From the Oklahoman, Aug. 20, 1995
For the Common Defense
The Clinton administration's attachment to a pair of international agreements has the potential to weaken U.S. defenses against a foreign attack.
President Clinton last week announced the United States would cease future nuclear weapons tests in hopes of energizing stalled talks aimed at producing a worldwide test ban.
At the same time, Clinton's threatened veto of the defense authorization bill--because it orders development of a national missile defense system--is behind efforts to water down the missile defense part of the bill.
It's a double-whammy for U.S. national security.
First, although declaring a U.S. nuclear test ban looks great on television and might evoke comparisons with John F. Kennedy (something Clinton wouldn't mind), it's quite a leap of faith minus guarantees the Russians will do likewise.
Also, Pentagon officials are concerned a test ban will make it impossible to guarantee the reliability of America's 7,000 nuclear weapons. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., says doubt about the U.S. arsenal could even invite a nuclear attack.
Alarmingly, it appears Clinton cares more about reviving world test ban talks than he does about protecting the United States.
Concerning national missile defense, the Senate bill mandates a system to protect the country from deliberate or accidental missile attack. But Clinton has threatened a veto, saving it would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed with the then-Soviet Union.
Recently four senators proposed an amendment to allow missile defense planning but delaying deployment pending congressional review. It also would permit the president to negotiate changes in the ABM treaty to allow a missile defense.
Sounds pretty good, but some analysts say the amendment, which will be voted on when Congress returns from its August recess, could be a subtle way to kill a missile defense system.
Baker Spring of the conservative Heritage Foundation says the amendment's delaying aspects would allow Clinton, who opposes missile defense, `to strangle programs in the crib.' Spring says it seems as if `we're saying the ABM treaty comes first, the defense of the nation comes second.'
Finally, Clinton argues two mutually exclusive ideas. First, he says existing nuclear weapons can defend America, making a missile defense unnecessary. Then he says the United States will quit the testing that ensures the reliability of current weapons systems. Huh?
Clinton can't have it both ways. The Senate should insist on moving ahead with a missile defense program.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
