By John Isaacs and Steve LaMontagne *
June 11, 2001
WASHINGTON -- In making his case for pursuing a national missile defense system, President Bush often relies on sweeping statements and vague generalities that fail to withstand careful scrutiny.
Rather than making a decision based on such common-sense criteria such as the system's cost, its technological readiness, its implications on arms control and its effectiveness against current and potential threats in making his decision, the president prefers instead to attack the current Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and belabors the obvious point that the world has changed in 30 years.
His arguments hare often based on carefully-spun half-truths that often bear little resemblance to reality. For example:
Bush: "More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations."
Reality: Thirty years ago the world had five nuclear powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China. Several other countries, including India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea, were already engaging in nuclear research. But in recent years, the number of states possessing or seeking nuclear weapons has actually decreased.
Although Iran and Iraq can be considered to have nuclear aspirations, several other countries -- South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Argentina, and Brazil -- have abandoned their nuclear programs and joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states.
Bush: "Some [countries] already have developed a ballistic missile technology that would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances and incredible speeds, and a number of these countries are spreading these technologies around the world."
Reality: Most countries developing ballistic missile technology possess systems capable of traveling only modest distances. The only countries currently with nuclear warheads mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting U.S. are Russia, Britain, France, and China. The U.S. insists that missile defense is not directed against Russia or China.
The administration says it main concern is nations such as North Korea, which may be developing missiles capable of striking the U.S.. and could export this technology to other hostile nations as well. But there are less expensive and more effective alternatives than missile defenses for dealing with the emerging North Korean threat.
For instance, last year the U.S. came close to reaching an agreement whereby North Korea that would have eliminated its development and export of ballistic missile technology. Bush has so far balked at continuing those negotiations.
Bush: "Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation."
Reality: This contradicts one of the main arguments of missile defense proponents: that deterrence does not work against "irrational" rogue states leaders determined to attack the U.S. If such states are not deterred by certain and devastating U.S. retaliation, then they would not be deterred by an admittedly less than perfect anti-ballistic missile system that may only intercept a few of their missiles at best.
Furthermore, missile defenses do nothing to discourage proliferation, and may actually make the problem worse by stimulating buildups in offensive nuclear forces around the world.
According to an August 2000 National Intelligence Estimate, China may expand its nuclear arsenal to ten times its present size in response to U.S. deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems. A Chinese buildup could, in turn, spark nuclear buildups in India and Pakistan, two countries with their own long history of conflict.
Russia may decide to equip each of its new Topol SS-27 ICBMs with as many as three independently targetable warheads, a step that would entail Russia's withdrawal from the START II agreement, which prohibits multiple-warhead ICBMs.
Meanwhile, countries such as North Korea could employ simple and inexpensive countermeasures to confuse the missile defense system. According to a September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, China and Russia already possess the technology for such countermeasures, and may be willing to sell the technology to interested states.
Finally, countries such as China and North Korea that have been major suppliers of missile technology may react to U.S. missile defenses by refusing to cooperate on nonproliferation efforts and increasing their nuclear and missile exports.
Bush: "When ready, and working with Congress, we will deploy missile defenses to strengthen global security and stability. .... We're not presenting our friends and allies with unilateral decisions already made."
Reality: Although Bush has repeatedly vowed to consult with U.S. allies on the subject of missile defenses, other statements by the administration indicate that the decision has already been made.
At the Munich Conference on European Security Policy last February, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told European defense ministers that "the United States intends to develop and deploy a missile defense designed to defend our people and forces against a limited ballistic missile attack..."
Promises of consultations appear to be nothing more than a euphemism for telling our allies to "deal with it."
John Isaacs is the president of the Council for a Livable
World, an arms control advocacy group based in Washington DC.;
Steve LaMontagne is the non-proliferation analyst at the Council
for a Livable World Education Fund.