<<  <  >  >>

distinctions between the two. The following

treaty specifically prohibits a system that

comments by former Senator Paul Simon (D-

could defend the national territory of a signa-

Ill.) are typical of the refusal of most liberals to

tory, which is the purpose of NMD.

acknowledge that NMD and SDI are two dif-

Conversely, a system that is compliant with

ferent things:

the treaty has essentially no value for NMD

because it would provide only a limited capa-

The President and Congress . . . ought

bility to defend a specific area. That is, an

to acknowledge that SDI by any

ABM-compliant missile system (not now

name remains nothing more than a

deployed) could have protected only one U.S.

1990s version of the old French

site--the intercontinental ballistic missile

Maginot Line. The Maginot Line did-

(ICBM) installations at Grand Forks, North

n't work in World War II, and Star

Dakota--leaving the rest of the country

Wars can't work today, for reasons

unprotected.

made clear over the past 10 years of

congressional and public debate.

Does the ABM Treaty Serve American

Sadly, we are visiting an issue now

Interests?

that should have gone away in the

Supporters of the ABM treaty argue that

The United States

late 1980s.8

withdrawal would undermine the stability of

can build a limit-

the nuclear balance between Russia and the

The refusal of liberals to examine NMD

United States. They argue that the deploy-

ed NMD without

on its own merits instead of on the merits of

ment of defenses against ballistic missiles

disrupting the

SDI is not conducive to constructive debate.

could make the nuclear superpowers uneasy

nuclear balance.

Nor is the tendency of conservatives to auto-

that their offensive nuclear deterrents (one

matically dismiss opposition to NMD as a sig-

nuclear superpower would be deterred from

nal of weakness on defense or as evidence of

launching an offensive nuclear attack by the

unfitness for public office.

offensive nuclear forces of the other super-

Before rushing into a policy decision on

power) would be compromised, and that this

whether the United States should acquire and

unease could result in an offensive arms race

deploy an NMD system, ideology and theolo-

to offset the new defenses. John Pike of the

gy should be set aside to ask a few important

Federation of American Scientists makes the

and fundamental questions:

following argument:

1. Against what threat is defense

Unfortunately, we're still stuck in a

needed?

MAD [mutual assured destruction]

2. What are the defense objectives?

world with the Russians. . . . There are

3. Is an effective NMD technically

a lot of people at Strategic Command

feasible?

who continue to believe that we need

4. What is the cost of an NMD sys-

to have about 3,000 warheads to keep

tem?

Russia in a deterred frame of mind.

There are clearly a lot of their coun-

ABM Treaty Considerations

terparts in Moscow who feel that they

still need to have a very robust lay-

down with high damage expectancies

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to NMD is

on a lot of targets in order to be able

the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

to sleep well at night. . . . As a result,

Almost by definition, any NMD system

we continue to be in a condition of

would be a violation of the ABM treaty. The

3