Steven Holt: “I rise to oppose H.R. 4. The national missile defense as proposed would not be effective. It would be costly to deploy…”

“I rise to oppose H.R. 4. The national missile defense as proposed would not be effective. It would be costly to deploy and easily circumvented. My colleagues, we do not have to read much history to be reminded of the Maginot Line, the so-called impenetrable wall that has become the symbol of misguided defense policy. The proposed missile defense system probably would not work as designed, and wishing will not overcome physics. It could be confused with decoys. It could be bypassed with suitcase bombs and pickup trucks and sea-launched missiles. It would be billions of dollars down the drain. But it is not just a diversion of precious resources that we are told are not available for health care, for smaller class sizes, for modern school facilities, for securing open space for taking care of America's veterans. No, it is worse than a waste. Simple strategic analysis will tell us that provocative yet permeable defenses are destabilizing and they lead to reduced security. In fact, the more technically affected the system turned out to be, the worse the idea would be because of its increase in instability and the damage done to our efforts to reduce Russia's weapons.”