Missile Defense
Report by the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)
In mid July, the Bush Administration announced that U.S. missile defense
research and development (R&D) activities over the next several months will
likely bring the U.S. out of compliance with the Anti Ballistic Missile
(ABM) treaty.
In late July, the Administration indicated that it hopes the Russians will
agree to abandon the treaty with the U.S., but that the Administration plans
to move ahead aggressively with its missile defense program whether the
Russians agree or not. The Administration wants to complete construction of
a missile defense interceptor site at Fort Greeley, Alaska by 2004.
Construction crews are clearing trees from the site now (which does not
violate the ABM treaty), and they will begin pouring concrete next spring
(which will violate the treaty). The treaty requires that the U.S. or Russia
give six months formal notice to the other party before withdrawing from the
treaty. The Bush Administration recently gave notice to the Russians of a
date in November.
It is uncertain how the Russians will respond. Following the meeting between
Presidents Bush and Putin, the Russians indicated they would be willing to
negotiate a new agreement on missile defenses. However, the Bush
Administration indicated that it had no interest in revising the treaty or
negotiating a new formal agreement. Instead, the Administration is seeking
to continue high-level consultations with Russia through which they hope to
achieve informal agreement that both countries will simply withdraw from the
treaty.
The Administration is proposing to expedite deployment of a missile defense
system and expand R&D despite serious questions about the justification,
efficacy, cost, and reliability of such a system. For example:
- There is little credible threat of a ballistic missile attack from
countries such as North Korea, Iraq, or Iran, and these improbable threats
can be reduced further and at much less cost through bilateral and
multilateral diplomatic initiatives and verifiable arms control agreements.
- Governments around the world, especially in Europe and East Asia are
concerned that U.S. missile defense plans will undermine global arms control
and disarmament efforts.
- An accelerated missile defense program is virtually certain to lead China
to increase the number of nuclear weapons pointed at U.S. cities and may
discourage Russia from making deep cuts in its arsenal.
- After over 30 years and over $100 billion of research and development,
engineers have yet to design a missile defense system that will work under
realistic conditions.
- Finally, the Bush administration has yet to provide full details to
Congress or the American people about what it is they plan to build, how
much it will cost, or how they will pay for it.
- Expensive, high-tech weapons are no substitute for effective diplomacy,
arms control, disarmament, and international cooperation. Cooperative
international arms control and disarmament agreements will be far more
effective in advancing peace and security in the years ahead and will cost
far less than a missile shield.
The Bush Administration has tried to present missile defense as a moral
imperative for the country. However, we at FCNL believe that the true moral
imperative is not to build yet another expensive, provocative, new weapon
system, but to reduce the threat of nuclear war and accidental catastrophe
through arms control, disarmament, and international cooperation. U.S.
leadership is needed now to stop another arms race before it begins.
Toward that end, the U.S. should:
immediately de-alert U.S. nuclear weapons and encourage Russia to do the same;
sharply reduce the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile;
provide assistance and incentives to Russia and others to safely dispose of weapons of mass destruction, to halt the export of related technologies and weapons, and to redirect weapons industries to peaceful purposes;
provide positive incentives to North Korea to permanently halt its ballistic missile program; and
vigorously pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measure to rapidly reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons stockpiles and otehr weapons of mass destruction.
Back to Peace Talk Index, Autumn, 2001