At issue: Proposed Missile Defense System

Announcement of Bush Administration position on national missile defense: On Tuesday, May 2, President Bush delivered a major address outlining the Administration's view on deployment of a national missile defense system and nuclear weapons reductions. He reiterated his call for unilateral reductions and deployment of missile defenses as soon as possible. Little new information was provided in the speech, but it did generate responses from many Democratic congressional leaders who appear to be gearing up for a battle to stop deployment. The Administration apparently hopes that wrapping the "sweet" of nuclear weapons cuts around the "poison pill" of Star Wars will make the resulting package easier to swallow. Fortunately, many foreign allies, as well as Russia and China, remain opposed to deployment.

Useful web sites for getting informed:

http://www.cdi.org/hotspots/issuebrief/ch1/index.html

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/bmd.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/security/0missile.html

A sample core letter to send to your congresspersons, the President, and other persons of influence:

(Please amend as fits your opinions.)

Dear _________________:

I write to register my strong opposition the Missile Defense Plan proposed on 2 May 2001 by President Bush. There exists a real danger that this proposed missile defense system could undermine our nation politically, economically and strategically - without providing any real security at all.

I believe that it would be a grave mistake for President Bush to abrogate the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty, which has been the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence. In addition, the unilateral deployment of a robust missile defense system could leave our nation less secure by sparking an arms race.

President Bush has stated "Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation." However, this statement contradicts one of the main arguments of missile defense proponents: That deterrence does not work against "irrational" rogue states determined to attack the U.S. If such states are not deterred by certain and devastating U.S. retaliation, then they would not be deterred by an anti-ballistic missile system that even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admits would be less than perfect.

Furthermore, missile defenses do nothing to discourage proliferation, and may make the problem worse by stimulating buildups in offensive nuclear forces around the world. Some countries may simply build more missiles in order to overwhelm the anti-missile system. According to an August 2000 National Intelligence Estimate, China's nuclear arsenal may increase to ten times its present size as a response to U.S. missile defenses. A Chinese buildup could in turn spark nuclear buildups in India and Pakistan.

Countries such as North Korea could employ simple and inexpensive countermeasures to confuse the missile defense system. According to a September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, China and Russia already possess the technology for such countermeasures, and may be willing to sell the technology to interested states.?

Finally, countries such as China and North Korea that have been major suppliers of missile technology may react to U.S. missile defenses by refusing to cooperate on nonproliferation efforts and increasing their missile exports.

The skeptics and opponents of the proposed missile defense system are many:

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists: "What proponents of the system choose to ignore is the fact that the system under development will not work, since it can be defeated by simple countermeasures. Furthermore, missile defenses will pose significant problems for future progress in arms control -- especially deep nuclear reductions. The security costs of deployment will far outweigh the security benefits."

To quote Britain's Guardian newspaper: "Much of the proposed technology, especially space weapons, is unproven and in any event, is no defence against one-off terrorist "suitcase" mini-devices." (6 Feb 2001)

Igor Ivanov, Russian Foreign Minister said, "I will be frank with you. The offered reasoning fails to convince us and the majority of the world" after lengthy talks with the Bush administration on 19 May which were an attempt to sway Russia to approve anti-missile defenses or to scrap a landmark treaty that bans them. His statement reflects the view held also by many American analysts and members of Congress that a missile defense system would inspire other countries to develop weapons to pierce a shield, thereby igniting a new nuclear arms race. (Barry Schweid, Associated Press, 19 May 2001)

Thank you for voting against any budget measures or advocating legislation for the missile defense system.

Sincerely,