Home
In this issue
April 9, 2014

Jonathan Tobin: Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame?

Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Kim Giles: Asking for help is not weakness

Kathy Kristof and Barbara Hoch Marcus: 7 Great Growth Israeli Stocks

Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease

Sabrina Bachai: 5 At-Home Treatments For Headaches

The Kosher Gourmet by Daniel Neman Have yourself a matzo ball: The secrets bubby never told you and recipes she could have never imagined

April 8, 2014

Lori Nawyn: At Your Wit's End and Back: Finding Peace

Susan B. Garland and Rachel L. Sheedy: Strategies Married Couples Can Use to Boost Benefits

David Muhlbaum: Smart Tax Deductions Non-Itemizers Can Claim

Jill Weisenberger, M.S., R.D.N., C.D.E : Before You Lose Your Mental Edge

Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease

Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear

The Kosher Gourmet by Marlene Parrish A gift of hazelnuts keeps giving --- for a variety of nutty recipes: Entree, side, soup, dessert

April 4, 2014

Rabbi David Gutterman: The Word for Nothing Means Everything

Charles Krauthammer: Kerry's folly, Chapter 3

Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children

John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet

John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds

Cameron Huddleston: Best and Worst Buys of April 2014

Stacy Rapacon: Great Mutual Funds for Young Investors

Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves

The Kosher Gourmet by Sharon Thompson Anyone can make a salad, you say. But can they make a great salad? (SECRETS, TESTED TECHNIQUES + 4 RECIPES, INCLUDING DRESSINGS)

April 2, 2014

Paul Greenberg: Death and joy in the spring

Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?

Mayra Bitsko: Save me! An alien took over my child's personality

Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities

Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene

Lecia Bushak: Why Hand Sanitizer May Actually Harm Your Health

Stacy Rapacon: Great Funds You Can Own for $500 or Less

Cameron Huddleston: 7 Ways to Save on Home Decor

The Kosher Gourmet by Steve Petusevsky Exploring ingredients as edible-stuffed containers (TWO RECIPES + TIPS & TECHINQUES)

Jewish World Review July 7, 2011 / 5 Tamuz, 5771

MAD in the 21st Century

By Clifford D. May






Why Mutually Assured Destruction makes no sense today


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | On June 28th, Iran's rulers test-fired 14 ballistic missiles, including long- and medium-range Shahab missiles and short-range Zelzal missiles. Also, their new and improved centrifuges are turning out more enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

In addition, departing Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted last month that North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile development "now constitutes a direct threat to the United States. …They are developing a road-mobile ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile). … It's a huge problem."

For national security experts, these developments raise a list of questions. For the rest of us, they should raise just two: Do Iran and North Korea represent threats we should take seriously? The answer, clearly, is yes. Are we building the missile defense system we need to protect America against these threats? The answer, just as clearly, is no.

To understand how this situation has come, recall a little history. During the Cold War, the U.S. adopted a strategic doctrine called MAD, for Mutually Assured Destruction. The logic behind it: So long as we were vulnerable to missile attack by the Soviets, and so long as the Soviets were vulnerable to missile attack by us, neither side would benefit by attacking first.

Veterans of the Cold War, still influential in the Obama administration, believe that if this kind of deterrence worked then, it can work now.

The current occupants of the Kremlin go further. They claim it is insulting for Americans and Europeans to attempt to protect themselves from the possibility of an Iranian or North Korean missile attack by building a missile defense system that one day may be robust enough also to thwart a Russian missile attack.


FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". A SOPHISTICATED examination of faith, culture and politics. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.


"If NATO wants to reduce tension with Russia," Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO recently said, "it should cancel the missile defense project. We have always criticized these plans as deeply anti-Russian."

Missile defense advocates counter that MAD is an idea whose time has come and gone. The regime that rules Iran appears to view nuclear weapons and missile development as its highest priority, worth the pain being inflicted by a growing catalogue of international sanctions. It proclaims that "a world without American …is attainable."

More than a few of Iran's rulers hold the theological conviction that the return of the Mahdi, the savior, can be brought about only by an apocalypse. As scholar Bernard Lewis has phrased it, for those share the views of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. It's an inducement."

Two years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the U.S. should create a missile defense "umbrella" that would protect not only American citizens at home and American forces abroad but also America's allies. But such a project is not in development. And some say, given the state of the economy, we can't afford it now.

Three reasons I disagree:


  • 1. If just one American city should be hit by just one missile, the cost — not merely in dollars — will be far greater than that any missile defense system being contemplated.

  • 2. The rationale for building nuclear-armed ballistic missiles disappears if it is clear the U.S. has both the will and a way to prevent those weapons from reaching their targets.

  • 3. The cost need not be exorbitant. Our missile defense architecture is made up of various systems. Some can be cut.


My top candidate is MEADS, the Medium Extended Air Defense System, now a decade behind schedule and more than a billion dollars over budget. The Pentagon recently concluded that MEADS "will not meet U.S. requirements or address the current and emerging threat without extensive and costly modifications." MEADS is being built in cooperation with the Germans and the Italians — neither still sees it as good value.

But count me among those who strongly support developing a layer of missile defense in space utilizing "brilliant pebbles," space-based interceptors the size of watermelons that would be fired into the orbital path of a long-range missile causing a collision that would destroy the missile.

The President's advisors oppose space-based missile defense. They charge that deploying such a system would "militarize" space. I think they have it backwards: Such a system would prevent missiles from passing through space on their way to their intended victims. Shouldn't that be the definition of de-militarizing space?


Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Interested in a private Judaic studies instructor — for free? Let us know by clicking here.

Comment by clicking here.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. A veteran news reporter, foreign correspondent and editor (at The New York Times and other publications), he has covered stories in more than two dozen countries, including Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, China, Uzbekistan, Northern Ireland and Russia. He is a frequent guest on national and international television and radio news programs, providing analysis and participating in debates on national security issues.






© 2011, Scripps Howard News Service