Good opinion piece.
To see the problematic nature of this opposition, let us consider the illogic of positing that defensive measures constitute, or at least lead to, more offensive dangers — in other contexts. For example, the bow and arrow, the spear, and the sword are all offensive weapons. The shield and body armor are the defensive countermeasures. Can it seriously be contended that the latter caused the former? No, the direction of causation lies in the opposite direction. If opponents of the ABM were correct, and logically consistent, they would also oppose the use of body armor and shields. In that direction lies peace?
To shoot a bullet is to be on the offense. To wear bulletproof vests and employ toughened glass is to be on the defense. If opponents of the ABM were correct, and logically consistent, they would also, paradoxically and illogically, favor bullets and oppose these defensive modalities.
If it is illicit to protect ourselves against dangers, maybe we should go barefoot instead of wearing shoes. Engage in nudism during the winter? Stop wearing masks, hand-washing, and social-distancing in the age of COVID?
Go to any basketball game: high school, college, the National Basketball Association. There will be cries not of "defense" but rather, "DEE-FENSE." The fans, to a man, can readily distinguish it from offense. This is something, unfortunately, that appears to escape the mostly well intentioned opponents of defensive missiles. ABMs are capable of countering enemy ICBMs, at least most of them, and this is all to the good if our goal is to save precious human lives.
