OPINION:
No sooner had the Washington Times announced that President Trump intended to support a missile defense system than supporters and opponents alike came forward repeating old arguments for and against the concept (“Trump’s Iron Dome strategy echoes Reagan’s SDI missile defense vision,” Web, Feb. 2).
Although the world has avoided nuclear war for over 70 years under the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, any proposal to modify the current position has been greeted with strong opposition. Some of this comes from those who still believe agreements can be made to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Since the development of nuclear warheads, we have experienced repeated attempts by prominent politicians from multiple countries to crate agreements outlawing such weapons. Despite these attempts, however, more nations have continued to acquire nuclear capabilities, reinforcing the belief that the nuclear genie cannot be put back.
Acknowledging this, others such as President Reagan, British Prime Minster Thatcher and now President Trump have supported attempts to enhance the security provided by MAD by adding the most technically available defense against ballistically delivered nuclear warheads.
Yes, the current proposal for an “Iron Dome” is feasible, but the implementation will take more than a decade to come to fruition. And before we cheer too loudly for it, reflect also that it will take at least two succeeding administrations to finance and support the effort. If you wish to live in an enhanced security environment, remember this prediction for succeeding elections.
STANLEY ORMAN
Rockville, Maryland
Please read our comment policy before commenting.