Tales of the Shield: A Feminist Reading of Ballistic Missile Defence

Prior to September 11th – the date by which we now frame discussions – debates around missile defence, whether national or transnational, were framed around two central points: what I call the ‘can it work’ and ‘should we or should we not do it’ debates. In regards to the first debate, the questions have been around the technological feasibility of a ballistic missile defence system. With one side arguing that it can in fact work if the commitment of time and money is put in, and the other side arguing that not only will the cost be prohibitive, but more importantly, the technological capabilities are not available even if the budget commitments are. Moreover, the time frame of putting in place even a limited ballistic missile defence system – a minimum of ten years but most likely in the 20-25 year range – undermines the stated urgency of the program (Folger 2001; Sirak 2001). The second debate, while concerned with the technological feasibility of missile defence, has been more focussed on the ‘politics’ of ballistic missile defence with the central questions being whether or not the threat of missile attack by ‘rogue’ states is indeed real or sufficient enough to warrant the construction of a defence shield (Harvey 2000; Mutimer 2001). This debate has also raised questions concerning what the effects will be as a consequence of proceeding to a missile defence program, with the potential of setting off an international arms race with China and Russia at the forefront.