DAVID MUTIMER'S RESPONSE TO MY ARTICLE is a step in the right direction, although proponents and critics of NMD are still not fully engaged in constructive dialogue. Unfortunately, it falls well short of addressing the many logical errors and contradictions I describe in my article. Mutimer spends far too much time explaining why critics have some 'right' to protection from response to my arguments - one might ask why they need protection - and far too little time addressing the fundamental weaknesses of the critics' case. I respond here to Mutimer's five main arguments.(f.1)SHARING THE BURDEN (S) OF PROOF'The first and most important is that Harvey's argument reverses the of ... the clear implication of his article is that critics must make the case against NMD, or forward it should go' (p 332). The 'burden-of-proof' thesis is Mutimer's central tenet, important enough to be repeated throughout the article. Since its primary purpose is to justify his decision to avoid my arguments, I will address the thesis head-on. I hope this will prevent other critics from using the same excuse.There are at least three fundamental problems with Mutimer's line of argument. First, in applying the burden-of-proof analogy he misrepresents the prosecution and the defence. According to critics, proponents of NMD are guilty of one or more of six crimes: i) fabricating rogue state and other proliferation threats, ii) creating a dangerous security environment that threatens to destroy decades of arms control agreements, iii) producing yet another destabilizing arms race, iv) wasting at least $60 billion for an illegal defence system prohibited by the ABM treaty, v) lying about whether NMD technology has (or will ever) work, and vi) doing all of this to save an outdated military industrial complex from disappearing after the cold war. If the critics could prove that the evidence they have compiled is true, then supporters of NMD would be guilty as charged - indeed, NMD would deserve nothing less than the death penalty. But, if proponents are the defence in this case, doesn't the burden of proof lie with the prosecuting critics? Don't they have an obligation to establish the charges underlying their case? My defence of NMD includes a long list of logical errors and empirical flaws in the critics' arguments. If this were a court of law any competent judge and jury would throw the case out of court if the prosecution decided to ignore the problems with their case.But the debate is not taking place in a court of law, and we are not lawyers defending clients in a criminal case. This leads to the second serious flaw. The last thing academics should do in the midst of such an important policy debate is to recreate the problems that plague the legal profession. Getting off on a 'technicality' associated with 'default' positions (whatever they are) should never be considered an option. Whose 'understanding of debate' is Mutimer referring to here? How exactly did he arrive at his conclusion that 'the responsibility for making the case for the proposal rests with those proposing it.' Meanwhile, critics need not suffer the burden of proving their case against, as if these two sides of the debate are somehow separable. When were critics given the legal or constitutional right to refuse to respond to questions on the grounds that their answers might incriminate them? How, one might ask, should I defend NMD against these charges? Well, by pointing to major weaknesses in the critics' case, by establishing evidence of ballistic missile proliferation (the security problem NMD is designed to address), and by demonstrating that, in comparison to alternatives, NMD is a more secure, effective, and cost-efficient approach to the problem. And how, one might ask, should critics make the case against? By addressing the problems with their arguments, by establishing that ballistic missile proliferation is not a serious problem, and/or by demonstrating how their alternatives to NMD offer more secure, effective, and cost-efficient strategies for dealing with the problem of ballistic missile proliferation. …