A VIABLE DEFENSE?

February 8, 1999
		The Clinton administration wants to spend $6.6 billion over the next six years to build a national missile defense system, but the Russians adamantly oppose it. Will the system increase or decrease national security? Return to this forum's introduction.

What are the chances of developing some kind of trade-off with Russia that would minimize or eliminate that problem? Wouldn't it be more plausible to have lasers on the ground, in the air and in space to break up incoming projectiles? Do Americans have a similar ABM type treaty with China? How do European countries feel about a missile threat directed against them? Why don't we attack the ICBM from space platforms during the ascent phase? Should the $6.6 billion be spent on R&D of better technologies?       January 28, 1999: The national missile defense index page. July 15, 1998: A discussion of the development of ballistic missile technology in Third World nations. June 4, 1996: A report on the Strategic Defense Initiative. September 25, 1996: An online forum on the future of the armed forces. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of military issues.

Brian Befallen of Glen Brunei, MD asks: For decades we have had a very effective missile defense system: M.A.D. I originally was a proponent of SDI or a national missile defense; however, it has become increasingly evident that the technology just does not yet exist to deal with large numbers of incoming warheads. I would suggest spending the $6.6 billion on R&D of better technologies that could begin to meet the challenge of a large-scale assault. Finally, it is no wonder that the Russians are unhappy with this proposal. If the U.S. can defend itself from ballistic attack while Russia cannot, then the M.A.D. balance is no longer as binding. At this point, the Russians can't afford to develop a missile defense, so that is why they oppose the plan.   Frank Gaffney, Jr. responds: It is now generally conceded -- even by two of the Clinton Administration’s Secretaries of Defense, William Perry and William Cohen -- that the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) may no longer offer sufficient protection for the American people. In fact, Secretary Perry once observed the need to adopt a policy of assured survival since the Nation was now confronting adversaries who may be “undeterrable.” As to the question of technology, the problem -- at least for the moment -- is not defending against large numbers of incoming warheads. Rather, it is providing a measure of protection against the sorts of smaller-scale missile threats that are now emerging around the world. We have demonstrated the ability to intercept incoming missiles and need now to be operationalizing that capability as quickly as possible. If we are allowed to do so free of the garrotting constraints of the ABM Treaty, that technology can begin to be deployed within a few years and be improved as necessary to meet evolving threats. With respect to your last point, the Russians are unhappy with the idea of the United States defending itself because they understandably prefer as situation in which they have a territorial missile defense -- which they do -- and the U.S. has none. My own view is that, since the ABM Treaty has lapsed with the extinction of the USSR, the system they illegally built in violation of the ABM Treaty is no longer prohibited. Neither should be our efforts to provide at least equivalent protection to American citizens against the growing possibility of attacks from third parties. John Pike responds: Some years back Ronald Reagan said that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought" -- and this pretty much sums up the uncomfortable reality of the condition of mutual assured destruction, or MAD. A nuclear weapon costing a few million dollars can destroy an entire city. It would be nice if there were some technology that would make this fact go away. It would certainly be more comforting to live in a world in which Americans were not threatened with nuclear devastation. For some it might be even more comforting if we lived in a world in which America could blow up other countries free from the fear that they might blow us up in return. While America took comfort from living in such a world for a few years after we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the Soviet Union found that world distinctly threatening. And over time other countries also decided that as long as nuclear weapons existed, they wanted to have a few of their own. It is extremely unlikely that any country would ever deliberately start a nuclear war, because this would be an act of national suicide. But nuclear weapons are like any other creation of imperfect humans, and as long as they exist there is the danger of their accidental use, or use due to some horrible miscalculation. Deployment of anti-missile systems is no short cut to the promised land of eliminating the nuclear threat. To the contrary, it threatens to halt the reduction of Russian nuclear forces, and to ignite a nuclear arms race in Asia. Humanity has now lived under the nuclear shadow for more than half a century, and it may take another half century before this shadow is lifted. But the only final answer to eliminating the nuclear threat is the elimination of nuclear weapons entirely.