|
 he
smoke was still rising from lower Manhattan and the Pentagon when
opponents of missile defense started suggesting that one of the
great lessons of September 11 was that the United States shouldn't
pursue anti-ballistic technology. "Eventually there will come
a realization that these planes were missiles that a defense could
not defend against," said Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein
of California.
They always
do this. Last year, right after the terrorist attack on the U.S.S.
Cole, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter drew this lesson: "Last
week's events were, if anything, an example of the limits of certainty
and the inadequacy of missile defense, which (even if it eventually
works) could obviously do nothing to stop a boat loaded with explosives
from hitting the soft underbelly of American power."
It's a silly
argument — like saying we shouldn't pursue anti-terrorism measures
because they won't protect us against missile attacks. Of course,
missile-defense supporters have never said anything so foolish.
Last night,
a questioner at President Bush's press conference came at the matter
from a slightly different angle. Doesn't maintaining the international
coalition against terrorism require that Bush set aside his opposition
to the ABM Treaty because Russian president Vladimir Putin and others
so desperately want to keep it? Bush responded with the most convincing
words he's spoken in support of missile defense: "I can't wait
to visit with my friend Vladimir Putin in Shanghai to reiterate,
once again, that the Cold War is over, it's done with, and that
there are new threats that we face. And [there is] no better example
of that new threat than the attack on America on September 11. And
I'm going to ask my friend to envision a world in which a terrorist
thug and/or a host nation might have the ability to develop —
to deliver a weapon of mass destruction via a — via rocket.
And wouldn't it be in our nations' advantage to be able to shoot
it down?
"At the
very least, it should be in our nations' advantage to determine
whether we can shoot it down. And we're restricted from doing that
because of an ABM Treaty that was signed during a totally different
era. The case cannot be even — the case is more strong today
than it was on September the 10th that the ABM is outmoded, outdated,
reflects a different time."
|
