New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 08:37pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8622 of 8643)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Interesting news!

Senate Panel Approves Defense Bill by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Defense-Budget.html

" WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats used their one-vote majority on the Senate Armed Services Committee to push through a defense bill Friday that cuts $1.3 billion from President Bush's request for financing his prized national missile shield and restricts his freedom to conduct missile defense tests.

" All 12 Republicans on the committee voted against the bill authorizing Bush's budget request for $343 billion for defense in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

" The bill also would authorize another round of base closings, unpopular in Congress where lawmakers fear the disruption caused by the loss of a base.

" But it was the restrictions on Bush's ability to conduct missile defense activities that would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, not the base closings, that prompted the 13-12 vote on a measure customarily approved without dissent.

" ``The intensity of the feeling among the Republicans was so great that we voted unanimously not to report the bill out,'' Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the committee's top Republican, said of the work done behind closed doors.

" Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he was ``somewhat disappointed'' at the partisan vote, saying there was bipartisan agreement on much of the bill.

" The restrictions the Republicans oppose would require a special vote by Congress before any money could be spent on an activity that the president tells Congress would violate the ABM treaty, even if the United States is no longer a party to that treaty. That vote would occur within 30 days of notification of the upcoming violation.

" ``This language, I point out, will not become the law of the land as sure as I'm standing here,'' Warner said.

" Some Republicans said the language would give the Russians control over development of a missile defense system, since they could refuse to amend the ABM treaty to accommodate some activities and thus force a vote by Congress.

Comment: At the least, it gives clear reasons for clear communication between the House and Senate, the Russians, and other concerned nation states. If this communication is handled in clear it should be possible, in an entirely open and honorable way, to clarify some key facts on which improved military security depends. If the communication occurs in clear there will be no question of acceptance of proposals, by Representatives or Senators, that would go against the interest of Americans. But this line of communication would be a clear channel for investigating the things that WIN-WIN relationships between the United States and other nations would take, and a clear channel for explaining to the Congress, and to the American people, what avoidable sources of tension and anger are. With email, and readily available web facilities (and videoconferencing easy, too) problems due to misunderstandings and oversimplifications might be avoided, in ways that would increase the status of all concerned.

(more)

(21 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense