NMD in the Aftermath

by Frieda Gardner, WAMM

On September 11, at the beginning of an ordinary day, the staples of American summer entertainment -- huge balls of flame, glass and metal falling to the ground, smoke, dust, blood, and death -- suddenly became real. Out of fear, confusion, grief, fury, and national habit, many opened their patriotic arms to war. Then came congressional unity (resisted only by Rep. Barbara Lee, Dem., CA), and from the unity followed money: $40 billion of discretionary funds. Soon, the "Arab terrorist" (in recent years our most-favored enemy), assumed the face of Osama bin Laden, master criminal, fanatic, demon.

This terrible day might serve as a refutation of arguments in favor of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system. As many had predicted, suitcases, simple weapons, cars, planes, and the suicidal prove sufficient to bring down terrorist targets. But the emergency swept all before it. "No one wants to say 'I told you so,'" said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (Dem., MD).

On September 8, all the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to trim George Bush's $8.3 billion request for NMD development and to prohibit Bush from any testing in violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But by September 14, no one in our vote-sensitive Congress, save Rep. Lee, proved willing to deny anything Bush requested for the new war.

In a flash, our recession-bound, suddenly surplus-hungry economy, and the nervous, flailing administration trying to cope with the consequences of its enormous tax cut, were rescued by national crisis. The hour called for resolution: If the enemy will stop at nothing, we will go forward with everything.

But of course there is no national "we" outside of rhetoric. Many reading this newsletter have doubtless signed petitions calling for, at the very least, cautioned response and some national examination of how our government and economic system may have contributed to the brutality of September 11. Our peace and justice minority has gathered, as always, to provide imaginative and oppositional witness. The Internet wires buzz with our statements, conversations, and protest plans. Neither Peace Action, WAND, nor Physicians for Social Responsibility have abandoned their campaigns against NMD.

Already, even many who gave Bush their "appropriate action" go-ahead are asking how we will "punish" the presumably guilty without also punishing the innocent. And it has been noted that we cannot reduce Kabul to rubble when so much of it is already rubble, as least partly as a result of past U.S. interventions in Afghanistan.

I have compiled a list of recent American "refusals" in the world of what is blandly called foreign policy. It is neither complete, chronological, nor entirely generated by the Bush administration. And obviously it does not include the harmful consequences of our actions: our economic and military support of repressive regimes; our economic "aid" and "sanctions" programs; our under-reported, ongoing bombings in Iraq; etc. But it might help to deepen understanding of how our government, in its active non-actions, promotes violence, economic misery, fear, and human degradation the world over.

The United States has refused . . .

• to do the difficult and important work of the recent World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance
• to curb U.S. arms exportation
• to substantively reevaluate our policies on Israel and the Palestinians
• to help establish an international criminal court of justice
• to sign an international agreement on biological weapons
• to sign the United Nations protocol on the human rights of children
• to sign the Kyoto Treaty governing global warming
• to sign the UN treaty on small arms
• to be bound by the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty
• to sign an international ban on land-mines
• to continue negotiations with North Korea on the cessation of its nuclear weapons program
• to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
• to continue to help rid the world of 100 tons of U.S. and Russian weapons-grade plutonium
• to fully fund the program which helps Russia dismantle its nuclear weapons
• to fully fund the program which tracks the whereabouts of nuclear warheads and missile components

What extraordinary acts of care and decency we have seen in the immediate aftermath of September 11. So many people want to help, to be good, to be selfless during crises. But the adrenalin of emergency can also ignite mindless fury, which then inflames the worst habits of mind. Against this murderous chain reaction, our peace and justice movement not only voices our resistance to violence, but also advances the alternatives we imagine every day.

Word Up!

"The Pentagon claimed the missile interceptor test carried out by the U.S. over the Pacific on July 14, 2001, was an overwhelming success. The truth is, however, something entirely different. Mounted in the dummy warhead of the rocket that was the target of the missile was a homing beacon, which began emitting a positioning signal to the interceptor launch station 8,000 kilometers away. The purpose of this signal was to guide the interceptor to the incoming missile, a form of assistance that is unlikely to be part of any real attack. An even bigger reason for skepticism toward missile defense is that no test has deployed the kind of decoy warheads that would be standard on any offensive missile. The July 14 test offered the kill vehicle a choice between the real dummy warhead and one decoy balloon. Programmed with details of the shape, brightness, and orientation of the warhead it was seeking, the kill vehicle had little difficulty in ignoring the decoy. In reality, an enemy target is unlikely to be so obliging."

--Polly Mann, WAMM