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 - 09:23am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5752 of 5770)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Later, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, repeatedly asked Mr. Rumsfeld to explain which upcoming tests on antimissile technology would violate the ABM treaty. President Bush has asserted that the treaty must be amended or abrogated to allow testing of promising technologies which allow antimissile weapons to be fired from ships, planes and possibly space vehicles.

"But Mr. Rumsfeld said he was not sure which tests might violate the treaty. He added that he wanted to be able to tell the Russians, "Come on, we've got to test, and we don't want to have someone accuse us of breaking the treaty. Let's not get into a legal, lawyer's argument over the thing."

"Clearly unmoved, Mr. Nelson replied: "We need, for the sake of the defense of the country, to proceed with robust research and development, but you can't deploy something that's not developed. And so all of the wringing of hands of the abrogation of the treaty seems to me to be a little premature before something has been developed."

Mr. Rumsfeld, who also appeared before the House Armed Services Committee later in the day, had come to Capitol Hill to discuss his efforts to redesign the national military strategy, the first step toward buying new high-tech weapons and restructuring the forces for post- cold-war threats.

The secretary said the United States faced greater threats than at any other time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He also noted that since the signing of the ABM treaty, which prohibits the development and deployment of systems that could defend the United States against long-range ballistic missiles, the number of countries with nuclear weapons programs has more than doubled, to 12, and the number of countries with ballistic missiles has more than tripled, to 28.

"This presents a very different challenge from that of the cold war," Mr. Rumsfeld said in his testimony. "Even in the old Soviet Union, the secretary general of the Communist Party, dictator though he was, had a Politburo to provide some checks and balances that might have kept him from using those weapons at his whim.

"What checks and balances are there on Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il?" he asked, suggesting that the threat of retaliation would not deter unpredictable autocrats from using nuclear weapons. "None that we know of or can influence."

"But his warnings did not appear to sway Democrats on the panel. Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, said, "We are basing some significant policy judgments on behavioral perceptions of regimes, and I think we have to do a little bit more work on sharpening those behavioral perceptions."

(more)

rshowalter - 09:23am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5753 of 5770)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, asked Mr. Rumsfeld whether the Pentagon had a formula for deciding when the effectiveness of a new weapons system justified its high cost.

"Mr. Rumsfeld said no.

"Well," Mr. Nelson replied, "I'd be very concerned if it was about 10 percent successful and we were looking at spending hundreds of billions of dollars that would then be taken away from other priorities within the Defense Department.

"It's very difficult to argue against saving one city. But we can't save one city with something that then makes us more vulnerable in other areas that are more likely to be open to attack."

"In another sharp exchange, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan who is chairman of the committee, said he was concerned that withdrawing from the ABM treaty might cause the Russians to increase the size of their nuclear arsenal, including putting additional warheads on their missiles. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said this week that his country would make such an upgrade if the United States proceeded on its own to construct a missile shield.

"Would you agree it's possible, at least, that they could respond in a way to a unilateral withdrawal which would not be in our interest, that would make us less secure?" Mr. Levin asked.

"Mr. Rumsfeld said it was possible. But he added, "We're not hostile states. They are going to be reducing their nuclear weapons regardless of what we do. We're going to be reducing our nuclear weapons to some level, regardless of what they do."

"At the end of the hearing, Mr. Levin playfully warned Mr. Rumsfeld that the Democrats would try to shift money in President Bush's defense budget away from missile defense and toward better benefits for military personnel.

"Some Republicans on the committee defended the administration's missile defense program. "We have made extraordinary progress," said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama.

Comment-question: was there detail here, of substance great enough to be reasonably included in this article that was omitted?

"A particularly heated moment came when Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, told Mr. Rumsfeld that the Pentagon was sending confusing signals about shipbuilding, an important industry for her state.

"Sounding irritated by the question, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "`With respect to the chaos you characterize, there is none. Any time that anyone asks a question, it's going to make people nervous."

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense