Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842 0200
Fax (202) 842 3490
 Contact Us
Support Cato

Cato Policy Report, July/August 1995

Is an ABM System Feasible?

Missle Defense Debated at Cato Policy Forum

"National Missile Defense: Vital Security Interest or High-Tech Boondoggle?" was the question examined at an April 18 Cato Policy Forum featuring a debate between Sven F. Kraemer, former director of arms control for the National Security Council, and Eugene F. Carroll Jr., a retired rear admiral and deputy director of the Center for Defense Information, over whether the United States should install a space-based defense against an intentional or accidental missile launch. Kraemer called ballistic missile defense "the highest single national security imperative of our country and . . . the highest ethical imperative." He rejected the traditional nuclear strategy, known as mutually assured destruction, under which offensive nuclear weapons are used to deter an offensive nuclear strike by another nation. He said it was inexplicable and shameful that the U.S. government has failed to carry out its constitutional duty and implement a defense against nuclear attack, which continues to be a threat from Russia and China and could become a threat from rogue states in an era of nuclear proliferation. Kraemer argued that a space-based system that could shoot down missiles while they were still in the boost phase was entirely feasible and affordable.

Carroll responded that construction of a strategic missile defense would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and thus would upset the continuing effort to reduce offensive nuclear arsenals through arms control agreements. He called the threat from rogue nations unrealistic, saying the real threat was the Russian missiles, which require arms negotiations to dismantle. He also said he doubts whether the kind of defensive system Kraemer advocates is technologically possible. He called the space-based system "ill conceived" and a "boondoggle." He also maintained, contrary to Kraemer, that construction of a national missile defense would stimulate a race to build offensive weapons.

Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's director of foreign policy studies, who moderated the debate, has written that "it is essential for the United States to augment its strategic deterrent with robust air and missile defenses." Writing in the CATO HANDBOOK FOR CONGRESS, Carpenter said, "An ABM system would not require fully implementing Ronald Reagan's ambitious Strategic Defense Initiative, since repelling an onslaught by a massive missile fleet, such as that possessed by the Soviet Union, is now an extremely improbable mission. The more likely danger is an accidental launch of a few dozenmissiles or a deliberate attack by a new nuclear power with a limited arsenal. Even a 'thin layer' ABM system could offer crucial protection from such threats. As a collateral benefit, it would reduce the likelihood of nuclear blackmail."

Carpenter called on Congress to restore the funds for ABM defense that were eliminated under pressure from the Clinton administration. "The long-range goal should be the deployment of a comprehensive ABM system within eight years," he wrote. "Congress should insist on modifications to the ABM treaty that would permit such a deployment. If Russia refuses to agree to such revisions, the United States should give the required notice and renounce the treaty."

This article originally appeared in the July/August 1995 edition of Cato Policy Report.