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?

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.     The Department of Defense's National Missile Defense Program The Department of Defense's press release announcing the additional fund for the national missile defense.. The Federation of American Scientist's page on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The Clinton administration has proposed spending $6.6 billion over the next six years to build a system capable of destroying ballistic missiles fired at the United States. The system, which the Department of Defense hopes to have in place by 2005, would protect America from attacks from nations, such as North Korea and Iran, that are developing longer range missiles capable of reaching beyond their neighbors. "We are committing additional billions of dollars and taking other steps to protect our troops and the American people from the growing threat posed by weapons of mass destruction delivered by ballistic missiles," Secretary of Defense William Cohen explained earlier thie month. Secretary Cohen said a final go-ahead for the program could be given in the year 2000 if a review shows that the ballistic missile threat is a viable one to the nation and that the technology is fully developed. Unlike the Reagan administration's space-based Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars", this new system would be built around ground-based "Interceptors" designed to eliminate a small number of missiles. Nonetheless, deployment of the missile defense system may require the revision of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The ABM treaty banned national missile defense systems and has been called a cornerstone of Cold War arms reduction policy. The Russian government has charged that the U.S. proposal is a flagrant violation of the ABM accord and has flatly rejected the suggestion by Secretary of State Madeline Albright that the treaty be modified. In addition, Moscow has warned that if the Clinton administration goes ahead with the plan, they will not ratify the 1993 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II), an agreement that would significantly reduce the Russian and American nuclear stockpiles. Those opposed to the plan argue missile defense technology is unproven and easily defeated by countermeasures that make them difficult to intercept and that a large number of missiles could overwhelm the system. Proponents counter that any system that can reduce the threat of a missile attack is better than none. Our forum asks: Should the U.S. build a national missile defense system? How real is the threat of attack from "rogue" nations? Is the system worth the risk of upsetting relations with Russia? Would the proposed missile defense system increase or decrease national security? Your questions are answered John Pike, Director of the Space Policy Project at the Federation of American Scientists, and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy.