Missle Defense
National Missile Defense (NMD) refers to a program intended to protect the United States from ballistic missile attack. While this is a worthy and politically attractive goal in and of itself, there are significant pitfalls. WPSR opposes the current NMD proposals because of the vast expense, unworkability of the system, and most of all, the threat it poses to world security and hence to public health.
"National Missile Defense is a dangerous and expensive hoax being perpetrated on the American public."
—Martin Fleck, WPSR Executive Director
The centerpiece of the current American arms buildup is the development of a National Missile Defense system which is to protect all of the United States and ultimately US allies and forces abroad from a missile attack by "rogue states." It is a modern version of President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. It is being promoted by the Bush Administration as part of a new "strategic framework," which is to replace the 1972 ABM Treaty and other disarmament treaties, which the Bush Administration has labeled "relics of the cold war era."
NMD consists of a complex system of launch detectors and tracking systems, including new satellites, a network of ground-based early warning radars, X-band radars, a new interceptor booster rocket, an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), designed to destroy the targeted ballistic missile through kinetic energy (by simply ramming into it), and a complex command and control system. Most of these components do not exist yet. Only two of four very limited and unrealistic, staged tests were successful.
The new system envisions a "layered defense," with options to destroy incoming ballistic missiles either in the boost phase (within 2-3 minutes after their launch), in mid-course (using interceptors now being tested, which actually intercept warheads in space), or in the terminal phase (after re-entry into the atmosphere, a short time before impact.)
Any new defense strategy meant to replace the current system of arms control treaties and deterrence must fulfill the following criteria:
- Demonstrate the need for a new system which is better than the old
- Make the US and our allies safer, considering the range of likely threats
- Be technically feasible, reliable and affordable
- Pose no threat to other countries (which would induce them to increase their own arsenals to overcome our defenses
National Missile Defense fails on all 4 counts:
- The administration has not documented the need for a new defense system. The current disarmament treaties, in conjunction with conventional and nuclear deterrence, have prevented a nuclear weapons exchange even during the decades of the Cold War. There is no country that can be considered so irrational that it would risk launching ballistic missiles at the United States.
- Our population will be more vulnerable to small nuclear, biological or chemical weapons—easily brought into this country (e.g., in shipping containers or automobiles) or manufactured here. Cyber-terrorism may target our vital lines of communication, including computers an the internet. In addition, some countries, like China, will build up their nuclear arsenal, and other countries, discouraged by the lack of progress promised by the nuclear states in the Non-proliferation Treaty framework, may decide to produce their own nuclear weapons. Funds and other resources, instead of being used for diplomacy, conflict resolution and international aid, are being sidelined to NMD. The end result is reduced security for the United States and its allies.
- NMD is not technically developed and ready for deployment. Many components of this highly sophisticated, complex system do not even exist yet. The new booster rocket for the interceptor has not been tested at all. On the other hand, defensive countermeasures, including decoys, are relatively cheap and easy to deploy even by smaller countries. (For details: visit the Union of Concerned Scientists) The Pentagon admits the system will not be reliable. If we still need to depend on other defenses and deterrence, why replace the current system in the first place? The cost is prohibitive: NMD is now estimated to cost $60 billion to $100 billion, but it almost certainly will be more in the end. The proposed defense budget for 2002 includes $8.3 billion for missile defenses.
- Other countries feel threatened by NMD: China would likely increase its nuclear arsenal (which may result in proliferation of weapons in India and Pakistan), Russia is opposed to elimination of the ABM treaty, our allies are worried that NMD leads to a new arms race and nuclear proliferation. The NPT regime is in jeopardy. The international consultations over NMD announced by President Bush with great fanfare have turned into pressure tactics to accept the US decision to deploy. The State Department has given notice that the planned tests will come into conflict with the ABM treaty "in months, not years." A go-it-alone-attitude has replaced the spirit of international cooperation.
Why is the Bush Administration pursuing NMD as its mainstay for national security in spite of the obvious uncertainties and potentially catastrophic disadvantages? Is this a rational policy?
The key words are: economy, globalization and space. The US is the main beneficiary of the current system of international trade, flow in finances and investments. Control of outer space is considered to be the key to protect "our resources." The main objective of NMD appears to be to ensure and increase control over those diminishing resources, to keep globalization on track and to prevent other countries from challenging this situation. According to Walter Pincus (Washington Post, 12/30/2000), US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is not only the driving force behind NMD but is also a leading proponent "of US efforts to take control of outer space by developing the technology to defend satellites in orbit." National Missile Defense may lead to an acceleration of the militarization of space.
The new system being developed under the Bush Administration will use space-based weapons, including laser and other anti-satellite weapons. The US Space Command has been placed in charge of protecting our satellites.
The United States, at the direction of the Bush Administration, is clearly aspiring for domination in space. Considering our disregard of the international community by withdrawing from or ignoring important treaties and agreements (ABM, CTBT, Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal Court, Biological Weapons Convention, etc.), it is no surprise that the world views us with suspicion. The vision of a world of cooperating nations, as expressed in the UN charter, made safe by treaties and deterrence (if necessary) is disappearing rapidly as the United States gradually replaces this multilateral cooperative approach with the arrogance of a self-centered superpower, with NMD as its most obvious and worst expression.
by Wolfgang Kluge, MD
August, 2001
