While the United States and Russia have made progress reducing nuclear weapons in the past decade, the US could be setting off a new arms race with plans to go forward with the 1980's "Star Wars" ballistic missile defense program, known as national missile defense (NMD). The NMD plan not only wastes billions of dollars on an ineffective system, but could prompt China and Russia to build or retain more nuclear weapons.
President Bush has stated that his most urgent military objective is to build a national missile defense system that would shield Americans from any ballistic missiles fired by "rogue" nations - like North Korea and Iran. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell have both suggested that the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which governs defenses against attacking missiles, might have to be scrapped. In his Senate confirmation hearings Rumsfeld called the ABM treaty "ancient history " and dismissed it as a "straight jacket."

The system that the Clinton administration was developing would have been strictly land based, with interceptor missile from Alaska. It was to include some satellites for tracking enemy missiles, but no weapons in space. The Bush administrations, however, is pushing for a more ambitious shield, possibly using space based weaponry. These weapons do not exist yet but the United States has been working for years on powerful lasers that might someday be mounted on aircraft or satellites. This would be in direct violation of the ABM treaty, which the Bush administration wishes to discard, which bans space based lasers to attack strategic intercontinental missiles. Other countries - particularly Russia and China, but also many US allies - oppose the US missile defense effort and warn that it could set off an international arms race in space.

The Problem with NMB

Missile defense has two basic problems: It cannot do what it is supposed to do, and it creates the very threats to American national security it is supposed to resolve. For years, the idea of being able to shoot down enemy missiles - hit a bullet with a bullet - has remained a distant technological dream. This has kept it far down the list of military and diplomatic concerns, despite the billions of dollars spent to achieve it. But the Bush administration has brought it to the forefront, and in the process missile defense now stands as a major point of argument in how the US relates to its allies in Europe and Asia.

The Pentagon's current national missile defense plan uses ground-based interceptors to launch "kill vehicles" that intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles from states of concern" such as North Korea and Iran. Despite years of research and development, however, the system is not technologically ready. The interceptors can easily be overwhelmed by countermeasures such as decoys, and, the system cannot protect the US against weapons delivered by methods other than long-range missiles, such as by ship or by truck.

A wide range of foreign policy experts and scientists - including 50 Nobel Laureates - have concluded that a national missile defense system is not technologically feasible. In April 2000, researchers at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued a report stating that national missile defense would be ineffective against attacks by emerging missile states. According to the CIA, many countries are already developing missile systems that can evade or overwhelm interceptors used in national missile defense system, and established nuclear powers like Russia and China already possess countermeasures and could offer their technology to other countries.
One of the key justifications for missile defense is that the system will prevent states from blackmailing American decision-makers with a missile threat. Missile defense supporters argue that policy makers hiding behind a protective shield could make better decisions based on US interests. However, to ignore missile threats American leaders would have to feel extremely confident that the NMD works. To date, NMD systems failed the easiest most highly controlled tests.

Rather than improving US security, national missile defense is likely to backfire. China and Russia, as well as allies such as Germany, France, and Sweden, have opposed the NMD plan. Germany, France and our other NATO allies believe that NMD could touch off another nuclear arms race and that US plans represent the beginning of a "Fortress America" mentality that would separate US and European security interests.
The decision of the US to pursue NMD sends a signal to other countries that rather than investing in arms control as a first line of defense that is much more capable of creating a more stable world, the US would rather continue to rely on the Cold War strategy of peace through military strength. This is a strategy that perpetuates an arms race the US can "win" that will return the world to a "balance of terror." Continued reliance on this strategy will likely lead to a distrust that will taint current and future arms control negotiations.

Alternatives

More missiles have been destroyed by diplomacy than through force, indicating the importance of not turning away from first lines of defense - arms control and diplomacy - in favor of a last line of defense. There are other ways to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack that do not include the creation of an expensive system that may not work and could lead to strained foreign relations. Rather than NMD, other options exist which would achieve similar security objectives and would make the world safer rather than indulge in a false sense of security. Some of these options are:

• Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons remain on high-alert despite the end of the Cold War. Retaliatory strikes against a nuclear missile attack can be launched within 5-10 minutes of detection. If this reaction time were lengthened, accidental launches could be avoided, and tensions would be greatly reduced further reducing nuclear stockpiles (i.e. actively continue to participate in the START process).

Fewer weapons overall would decrease the probability of a nuclear exchange. Reduction would also alleviate international fears that nuclear weapons will remain central to western security strategy and only by obtaining nuclear weapons can this threat be addressed.

• Active diplomacy: Instead of alienating countries of concern by building up military defenses, entering into diplomatic discussion has a higher chance of averting violent confrontation.
• Strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): The NMD option is partially predicated on the worry that non-nuclear states will develop nuclear weapons. The NPT regime is designed to address this concern. This regime should be pursued and up-held fully.
  
• Implement CTBT: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty creates an international climate that discourages nuclear explosive testing which is necessary to develop nuclear weapons. By ratifying the CTBT and fully supporting the infrastructure that supports it, proliferation will further be discouraged.
• Fortify groups such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which cooperates to impede the development and spread of ballistic missiles. MTCR and similar regimes address the concerns of technology transfer through the diplomatic arena.

The following letter was sent to President Bush outlining the concerns of various religious groups concerning the NMD program. Using this letter as a model, please contact the President and your Senators and Representatives and voice your opinion.

March 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Re: National Missile Defense

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned representatives of faith-based organizations share with you the desire to keep God's people, including those in the U.S. homeland, safe from nuclear attack. However, we are deeply concerned about the haste to make a commitment to deploy unproven technology for national missile defense.

First, the real and present danger for nuclear attack on the United States comes from the several thousand Russian missiles now on hair trigger alert and thousands of Russian nuclear weapons in reserve with inadequate security. The best remedies are mutual de-alerting, strategic arms reduction, and stable control of fissile material. These opportunities could be jeopardized if the United States withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to erect a national missile defense. Russia might then withdraw from other arms control treaties and retain multi-warhead missiles now scheduled for elimination under START II. Also, China might increase its nuclear arsenal. This would pose far greater danger to U.S. homeland security than the remote threat of a few missiles a small nation might develop years from now.

Second, heavy emphasis on unproven anti-missile technology to counter a speculative future threat from a few small nations neglects other elements of a comprehensive non-proliferation strategy. More promising methods include international monitoring of nuclear test explosions, rigorous fissile material control, stringent missile technology control, diplomacy, financial assistance to nations cooperating in nuclear non-proliferation, and countering social, economic, and political instability that provides the breeding ground for terrorist groups

Third, we are seriously concerned about budgetary implications. Since 1983 the United States has spent $69 billion on national missile defense, enriching major defense contractors but producing no effective system. President Clinton's plan, which you have criticized as inadequate, would cost $60 billion. Indications are that the layered approach you favor could cost more than $100 billion. A budgetary commitment of this magnitude along with the tax cut you are promoting would preclude achieving the goal of "Leave No Child Behind" and dealing with other urgent domestic needs.

For these reasons we urge you to pull back from the dangerous rush to a premature decision on national missile defense and withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

Respectfully yours,

General Assembly Guidance

The 212th General Assembly (2000) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) reaffirms its long-standing call to end the arms race, and urges:

"Ratification of and adherence by the United States to those existing international treaties that it has not yet accepted, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Treaty on Land Mines;"

"Adherence to and implementation of the treaties already ratified, such as the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the Biological Weapons Convention; and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties I and II;"

"Termination of efforts to build and deploy a Missile Defense System because of its unnecessary and destabilizing military character;"

"Reexamination by the United States of both its domestic and international policies, and the seeking of informed public review of its foreign policy perspective and goals for the twenty-first century, to the end that the building of security for the twenty-first century will be based on the extension of the rule of law, the development of strengthened instruments of international governance, the strengthening of arms control and disarmament agreements, the enhancing of instruments of nonviolent conflict resolution, not on the continued enhancement of technological instruments of destruction, shaped originally in the context of the cold war."

Stewardship of Public Life - Global Security
Is published quarterly by the Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office, 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel. 202-543-1126.

This article was written by Catherine Gordon of the Washington Office staff. Series editor: Rich Houston. Issue date: April 2001. For information about regular or email subscriptions or reprint permission, please contact Rich Houston.