Missile Defense in the 21st Century: Part 4

Now that we have answered the most important questions regarding space based missile defense, it's time to field a few other concerns that might eventually pose some problems for the implementation of a space based missile defense system.

Probably the biggest obstacle potentially standing in the way of space-based missile defense (at least in the eyes of many casual observers) would be its cost, however, when we crunch the numbers, we find that really presents no problem. Jeremy Singer reported that "In the study, dubbed 'Alternatives for Boost-Phase Missile Defense,' the nonpartisan CBO said a space-based system capable of shielding the United States would cost anywhere from $27 billion to $78 billion over the next 20 years." Singer further noted that these numbers are higher than the actual cost. Quoting Henry Cooper, the former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, Singer points out that the CBO's calculations are probably too high as the missile shield could be developed with cheaper, but just as effective technology and interception missiles.

To understand how easily such a program would fit under the Department of Defense budget, we only have to look to the FY Budget of 2009, which allocated the Department of Defense $515 billion. Even if the cost was the maximum $78 billion over the next twenty years, the cost would only be $3.9 billion per year. With countless wasteful spending programs all over the federal budget, it would not be hard to scrap a few and come up with the necessary money to fund a space based missile defense system...a program that would actually benefit the United States and put taxpayer money to efficient use.

Yet, even with the program's constitutionality, cost effectiveness, and advantages to U.S. national security, some oppose the implementation of a space based missile defense system due to the strain it would potentially provide on international relations. On this issue, Ambassador to the United Nations, Jonathan Deen said "If the U.S. refuses to comply with some of these actions, parties could request an injunction based on the Outer Space Treaty from the International Court of Justice to stop the deployment of weapons in outer space."

To be sure, this debate is highly complicated in and of itself, so I find it best to simplify it into the clash of two main ideas: national sovereignty vs. international relations. In the end, the decisions the United States makes in regard to space based missile defense will cause us to lose some national sovereignty or have some negative impact on foreign relations with countries like Russia and Iran. So should we desire individual autonomy or friendly relations with Russia and Iran?

Obviously, friendly relations with countries like Russia and Iran (and many other nations in the UN) cannot be achieved unless the United States sacrifices core principles that guided our nation's founding. These principles would begin with national sovereignty, but would eventually end with the sacrifice of national security, constitutionalism, and potentially individual liberties as well. The United States would have to approve of and aid Russia's regression into totalitarianism while accepting Iran's support of terrorism and anti-Israeli foreign policies. Obviously, sacrificing something as beneficial as a space based missile defense system would not be a wise move if this is all we can hope for as a result. Therefore, keeping our national sovereignty and the other values that it protects by building a space based missile defense system should be the guiding light of our future missile defense policy.

The debate over space-based missile defense still continues today. Japan's decision to pursue the concept will certainly add fuel to the fire on both sides of the argument regarding U.S. missile defense. However, at the fundamental level of the issues, a space-based missile defense system designed to destroy enemy missiles in their boost phase is constitutional, beneficial to national and international security, and cost-efficient. Clearly, with the potential catastrophic costs to our economy and our citizens by just one successful ICBM attack, the United States must field the best missile defense capabilities it possibly can: the space-based boost phase missile defense system.