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 - 07:34pm Aug 22, 2001 EST (#8016 of 8020)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In military history, there are circumstances that appear to lead to "set to" battles - - fights to the finish, with little accomodation of retreat. It seems, at one level, that we're in one. The Bush administration now appears to be committed, giving itself little leeway, to missile defense.

It is a strange circumstance, as far as I can see, because missile defense seems to make no technical or military sense at all.

If I thought that missile defense had any realistic chance of doing anything at all substantial to military balances, I might be horrified. But as it is, I can't see how the technical proposals can be anything else but boondoggles and follies. It is as if the military industrial complex, dominant so long, was setting itself up for defeat, and destruction of its credibility. At one level it looks inocuous. At another, very frightening. In POWER , which has rules of power I respect and have often cited , MD7078 rshowalter 7/16/01 9:54am Adolf A. Berle speaks of powerholders going mad with wearying frequency when they lose touch, and their power is unchecked.

Perhaps that is happening here. Nuclear weapons are involved - more than enough of them to destroy the world, if someone makes a consequential mistake.

The committment to missile defense is becoming clear enough -- as it has been in dialogs here with gisterme.

In addition to Tyler and Dowd's pieces, cited previously, there are these stories:

U.S. to Quit ABM if Russia Talks Fail By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-russia-usa.html

"MOSCOW (Reuters) - The United States plans to withdraw unilaterally from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty if no compromise on its missile defense plans is reached with Russia, a U.S. negotiator said on Wednesday.

. . . . . .

. . . the Interfax source said Russia felt that Washington's views of a future global security system were hazy and that it had no concrete proposals in the field, except scrapping ABM.

"Bolton said Russia, which has complained the United States was keeping it in the dark about the shape and scale of its missile defense system, now had enough data from Washington.

Comment: I wonder what Russia thinks -- and if Russia thinks that the US government is well informed itself on the key issues here.

also Air Force General Is Expected to Head Joint Chiefs of Staff By THE NEW YORK TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/22/politics/22CND-CHIEFS.html

Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force is expected to be named the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . (Myers has deep institutional ties to missile defense, and space command.)

and an interesting piece The Associated Press:

rshowalter - 07:36pm Aug 22, 2001 EST (#8017 of 8020)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Defense Policy May Isolate U.S. by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Missile-Defense.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- By emphasizing its option to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Bush administration is indicating that it is prepared to endure a firestorm of criticism -- from Russia, from U.S. allies and from Congress -- for going it alone on missile defense.

"The administration says it still hopes to reach an accommodation with the Russians that would ``set aside'' the treaty -- presumably replacing it with some other arrangement that permits the United States to develop and deploy the kind of missile defenses President Bush says are urgently needed.

"In that case, the administration probably could proceed without fierce opposition from the allies.

"But if that cannot be done, and if Bush sticks to his promise of building a robust missile defense, then the likely choice given recent comments from Bush aides would be to exercise a provision in the ABM treaty which permits either party to withdraw on six months' notice.

"The question is how long Bush would be willing to wait on the Russians. It's also unclear whether Bush, if faced with the decision, would actually withdraw from a treaty that many key U.S. allies, including Germany and France, are reluctant to abandon as long as the Russians insist it remain in force.

"Jan Lodal, an arms control expert who was a deputy under secretary of defense during the Clinton administration, said the United States has never withdrawn from an arms control treaty. He thinks it would be a mistake to exercise that option anytime soon, since the Pentagon could adjust its anti-missile technology testing program for 2002 to avoid any appearance of conflict with the ABM treaty.

" ``We don't have any compelling reasons'' to withdraw as early as next year, Lodal said in an interview.

"The withdrawal option has been there all along, of course, and Bush aides have mentioned it from time to time. But in recent days several administration officials have emphasized the possibility of withdrawing, perhaps in hopes of increasing pressure on the Russians to strike a deal soon.

"John Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, said in an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station on Tuesday that the United States is prepared to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM treaty if necessary. He mentioned this in the context of a planned November meeting in Texas between Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, leading some to conclude that Bolton was signaling that if no deal were reached by then, the United States would feel compelled to withdraw.

"On Wednesday Bolton said there is no such deadline.

"Russia is opposed to abandoning the treaty, which it calls a cornerstone of international security. But Bush says it is a relic of the Cold War and does not reflect the security threats of the 21st century, such as ballistic missiles in the hands of nations like North Korea which are hostile to the United States.

(more)

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense