FrontPage

Nation

World

Media

Culture

Technology

Commentary

President Clinton’s recent visit to Moscow -- and the trip’s focus on missile defense and arms reduction -- has sparked a new drive to derail America’s national missile defense program. Opponents have seized upon Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unyielding opposition to U.S. plans to construct a defensive system to protect American families from missile attack as new reason to abandon our efforts.

So add Russian intransigence to the now familiar litany of complaints against missile defense lodged by members of the Flat Earth Society and other missile defense opponents.

To abandon missile defense now would be a grave mistake, endangering the safety of the American people and placing U.S. national security and that of our allies at great risk. Rogue nations such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran continue their aggressive pursuit of the missile capability to strike American cities. Indeed, North Korea has already demonstrated such a capability and Iran and Iraq are expected to obtain the technology within the next decade. Why then, would anyone argue against protecting America? Here are the usual complaints against missile defense:

1. There is no real missile threat: Missile defense opponents argue that such rogue nations would never consider launching such missiles -- potentially tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons -- against the United States out of fear of massive nuclear retaliation. Yet these nations continue their pursuit of this capability -- allocating massive amounts of money for research and development despite limited financial resources and starving populaces.

But these rogue nations need not even launch their missiles for them to be effective weapons. Imagine, for example, that Iraq possessed long-range missiles -- capable of striking the United States -- when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Such a capability -- and the resulting danger to U.S. citizens -- would have likely precluded the United States from becoming involved in the Persian Gulf War.

At the very least, the threat of attack by rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq will dramatically alter whether the United States can become involved in protecting our allies and strategic interests. If a regional conflict were to occur in the Middle East or in the Pacific, the U.S. would be faced with a painful choice: risk a missile attack or do nothing. Our leaders need another alternative.

2. It costs too much: Opponents say that a national missile defense would cost $60 billion. Since these same folks are often hostile to any defense spending, that seems an exorbitant sum. But that total is wildly inflated -- and it is stretched out over a fifteen-year period. Here is the truth: national missile defense cost about one-half of one percent of the total defense budget last year.

It is important to note that the national missile defense system now in development is a scaled-down version of the defensive umbrella envisioned by President Ronald Reagan that would have been capable of shooting down thousands of warheads. Instead, the Department of Defense is moving forward with development of a limited system -- probably located in Alaska -- with as few as one hundred interceptors.

3. It would destabilize relations with Russia: Missile defense advocates have stated time and time again, Russia has little to fear from the proposed system. The system is designed to provide protection from rogue nations or an accidental launch -- not an all-out attack by Russia. In fact, Russia faces the same threat from rogue states that we do.

Russia knows this. That is why it already maintains the world’s only operational anti-ballistic missile defense system -- despite a tight military budget that has left many armed services personnel months behind in receiving their paychecks. Surely, the American people deserve the same protection as the Russians.

Having worked closely with Russian leaders on a variety of issues, I am certain that our two nations can agree upon changes to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that will allow the United States to move forward with the deployment that does not threaten Russia. But to do so will require a resolve and commitment to missile defense that both President Clinton and Vice President Gore are lacking.

Legislation approved last year by Congress and signed reluctantly into law by President Clinton makes the policy of the United States clear: we will deploy a national missile defense. Given the imminent missile threat posed by rogue nations, the sooner we move forward with deployment, the better.