America the Vulnerable and Missile Defenses
by William J. Bennett, Jack Kemp and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick,
The Washington Times, Sept. 1, 1998
When Ronald Reagan left the famous summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1987, he did something rare in the diplomatic world: He
walked away from a deal on the table. President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had made a major breakthrough in their
discussions to dramatically reduce the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals.
On the final day, they were close to finalizing the historic agreement. But Mr. Gorbachev insisted that the United States
immediately halt development of our ballistic missile defense system. To Mr. Reagan, who had promised the American people he
would not give away America's right to defend itself, that was unacceptable. He was excoriated by his critics. But history proved him
right.
The Clinton administration's refusal to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system has compromised our defenses in precisely the way
Mr. Reagan would not allow Mr. Gorbachev to do. Is this acceptable in an era when terrorists such as Osama bin Laden organize
against our nation and our citizens?
Mr. Reagan's steadfast support of ballistic missile defense research and development has probably contributed to America's
perception that we have a functional defense against enemy missile attacks. Polls show most Americans believe we have the ability
to defend ourselves against enemy missiles. But this is not the case. When told that no missile defense network is in place, U.S.
citizens resoundingly support deployment of such a system.
Unfortunately, last week Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Henry Shelton reiterated administration policy that delays deployment and
places the job of defending Americans from missile attack squarely in the hands of our intelligence agencies -- the same
intelligence agencies that were surprised by the India/Pakistan nuclear tests and the African embassy bombings. While our
intelligence apparatus is extremely important to our security, this "leap of faith policy" completely misses the point of an operational
defense network to defend us from the unknown, the unlikely and the sudden. If the administration and Joint Chiefs' rationale were
applied to other military systems, who knows what our armed services might look like today.
The much talked about report from the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, led by former Defense Secretary (and our colleague at
Empower America) Donald Rumsfeld, makes the intellectual case for what most Americans believe is common sense: If we have
the technology to shoot down enemy missiles, we should use it.
The report flatly contradicts administration policy. The commission, whose members included scientists, retired generals, and
former defense and intelligence officials of different political ideologies, warns that current decisions to delay deployment are based
on bad information and jeopardize national security.
We already know that at least 20 countries may be developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If any one of these
countries were to launch a missile on the United Sates today, we would be unprotected. The Rumsfeld Commission found that the
threat is "broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than had been reported in the estimates and reports by the Intelligence
Community," and that the ability of the CIA to provide timely estimates of the threat "is eroding."
Several countries will be capable of producing a nuclear missile within five years. A little more than a month ago, reflecting a clear
intelligence breakdown, Iran tested a missile capable of traveling 800 miles -- far enough to reach Israel. And during the last two
weeks, we've learned of possible nuclear weapons advances in North Korea.
The Joint Chiefs and the president might say this knowledge supports our intelligence agencies' primary role, but just because we
know something is going on in the tunnels of North Korea doesn't mean we don't know exactly what is going on. Indeed, the
commission concludes: "Under some plausible scenarios, the U.S. might well have little or no warning before operational
deployment."
Deterrence based on military superiority must remain the cornerstone of our national defense policy. But today, in a world without
another superpower and in a world where technological proliferation is prevalent, a more immediate threat comes from the single
rogue country, group or terrorist willing to fire one or two missiles.
In this scenario, where the enemy may be hard to find or may even be unknown, our military might may be of little significance, and
therefore of little deterrence value. Here, the only thing that matters is our ability to destroy the enemy's weapon before it destroys
American cities. To do this, we need a national missile defense.
Some people interpret the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 as forbidding missile defense systems and believe we are bound by
it. We disagree, but we also recognize the treaty as a practical roadblock. The treaty is outdated and harmful to America. For one
thing, one of the signatories has dissolved.
For another, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology have spread to almost every continent, and we and our
allies require a defense. The treaty codifies our vulnerability. But the ABM Treaty does provide a mechanism for our legal,
responsible withdrawal, and the United States should give such a notice to withdraw immediately.
The Senate will reconsider this week the American Missile Protection Act of 1998, which addresses the threat and the need for an
effective defense. We believe this is the most important defense issue facing the United States today. An urgent effort should be
made to complete the development and deployment of an effective defense network. This, of course, means repudiation of the
Clinton administration's anti-defense doctrine. It's about time.
A decade after Ronald Reagan bravely committed the United States to the deployment of a ballistic missile defense, we are still
vulnerable. But the promise he made to the American people -- to protect them -- should be on the minds of senators as they
consider their constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. jinsa.org
|
