature review on Ballistic Missile Defense. I wanted to know your personal opinion on the subject. My personal opinion is that investing massive amounts of money into ballistic missile defense is just a waste, even in this post September 11 America.

The first reason it is a waste of money is because terrorist or “Rogue Nations” do not yet have the capability to reach the mainland of the United States with Ballistic Missiles. What is actually more of a threat is these foes smuggling weapons such as a nuclear bomb or chemical weapons in to the country and setting them off. The money should go to protecting our boarders. You stated early in your review referring to the constitution that the government has the responsibility to supply the country with a “common defense”. This common defense does not just mean a military solution, though at the time the constitution was made, the solution was military. We can take more preventive measures to assure that terrorist cannot get these weapons into the country.

The second reason it is a waste of money is because those nations that have the ability to attack us don’t have nearly as many Ballistic Missiles, and we keep track of their military operations constantly. They know this, so why would they attack us? This goes with the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The wasted money could be put into making international relations with these countries better than it is now, so they can never find a reason to attack us. Also many of these countries are financially tied to us so if our economy drops theirs may fail also.

The final reason I think that a Ballistic Missile Defense system is a waste of money is that even if we were able to make an accurate defense system, if a country or terrorist group really wanted to damage us using Ballistic Missile they would. Think about it; the terrorist will know that the United States has a Ballistic Missile Defense system so they can just use an easy strategy of overflowing the system with many Ballistic Missiles aimed at around the same area.

In conclusion, I believe that the government is wasting money by investing it in a Ballistic Missile Defense system. This money could be better used in preventing terrorist or other countries from attacking the United States. This is my opinion, please write back with yours whether you agree or not.

Respectfully,

Barnett Koryan

 

 

November 29, 2004

Dear Barnett Koryan,

            Thank you for taking the time to read my literature review.  Also, I appreciate you taking the time to express your feelings about my work.  I welcome the opportunity to learn about your different perspectives and look forward to a discussion. 

            Your main argument against a national ballistic missile defense concerns the cost of developing and implementing such a system.  The estimated costs are undoubtedly high, but these expenses should be expected for a comprehensive national defense.  Also, who can put a price cap on the safety of American citizens?  How much is too much, or how much is “acceptable,” when concerning the security of your family, neighbors, and loved ones?

            You state that “terrorists or “Rogue Nations” do not yet have the capability to reach the mainland of the United States with Ballistic Missiles.”  This is true to a certain extent.  Fortunately, many of our most dangerous enemies do not yet have the capabilities at the present, but they are all pursuing the means to develop their abilities.  We must not wait until the threat is clearly made to attempt to form a defense from scratch.  Within a few years, many more of our enemies will have the long-range capabilities to strike our homeland.  A comprehensive missile defense system will not be able to go from drawing board to an operational reality in a matter of months, but the construction will take several years.

            You argue that the US keeps tabs on all foreign nations’ missile activity, which is true.  However, the lack of a missile defense system causes America to be vulnerable from the unforeseeable scenario, an accidental missile launch.  Should a nation such as Russia or China accidentally launch missiles that threaten American citizens, wouldn’t it be the duty of the government to protect them?

            Again, I appreciate hearing your point of view.  Informed discussion on this topic will help bring it to the attention of politicians, who can then decide what course of action our nation will follow.

                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                Delbert Joo

 

 

November 29, 2004

 

Dear Delbert Joo,

Thank you for responding to my previous letter. I appreciated hearing your view of the whole issue. Though I do not fully agree with what you are saying, I understand where you’re coming from. Your argument swayed me a bit, but my main argument was that we were allocating too much money in that area when it could be used to protect the U.S. citizens now. The money seems to be wasted because nothing much has been produced from this investment.

Now I would like to point out another part of this Ballistic Missile defense controversy. We chose to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. This causes unrest in the international community because now since the treaty is not valid both the United States and Russia can continue the Cold War. I just read an article today from Scotsman.com, an online news site, reporting that Russia has officially announced the success of a modernized anti-ballistic missile system. Also since the United States government plans to build low-yield nuclear weapons, the Russian are now developing a nuclear weapon unlike any weapon held by other nuclear powers.

I believe we had plenty of space to build a functional Anti-Ballistic Missile system within the treaty. The treaty’s provisions allows for both the United States and Russia to have two Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) launch sites. We did not have to pull out of this treaty to expand our research on an ABM system. If we had already had a functional, accurate system, and we were expanding the system I can see how pulling out of the treaty and investing more money makes sense. As we are right now we are more vulnerable to a missile attack than before 2002, when we officially pulled out of the treaty because we are not under the safety of the ABM treaty and we don’t have a good Missile Defense System.

After reading this article I know for sure we need an ABM system now since we have already pulled out of the ABM treaty, but the money should still be allocated in a proper manner. It might have been easier and less expensive to have stayed in the treaty wait a little longer to get an accurate system then get out of the treaty and expand the system.

Respectfully yours,

Barnett Koryan

 

 

November 30, 2004

Dear Barnett Koryan,

            Your educated insight concerning ballistic missile defense has raised some important concerns.  You reiterated that the government was allocating too much money towards missile defense, when resources could be better utilized to protect American citizens more directly.  I disagree that this is a present problem.  The Department of Homeland Security, the nation’s foremost organization in protecting our citizens, cannot be accused of having budget shortcomings.  The 2003 budget directs $37.7 billion to homeland security, up from $19.5 billion in 2002.  This growth reflects President Bush’s priority of the homeland security agenda.  These numbers prove that there are clearly no budget deficiencies when it comes to protecting Americans at home.

            While you bring up relevant points about budget issues, I feel that you are somewhat misinformed about the ABM treaty.  You state that now after President Bush’s withdrawal of the treaty, the U.S. and Russia can continue the Cold War.  Technically, it was not Russia taking part in the Cold War, but communist Soviet Union.  Russia has since made great attempts to free itself from the one-time Cold War image.  However, the fact that Russia announced just yesterday that it had successfully tested a modern anti-ballistic missile system should do nothing but further influence politicians and citizens alike to express support for an American equivalent.

            After taking into consideration the recent developments of Russian anti-ballistic missile defense tests, I am glad that you agree that our nation needs an ABM system as well.  I will take your arguments into consideration as I reevaluate my position on the issue.  Thank you for kindly participating in the discussion of this important issue.                                                                                                      

                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                    Delbert Joo