| WASHINGTON
- March 19 - In the aftermath of the congressional vote to deploy a missile
defense system -- just days before the Russian prime minister is set to arrive in the United States -- some analysts are questioning the
feasibility, prudence and legality of such a system. Among those available for comment are:
WILLIAM HARTUNG, hartung@newschool.edu
, http://www.worldpolicy.org/arms
Senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute and author of "And Weapons for All," Hartung said: "Missile defense is unworkable,
unaffordable and unnecessary. It also runs the risk of sparking a new nuclear arms race. Instead of changing our policies to reflect the end of
the Cold War with missile reductions, our government is developing more offensive weapons. Combined with these missile defenses, that looks very
threatening to Russia and China. It is very hard for them to interpret this as anything other than provocative. They are compelled to respond by
deploying more missiles, so this actually destabilizes and has the opposite effect than the Clinton administration says it wants. The
military contractors have been very happy with the administration. This is a testament to the resilience of the military-industrial lobby."
WILLIAM WEIDA, bweida@earthlink.net
Retired Air Force colonel, professor of economics at the Colorado College and author of "Beyond Deterrence: The Political Economy of
Nuclear Weapons," Weida said: "This is a blatant subsidy for defense contractors who don't have any other major work at this time. Since the
consolidation of these companies -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing and so on -- they are inventing an answer to a threat that doesn't exist."
JIM WURST, lcnp@aol.com
Program director at the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, Wurst said: "What many proponents of `Star Wars' are really targeting is arms
control, not incoming missiles. Proceeding with a ballistic missile defense system is a direct assault on the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
The Russians don't want to amend the ABM treaty, they don't want to abrogate it, they can't afford to build their own, so their only
alternative is to maintain as large a stock of nuclear weapons as possible, which means they will not ratify START II. The expansion of
NATO, the bombing of Iraq and so much that the U.S. has done on arms control is sticking it in the eye of the Russians."
JOHN ISAACS, jdi@clw.org
, http://www.clw.org
President of the Council for a Livable World, Isaacs said: "This stakes America's national security on a system that has failed 14 out of
18 recent tests. The vote starts the U.S. down a slippery slope and, if it becomes law, could lock us into automatic deployment of a national
missile defense system, without regard to cost to taxpayers, effectiveness, or impact on relations with our allies. After $120 billion
and 40 years, we have been unable to make significant progress in the development of an effective system."
###
|
Share This Article With A Friend