2. Analysis and opinions of the NMD Decision
The Carnegie Endownment for International Peace predicted in an analysis of President Clinton’s delay of the National Missile System there is likely to be little political fallout because Republican attacks have been poorly supported.
“ISSUE OF THE WEEK: President Delays NMD”
Michael J. Glennon, law professor at the University of California at Davis and former legal counsel to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concludes that if the next president decides to move ahead with a National Missile Defense system, the United States would have to withdraw from the ABM Treaty if Russia — or the US Senate — will not approve an amendment to the treaty.
“Yes, There Is an ABM Treaty”
John Isaacs, Council For a Livable World, said, “The President’s speech marked a clear and unambiguous victory for common sense — and for the beleaguered arms control movement that had suffered a devastating loss when the Senate defeated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in October 1999.”
“Anatomy of a Victory: Clinton Decides Against National Missile Defense”
The Federation of American Scientists issued a press release which praised US President Bill Clinton’s decision to delay deployment of the troubled National Missile Defense system, but warned that a dangerous decision to abrogate the ABM treaty and deploy the system was still possible next year.
“A Misguided Ballistic Missile Defense System: Scientists Praise President Clinton’s Decision to Delay Deployment ”
Anthony H Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, argued that the decision not to deploy NMD at this time creates a window of opportunity to reconsider how the program is being pursued. Cordesman made several suggestions as to what should be done differently and how.
“Taking Advantage of Delay: A Success-Driven Approach to NMD”
Bill Gertz, of The Washington Times, reported on a report by the chairman of the US Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee on proliferation which argued that the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats caused the current problems with US defenses against missile attack by cutting programs. The report apparently shows that the cuts for national missile defense peaked in fiscal 1995, when the Clinton administration requested $226 million, a cut of $3.9 billion from the Bush administration program.
“Clinton Faulted About Missile Shield”
The Washington Times carried an editorial by Retired US Navy Vice Admiral J.D. Williams, deputy chief of Naval operations and former commander of the US Sixth Fleet, in which he argued that the 1972 ABM Treaty between the United States and Soviet Union is now outdated, and Clinton has consistently misled the American people on the possibility of missile attack from rogue states. He argued that the US should augment the land-based system with sea-based systems, which would result in a much more effective NMD system that could be deployed sooner for less money.
“The Missile Defense Dodge”
Tom Plate argued in the Los Angeles Times that the US should praise US President Bill Clinton for his decision to delay deployment of the NMD system, “a mammoth national missile defense system that neither the United States nor the world needs.” Especially in Asia, he argued, many people will assess this as one of Clinton’s finest moments. He discusses Clinton’s decision in context of the upcoming election and how it affects relations in Asia.
“Missile Defense Deferral Makes Asia A Safer Place”
The Wall Street Journal editorial analyzed the ABM Treaty and concluded that the United States would never be able to create an effective defense “until the deck in clear of archaic and cumbersome treaty restrictions, and our weapons designers are free to use whatever physical principles will do the job.”
“Other Physical Principles”
An editorial in the Chicago Tribune argued President Clinton’s decision not to deploy a national missile defense system was the right one and that changes to the ABM treaty should be negotiated with Russia. Nonetheless, the US should continue with research on missile defense and prepare for when a system would work.
“Missile Defense, In Due Time”
An article in Inside Missile Defense stated that President Clinton’s conclusion on NMD could draw renewed attention to the issue of a sea-based strategic defense system and provide an opening for advocates of a naval alternative to a land-based system. Supporters of a sea-based system have said could readily field a robust system by leveraging the Navy’s existing infrastructure and they assert that it has been politics, especially continued US adherence to the ABM Treaty, that have impeded deploying such defenses. Inside Missile Defense provides an examination of both these arguments.
“White House Decision May Move Sea-Based NMD Into Spotlight”
In an editorial in The Washington Times, James T. Hackett argued that the US should not try to convince other states to accept NMD, but should simply state that every country has the right of self-defense. He argued that the real reasons for NMD “are to protect against a miscalculation caused by collapsing Russian command and control, to prevent missile intimidation by China as it seeks to conquer Taiwan, and to stop missile blackmail by North Korea or any country that tries to limit U.S. freedom of action in world affairs.”
“We Need Missile Defense” |
