Missile Defense

[Akno21]

Sec. Ford,

I have no real objection to using that 1 billion dollars for some sort of military purpose. However, I do not think military defense is the proper use. That money should go to protecting our power plants, to protecting our subways, to improve equipment for our first responders, and to improve safety checks at airports. If 9/11 taught us one thing, it's that we are in a new world, and that we must react to new threats. 

[Akno21]

This bill in no way precludes us from spending more on power plant defenses.  You should introduce such a bill, it would have the full support of my department.

However, one of the new realities is North Korea's nuclear threat to us and our allies.  I think its our responsibility as a government to find ways to protect ourselves as best we can from that threat.

North Korea knows that if they attack us or the South Koreans, they will be demolished. Kim Jong Il is not a madman, he knows exactly what he is doing, and what he is doing his using his arsenal to get what he wants from us. If we were to pre-empivly strike him, we should do it with a full missile defense system ready, but as we hopefully don't have plans to do that, I don't see the need.

You say that we are already funding protecting power plants, but I think you would agree that the other areas I mentioned, such as firemen and other first responders, need more funding.

[Akno21]

I didn't say we were already spending enough on power plants.  I said that spending on missile defense doesn't mean we can't spend on power plants as well.  I would again encourage you to draw up legislation increasing the funding for first responders and for our energy infrastructure.

The NMD program is important regarding North Korea for the following reasons.

1. If we can develop such a system, we can negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness.  If we hold all the cards, as you seem to suggest, why isn't this poker game playing out the way Bush wants it to in real life?

2. If a worst case scenario arose and Kim felt compelled to launch an attack on the US due to some other kind of military defeat, or if he wrongly percieved a US attack to be imminent and wanted to pre-empt it, the NMD system would protect Americans fro a worrst case scenario.

3. I do not share you faith in Kim's sanity.

1. The game is not playing out how Bush wants it to because he has not agreed to bilateral talks, a fairly reasonable request, and also because Bush is not a great negotiator.

2. There is always the chance he will strike us, but I think he is content with his position right now, he doesn't care that his people are starving, yet he knows we have a lot more nukes than he does.

3. I tend to think of our enemies right now as more of evil genuis's than madmen. Al-quida, at least, is extremly smart and shrewd in planning their strikes.

[Akno21]

1. I agree that bilateral talks are needed, but that is immaterial.  The relevant point is whether we will be negotiating from a position of strenght or weakness.  Whether those negotiations are multilateral or bilateral is absolutely divorced from the issue of missile defense.

2. He is of course content at this very moment, but that does not provide any sort of guarantee for the future.  We don't know what his plans are or what unforseen events may compel him to change course and become more or less aggressive.  The fact is that if things suddenly went badly for him, or if he perceived that things were going badly for him, millions of Americans, Koreans, and Japanese could wind up dead if we don't develop some kind of defesive system.

3. It is incredibly risky to sit back and proclaim your faith in Kim Jong-il's sanity.  He may be sane, he may not be, but again, this is immaterial to US policy.  We must assume that there is a threat when we don't know for sure whether there is a threat.  It is the only responsible thing to do.  The Boy Scouts motto: Be prepared.

I may support this is a vote were drawn up. I don't think we need more nukes, certainly not, but a conflict with North Korea, or in the long run China, may end up happening and we need to be prepared. However, the only threat is coming by way of the Pacific, that's where it needs to be.

[Akno21]

Would this suffice, Mr. Secretary?

Missile Defense Iniative
1 billion dollars per year shall be allotted for the Defense Department to develop a missile defense system

I'm still undecided on how to vote, but I would have no problem proposing it.

[Akno21]

Would this suffice, Mr. Secretary?

Missile Defense Iniative
1 billion dollars per year shall be allotted for the Defense Department to develop a missile defense system

I'm still undecided on how to vote, but I would have no problem proposing it.

That perfect, exactly what I'm asking for.

I'll propose it, mainly because since you are Secretary of Defense you should be able to get the funding for whatever reasonable projects you want. Whether it this is reasonable will be debated by the Senate.