| ARMS TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
RECENT NEWS COVERAGE: December 13, 2001 For Immediate Release NO GOOD REASON TO PULL OUT OF ABM TREATY New York, NY — Despite the Bush administration’s determination to have a rudimentary missile defense system in place by 2004, the fact remains that none of the Pentagon’s missile defense programs are up to the task, and it is not because the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is standing in the way. “At a time when the resources and energy of our leaders should be focused on fighting terrorism, the Bush administration’s unilateral decision to rip up a cornerstone of global arms control in pursuit of a costly, unproven missile defense scheme is dangerously irresponsible,” said defense analyst William D. Hartung of the World Policy Institute. In President Bush’s speech at the Citadel, he called the Pentagon’s December 3rd intercept a “promising test” of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. “For the good of peace, we’re moving forward with an active program to determine what works and what does not work,” Bush said. However, the most recent intercept test was hardly proof that the system works. In that test, and all tests for the foreseeable future, a transponder, which is used to tell the interceptor where to go in space, was placed on the mock warhead. The transponder guides the interceptor to within 400 meters of the warhead. The Pentagon insists that the transponder must be used because the radar to be used in the operational system has not yet been built. But for all the priority the Bush administration has given to deploying a missile defense system, the money to build the radar hasn’t even been requested by the President. Bush has talked of a deploying a “layered” missile defense system that would combine the ground-based system with sea-, air-, and space-based components. In keeping with this plan, in FY 2002, the Bush administration has requested $8.3 billion for missile defense programs, an increase of 57% over last years’ budget. Meanwhile, the sea-based, boost-phase system, is based on a missile that has yet to be designed, much less tested. Optimistic estimates put initial deployment at 2008, with full deployment not possible before 2020. Even as he pushes to go full speed ahead with an unproven missile defense program, President Bush is neglecting more immediate steps that can and should be taken to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. At the Citadel, Bush trumpeted U.S. efforts to help safeguard and dispose of Russian nuclear material, however, this year’s budget is $40 million less than last year’s. President Bush should be showing his commitment to nonproliferation by increasing the budget for these activities. A bipartisan commission issued a report in January calling the risk of theft of Russian nuclear materials “the most urgent unmet national security threat” facing the U.S. and urged sharp increases in spending for the Russian programs. Bush also spoke of working with other countries to “strengthen nonproliferation treaties and toughen export controls.” If that is truly his intent, the U.S. should not unilaterally pull out of the ABM Treaty. Russian officials have indicated many times their willingness to discuss changes in the ABM Treaty to address U.S. concerns about the ballistic missile threat. A U.S. “go it alone” approach on missile defense could seriously jeopardize future nuclear reductions in Russia’s armaments, just as Secretary of State Colin Powell and his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov were getting U.S.-Russian nuclear reductions back on track. The low-tech means used for the September 11 attacks underscore the fact that a long-range ballistic missile is the least likely method a hostile power would use to attack the United States. “Before President Bush throws away four decades of progress on arms control and risks sparking a new arms race,” said Michelle Ciarrocca of the World Policy Institute, “he should rethink the consequences of moving full speed ahead with a dubious missile defense system.”
|
