Lingering Hope for Missile Defense
James Hackett The Washington Times 24 March 1997
Fourteen years ago yesterday, Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative to see if new technologies could protect the United States against the threat of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.
In the years that followed, the Soviet Union collapsed and split asunder. The START I treaty began cutting the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 6,000 on each side, and START II promised to cut that number to 3,500. And the Russians agreed to reprogram their missiles so they no longer were targeted on the United States.
Missile defense opponents claim the threat disappeared with the Soviet Union, so it no longer is necessary to spend money to defend against Russia, now an ally. But there are problems with that argument. One is that Russia still maintains more than 6,000 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them, in a highly unstable political environment. The old hard-liners could seize power, someone in the deteriorating Russian army could quickly retarget and launch a missile, or an accident could happen.
Another problem is China, which has nuclear missiles that can reach this country, is developing new and better models, last year threatened Los Angeles, and fired missiles to intimidate Taiwan. A future problem is that countries such as North Korea and Iran are developing or buying longer-range missiles that someday will threaten the United States.
Last year the public was given a clear choice. Bob Dole made a strong case for national missile defenses. But President Clinton told the American people not to worry, that their children could sleep safely since they no longer were targeted by nuclear missiles. Never mind that it was untrue - China's missiles are still aimed here and Russia's can be retargeted in minutes - he repeated that line over and over, by one count nearly a hundred times, in the run-up to the election. This ploy was comparable to the line that Republicans were going to take away your Medicare, when their goal actually was to save the system. It was cynical politics, but it worked. The press and public tuned out. Missile defense was not an issue in the election.
Now we are in 1997, facing four more years of an administration that wants to block national missile defenses, but is willing to spend billions on never-ending research. The current formula is called 3 plus 3. It means three more years of research, after which a decision would be made whether to defend the country, "based on the threat at that time." If the decision is to build defenses, it would take three more years to do so.
But for an administration that does not want missile defenses, this is a sure thing. Intelligence analysts can be relied upon to put off threats for the indefinite future. That way they cannot be criticized for making a wrong prediction that a particular threat will emerge in a particular year.
The administration also found a way to delay development of missile defenses: Pit one military service against another. For more than 40 years, the Army has been developing missile defense technologies, but made the mistake of not choosing a rocket booster to launch its interceptors. Since many existing rocket stages can be combined to create the needed booster, selecting one combination was low priority.
That left an opening for the Air Force to claim it can do the job quicker and cheaper by using old Minuteman missiles. Despite the enormous technical and treaty problems that will arise if aging strategic missiles are used as interceptors, the administration has taken advantage of the competition between the services to keep the program paralyzed for the past two years.
The 3 plus 3 program already is 18 months behind schedule, which gets Mr. Clinton off the hook. Now he never will have to decide whether to defend the country. That decision will be left to his successor, with anti-defense Democrats hoping it will be made by Al Gore, a longtime foe of missile defenses.
But there remains hope that President Reagan's dream of defending America will yet come true. That hope lies with the Republican Congress. Last year, Congress added $350 million for national missile defenses. This year, the president's budget would eliminate that increase, but Congress is expected to restore the money. Congress also should press the administration to make a booster decision promptly and get on with the program.
The Republican Congress can keep the development of a national missile defense moving forward, but only a president can actually deploy it. Until a missile defense supporter sits in the White House, we can only hope that no missiles come this way.
James T. Hackett is a San Diego-based contributing writer to The Washington Times.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
