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?

kangdawei - 09:46pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9963 of 9975)

Missile Defense: The Time Is Now

Defenders of the ABM Treaty argue that one parchment irrelevancy justifies another. If the United States withdraws from the treaty, they contend, it will lose the START II agreement with the

Russians and never be able to negotiate START III. Yeah, so? The START II accord, with its emphasis on Cold War arcana such as the "de-MIRVing" of missiles, already seems an artifact from a bygone era. In any case, it will never go into force, because the Russian Duma has made its ratification dependent on the U.S. Senate's swallowing extensions of the ABM Treaty, which the American body has found unacceptable. As for a proposed START III agreement, circumstances have made it a risible redundancy. The Russians built their missiles with short lifespans, planning to modernize them constantly. The Russian economy now makes that impossible. The number of Russian strategic warheads is expected to drop from 6,000 or so to fewer than 1,500 in 2010, well below the START III target level of 2,000-2,500 warheads. But this doesn't stop the Russians from dangling a START III agreement as an incentive for the U.S. to preserve the ABM Treaty, in what would amount to arms-control inanity in the service of arms-control folly.

Russia is joined in its braying against missile defense by China, because the countries have a confluence of interests. To the extent that the U.S. is vulnerable to missile threats — including to the clients of Russia and China — its ability to act in the world is circumscribed. So it's in the interest of both an ex-superpower and a rising Asian power to see the United States remain naked unto the world. As for the idea that a missile-defense system would prompt an arms race with China, the Clinton administration assiduously avoided building a system for eight years, and the Chinese still amassed an arsenal of intercontinental missiles. At the moment, of course, the United States is vulnerable to 100 percent of Chinese missiles. How could it be worse off with a missile defense that can protect against a Chinese launch, even if China doubles or triples its force? Only an arms-control expert could explain that, and his world may be becoming to an end — provided the Bush administration digs at Shemya and lets the Russians know that, at least when it comes to more missile-defense negotiations, silence is golden.

kangdawei - 09:47pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9964 of 9975)

Missile Defense: The Time Is Now

Breaking ground at Shemya would represent a crucial break with the ABM Treaty and, by extension, the parchment gods of arms control. A decision to go ahead — which this year would involve mostly just digging — would mean that the U.S. is constructing a system that directly violates the treaty. The only honest thing for Washington to do in such circumstances would be to announce that it is exercising its right under the ABM Treaty to withdraw (after giving six months' notice). Anything short of this would leave the treaty's web of prohibitions in place to hamper the research, development, and deployment of defenses. Even if the Russians were, in theory, to agree to changes in the ABM Treaty immediately, those changes wouldn't go into force until ratified by the Duma, creating an irresistible opportunity to string the U.S. along.

By now, the ABM Treaty should be a dusty embarrassment to proponents of arms control. When it was signed, only the Soviet Union deployed Scud technology. Now, 22 nations do. Missile know-how today spreads like a social disease. For instance, Russia and then China helped North Korea develop its own Scuds. North Korea, in turn, marketed its Scuds to Egypt, Iran, Syria, Vietnam, and the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, its more ambitious No Dong missile — with a range of 1,300 kilometers — has gone to Pakistan, Iran, and Libya. And because North Korea's Taepo Dong-1 — capable of reaching Alaska and, with smaller payloads, even the Lower 48 — is a boot-strap creation combining Scud and No Dong boosters, these other nations are presumably within reach of having intercontinental ballistic missiles of their own. While academic theory may have justified the "balance of terror" with the Soviet Union, by what theory should the U.S. remain vulnerable to any third-rate power sold missile technology by Russia or China?

kangdawei - 09:50pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9965 of 9975)

...by what theory should the U.S. remain vulnerable to any third-rate power sold missile technology by Russia or China?

To the extent that the U.S. is vulnerable to missile threats — including to the clients of Russia and China — its ability to act in the world is circumscribed.

But then, that's what some people in the west want. A circumscribed USA. One way to accomplish that goal: naysay all upgrades of US power, starting with NMD.

And the theory has a name: no matter what happens, Blame The USA.

almarst-2001 - 10:37pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9966 of 9975)

"by what theory should the U.S. remain vulnerable to any third-rate power"

Isn't it true that "All Man Born Equal?";)

Indeed, Why whould the US be denied the pleasure to bomb other nations in case it's President got an urgent PR problem? Or deal with other equally importand issues of EgoWallet-arism?;)

kangdawei - 10:44pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9967 of 9975)

Very intelligent response, almarst. Especially the very witty bit about EgoWallet-arism. I see now--- reading your cutting logic---just how razor-sharp your mind actually is. What a brain. Like a steel trap.

almarst-2001 - 10:48pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9968 of 9975)

"its ability to act in the world is circumscribed"

What is wrong with that? Doesn't the same apply to all other nations, least of all to US - by far the biggest military power? Why should all other nations to live in terror under the US tread to bomb and destroy at will? Wouldn't it create the World of Terror? As Mr. Bush just explained: "Who is not with us - is with terrorists" (and deserve to die, implicitely). So much for "democracy" and "freedom". For the "rule of law". For "all we stand for". What is it exactly about? Just a minite, I remember... "Who is not with us - is against us" (V.I. Lenin)

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense