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 are many rouge states that could strike us, at any moment, with ballistic missiles. The s

Getting past the constraints of nonmissle means of attacks you then get to the question: Is it worth it? A missile defense system is the most costly solution to the least likely threat that America faces. What should happen is reallocation of funds away from missile defense and put it towards the improvement of theater missile defenses to protect U.S. personnel in combat situations from short range and cruise missile attack and for counter-terrorism programs (Deutch et al. 4-5). This alternative is more sound and will be more beneficial in the long run. If a National Defense System was to be deployed it would cost billions, this money could be better spent elsewhere. To spend money on a untested, high-risk program with limited benefits sounds illogical and looks like the wrong path for America to go.

Another argument for a missile defense system is that nations use there weapons of mass destruction as blackmail against America and its interests. They say that a missile defense system would negate these weapons of mass destruction. However, a missile defense system would only negate the ballistic missiles, that does not negate terrorism, which is used commonly against the United States to get what they want. A missile defense system would only negate some ballistic missiles at that, other countries would increase there ballistic missiles to maintain there missile deterrence (Deutch 3).

identifiable by intelligence. Sub national terrorist groups, which many analysts consider more likely to attack the United States than rogue countries, are liable to use these alternative delivery means. (Deutch et al. 2) That is a far more likely threat than that some rogue nation would actually achieve access to an ballistic missile. Since Regan billions has been spent on national missile defense and none it has ever passed a realistic operational test (Nelson 1). Why spend billions on a system that will not defend against our biggest threat?

Why should we spend billions of dollars supporting a system that will not even defend against the one thing that plagues America the most and that is terrorism.

However, ICBMs are hardly the only—or even the most likely—threat to U.S. security. The United States remains vulnerable to nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks delivered by various means. Potential attackers enjoy a wealth of options: cruise missiles, aircraft, short-range ballistic missiles launched from a

Some topics in this essay:
ICBMs ICBMs, Gwynne Dyer, North Korea, Russians Chinese, America America, Wright Postol, Star Wars, Theodore Postol, missile defense, defense system, missile defense system, , Defense System, ballistic missiles, defense system negate, system negate, weapons mass destruction, system defend, nonmissile means, mass destruction, arms race, weapons mass, ballistic missile, system negate ballistic, defense system deployed,