Реферат: Missile Defense System - Buren for the United States

This is well argued. Itsweakest point is the lack of dealing with opposing arguments.

Thesis: 15;

Summarize opposingarguments: 5

Main point: 15

Particulars: 15

Supporting evidence: 15

Conclusion: 10

MLA style: 4

Grammar, etc: 15

Total: 94/100

The National Missile Defense System — Burden for the United States

Anuar Orumbayev

English I

[ENG 121]

Instructor: Kenneth Ziegler

Arapahoe Community College

The National Missile Defense System — Burden for the United States

Since the beginning of the nuclear age, both the United States andthe Soviet

Union have been searching for effective ways to defend themselvesagainst nuclear attack. In the early 1960’s, the Soviet Union’s superiority inlong-range ballistic missiles forced the United States to reevaluate itsair-defense system. This nuclear race was a major facet of the Cold War betweenthe United States and the Soviet Union, the war that has been a burden ratherthan weapon competition for both the Soviets and America. 

The Cold War was still fully active during thepresidency of Ronald Reagan.  He proposeda National Missile Defense System. Originally, President Reagan's plan called for development of a spacebased weapons system that could detect and destroy ballistic missiles of any kind,launched against the United States from any distance, without causing harm tothe people or the environment of the United States.  Due to the current political role of theUnited States in the world, and especially after the attacks of September 11, 2001,President George W. Bush’s administration has reasserted its intention ofbuilding this system.

These recent attacks have increased the US awareness ofa growing threat. Proponents state that given the growing ballistic missileindustry in other countries, the US has to prepare itself for attacks of anykind. They claim that the building of a National Missile Defense will providemore security to the people of the United States, and will in fact assure thesafety of every citizen of the United States within its territory.  Especially after the recent attacks, this iswhat the majority of the people want at present.  Even though these reasons seem to indicatethat we should implement the National Missile Defense System, there are manysound arguments against it. 

Currently, chances of the United States being attackedby ballistic missiles of long range are very low, or do not exist at all. Eventhough the United States government suspects that countries like North Korea,Iran, or for that matter any Muslim state may launch such an attack, thesecountries are not in possession of weapons of mass destruction withcapabilities of harming the United States. An article published by Robert Joseph and Keith Payne of the Instituteof National Strategic Studies asserts that “No proliferant state currently hasthe ability to strike the United States with ballistic missiles. If threats doemerge, US conventional superiority or, if necessary, offensive nuclear forceswill deter attacks on the United States” (Joseph and Payne 1).

Eventhough the US government is insisting on building this missile defense system,the Pentagon hasn’t thoroughly tested the system. Seven tests of hitting anairborne target were conducted. The Pentagon states that all seven weresuccessful, and that the US government is ready to start this project. A groupof scientists from Institute of technology explained how the tests wereconducted, and how they were in fact unsuccessful. They clearly state that inthe first two tests, the system failed to distinguish between the targetwarhead and a set of decoys that were shaped like warheads. Modern nuclearmissiles all launch multiple decoys along with one or more warheads.  After this failure in the first two tests,the multiple realistically-shaped decoys were replaced by a single largeballoon-shaped decoy in all of the later tests. In order to make the testsappear successful, the unidentifiable decoys were removed from the test field.

Anothercontroversial issue about the National Missile Defense system is the cost tothe American public. This will be the single most expensive project in thehistory of the United States, estimated to be between sixty billion and onehundred billion dollars. Assuming that some parts of nuclear warheads periodicallyneed to be replaced due to radioactive decay, the price might go up to half atrillion dollars, depending on the exact system that the US governmentdevelops. This amount will mean more taxes from every citizen, and increase ofnational debt. Instead of spending this amount of money building the NationalMissile Defense system, the US government would be better served paying off thenational debt to its citizens.

The recent attacks of September 11 weren’t nuclear; theywere realized by using civilian airplanes as a weapon. These attacks claimedmore than three thousands lives. Considering the unavailability of nuclearweapons at present, these kinds of attacks are more likely to occur thannuclear attacks. So instead of focusing on nuclear attacks, the US governmentshould spend the money on security at airports, malls, or other public places.

Theonly state that has the power to launch weapons of mass destruction against theUnited States is Russia. Although the Russia of today is not the same as the SovietUnion of 1984, it is still very powerful in the field of nuclear weapons.  Some think that if US starts developing theMissile Defense System it might encourage Russia to upgrade its nucleararsenal, but it won't happen for one reason: its too expensive for Russia'scurrent budget. Cold War brought Soviets bankruptcy and collapse, and neitherRussia nor any former Soviet state would like to repeat this experiment again.

Rightnow the building of a National Missile Defense system should not be among prioritiesfor the government.  The building of sucha system however would not make the United States more secure, because insteadof launching ballistic missiles terrorists target places of high civilianconcentration, besides this Missile Defense project is too expensive forAmerica and it will bring nothing else rather than huge national debt.

еще рефераты
Еще работы по военному делу. иностранным языкам