| WASHINGTON
- January 27 - Following is a statement by Robert W. Tiller, director of security programs,
Physicians for Social Responsibility:
It is disheartening to see Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) again at the
forefront of discussions about U.S. national security policy. Republicans
have been leading the revival of the ineffective and costly Star Wars
missile defense program and now even President Clinton is jumping on the BMD
bandwagon. New fears over possible nuclear attack by countries such as North
Korea or Iraq are fueling the surge in interest in BMD and the President has
responded by calling for renewed efforts to build a missile defense system.
But unfortunately the BMD endeavor will not work. It is plagued
with
technological failures, a bloated budget and questions about its very
effectiveness. Additionally, the BMD program encourages other countries to
pursue their own missile defense programs.
No Credible Threat
There is currently no credible threat to the United
States that missile defense will address. Only Russia, China, France and
Great Britain have long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States, and they are U.S. allies. The World Trade Center,
Oklahoma City and American Embassy bombings in recent years illustrate
the fact that the most serious current threat to the United States is from
terrorist attacks, which cannot be prevented by ballistic missile defense.
Even a working Star Wars system would not stop terrorists from smuggling
nuclear weapons via plane, truck, train or ship. Moreover, promoting a BMD
system will strain relations with Russia and make it less likely that we can
convince them to reduce their arsenals. This point was clearly evident this week as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright attempted to assuage
Russian concerns over this issue.
Exorbitant Costs
After over 40 years of research, and more than $100
billion expended since Star Wars was conceived in the early 1950s, there is still no defense system that actually works reliably. In early
January
1999, the Clinton administration announced a plan to pledge $6.6 billion
over six years to build a limited missile defense system. Congress
appropriated $1 billion more for ballistic missile defense in fiscal year
1999 than the $3.6 billion requested by the Administration, even though
senior Pentagon officials advised against it. Why do we continue to pour
money into a program that has already cost taxpayers a fortune without any
tangible results?
Technological Problems
The money lavished on missile defense is
especially egregious in light of the fact that military experts know that
the technology is far from ready. In a 1998 report released by the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization, which oversees the BMD program, retired Gen. Larry Welch warned that the national missile defense program was
"highly unlikely" to succeed because it lacks coherence and a realistic plan. The Welch panel reported that out of the 14 tests
directed against high-altitude targets, only two, or 14 percent, hit their targets. Even if it were possible to produce an effective
missile
defense, it would still not protect the U.S. from attack by nuclear weapons
carried on cruise missiles. Furthermore, if an enemy launched
"dummy" missiles not carrying any warheads, the missile defense
interceptors would be wasted in destroying the dummies, leaving the United
States with no defense against a second wave of missiles that do have
warheads.
Proliferation Risks and Global Impact
The U.S. effort to create a working
missile defense system, violates the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
For almost three decades the ABM Treaty -- which limits development, testing
and deployment of missile defense systems -- has been the cornerstone of stable relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, and
continues to be vital to U.S.-Russian relations today. Strong U.S.-Russian ties are in many ways dependent on the ABM Treaty, and
moves to abrogate the treaty could have serious repercussions.
A Better Approach
Hardline conservatives have kept missile defense alive,
even though it does not serve U.S. interests. Now even President Clinton has succumbed to political pressure to move forward with this bad
idea.
Rather than step up its militarization, the U.S. should strive to improve
its diplomatic relations with allies and perceived enemies. It is far better
to prevent the launch of missiles than to attempt to intercept them in the
air. Instead of pumping more money into a shaky ballistic missile defense,
the President should pursue measures to reduce the U.S. and Russian arsenals
and lower the alert status of the thousands of nuclear weapons poised on hair trigger
alert.
### |
