DATE=6/19/2000
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
TITLE=DEBATE ESCALATES OVER U-S MISSILE DEFENSE
NUMBER=6-11881
BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS
TELEPHONE=619-3335
CONTENT=
INTRO: As the date nears for President Clinton to
decide whether to begin building a limited nuclear
missile defense system for this country, the editorial
debate intensifies. We get a sampling now from
__________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.
TEXT: The United States, concerned about missile
attacks from so-called rogue nations, is contemplating
building a limited missile defense system, but the
issue has many critics, both in this country and
abroad. Russia's leaders say this could put the
United States in violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, which both nations have ratified.
Editorial writers are debating the pros and cons of a
new missile defense system:
Those who support the U-S proposal say the risk is
growing of a missile attack by a so-called rogue state
- such as North Korea, despite last week's friendly
summit, or Iran, Iraq or someday, possibly, Libya.
The launch of even a few missiles with nuclear or
biological warheads could do huge damage to this
country, the thinking goes, so a limited anti-missile
defense is justified.
Opponents, even those who agree with the rationale for
such a defense system, fear it is beyond the current
scientific capability of this country -- at any price.
In an admitted oversimplification, they liken the task
of trying to shoot down attacking missiles to trying
to hit a bullet flying through the air with another
bullet. They suggest it is too difficult, especially
when an enemy missile could be expected to deploy
decoy devices to confuse anti-missile weapons.
The controversy moves The Boston Globe to suggest that
more independent research needs to be done before the
president makes his fateful decision.
VOICE: The Clinton administration ought to
appoint a committee of distinguished,
independent scientists to determine if the
Pentagon and defense contractors have been
rigging flight tests to conceal fatal flaws in a
proposed national missile defense system. At
stake is not only the scientific integrity of
the process for evaluating the interception of
missiles outside the atmosphere, and not only
the 60-billion-dollars that stands to be wasted
on an anti-missile technology that, in the words
of Nira Schwartz, a whistle-blowing former
senior physicist at TRW Inc. "does not work,
will not work, and cannot work." ... Senator
John Kerry summed up the folly of deploying such
a dubious missile shield last week in the
Senate: "Just think: We could expend billions,
upset the strategic balance, initiate a new arms
race, and not even get a system that withstands
remarkably simple, inexpensive countermeasures."
TEXT: In Washington State, The Seattle Times is also
worried about risking a new nuclear arms race if the
United States goes ahead with its anti-missile shield
project.
VOICE: President Clinton's talk of deploying a
national missile defense overstates the
reliability of available technology and risks a
new arms race. His announcement that he will
decide this fall only makes sense with an eye
toward the November presidential election.
Beyond trying to outflank Republicans, he has
needlessly alarmed enemies and allies, and
confounded scientists and military planners.
[Mr.] Clinton's 2001 budget supports continued
research on a national missile defense system,
which is wholly appropriate, and completely
consistent with the 1972 U-S - Russia Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty. Research and limited
testing are allowed, deployment is not. What
the president proposes is a prohibited radar
system in Alaska, backed by 20 interceptor
missiles at first, and eventually 100. At the
higher number, a reliable working system is
designed to stop 20 missiles. All of it is
problematic ... [and] difficult ... because the
proposed system relies on hit-to-kill
technology, not explosives. A missile must hit
its target to destroy it, so four missiles are
typically fired to knock down one. ...
Focusing on a land-based, anti-missile defense
is a serious distraction from the biological,
chemical and nuclear hazards that can cross our
borders in car trunks, aboard container ships or
by cruise missile. The U-S does not have a
missile defense system that works. Scientists
are saying those being tested are fatally
flawed. ... The matter is best left to the next
president.
TEXT: To the Midwest, where the Cleveland (Ohio)
Plain Dealer worries about how such a system would
upset the balance of power, and could overturn the
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the then
Soviet Union.
VOICE: President Bill Clinton, a recent convert
to the idea of a missile defense system, faces
what might be the most significant decision of
his presidency: ... Should he order the start of
the early-detection radar installation, or
should that decision be left to the next
occupant of the Oval Office? Administration
lawyers, paid to find the answer the president
wants, read the ... Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty ... to say he can surely pour the
concrete pad [in Alaska's Aleutian Islands] upon
which the radar would sit without violating the
agreement. ... but they admit they do not know
the exact point at which the United States would
violate the nearly 30-year-old landmark
agreement. So [Mr.] Clinton sits at the arms-
control table with what his vice president and
would-be successor, Al Gore, might call a
"risky" hand.
TEXT: The New York Times calls the White House
lawyers' interpretation of the treaty "strained," and
adds:
VOICE: The White House should reject their
advice in favor of a more straightforward
approach, postponing any construction decision
until the serious technological and diplomatic
questions surrounding the current missile
defense program have been satisfactorily
resolved. That approach ... would allow the
United States to make sure it was using the most
reliable defensive technology while doing
minimal harm to arms control.
TEXT: Nebraska's Omaha World-Herald wants a system,
but one that definitely works.
VOICE: A missile defense system in some form
ought to be feasible and ought to exist. The
seriousness of the threat of a missile attack by
a rogue state can't be known ... [but] the
devastation would be almost too horrible to
contemplate. We are not, however in favor of a
sham -- a system that isn't up to the job and
costs possibly 60-billion dollars...
TEXT: That concludes this sampling of comment on the
pending decision by President Bill Clinton to start
construction on parts of a controversial limited
missile defense system for the United States.
NEB/ANG/WTW
19-Jun-2000 15:57 PM EDT (19-Jun-2000 1957 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
