From:   BASIC    29 May 2001

NMD Update

There are five items this week. The first is a recent article from the Washington Post detailing President Bush and Russian President Putin?s upcoming June 16 meeting in Slovenia. The article contains a revealing quote from US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, concerning the influence that the current round of consultations will have on the US?s eventual decision regarding the deployment of missile defence. Powell states:

"Consultations can't be a substitute for action. So we will take the necessary time to get the views of all who have an interest in this matter and factor those views into our consideration," he said. "At the time when we think there has been enough consultation and we've reached agreements with others, then we will act on those agreements or act on what we believe are our best interests at that time."

For more information on the recent visits to Europe by delegations from the US administration, along with details of important upcoming events, please visit http://www.basicint.org/NMDpageNAN.htm

The second item details the current unrest among US Democrats over Bush's missile defence plans. This unrest could have much more potent implications in the light of Senator James Jeffords recent departure from the Republican Party which has placed the Senate in Democratic hands. The possible implications for US missile defence of Senator Jeffords defection are explored in the third item, an article from today?s Guardian.

The third item is another background piece on one of Bush's nominations, again courtesy of the Council for a Livable World. This one concerns Douglas J. Feith, nominated to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

The fourth item is an article from the latest edition of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, contributed by Claire Poyner of Abolition 2000 UK. The piece deals with the numerous technological difficulties which any system of US missile defence will have to overcome. These are always worth bearing in mind when the Bush administration presents the decision of whether or not to deploy as inevitable.

The last item is a recent report from the Arms Control Association detailing current European attitudes to US missile defence. The report details a deeply rooted opposition to Bush?s proposals in most European capitals.

If you have any comments on this service please e-mail me at mbromley@basicint.org. For more information about BASIC please visit http://www.basicint.org

1) 'Bush, Putin To Meet June 16: Missile Defense, Nuclear Arms Top Agenda for Slovenia Summit' Washington Post, 19 May 2001, Pg. 17
2) 'Democrats Plot Strategy On Missile Defense: Lawmakers to Take Aim at Technological, Financial Aspects of Global Shield Plan' Washington Post, 20 May 2001, Pg. 14
3) Senate threat to US missile plan by Michael Ellison, The Guardian, 29 May 2001
4) DOUGLAS FEITH Background and Policy Positions (Courtesy of Council for a Livable World http://www.clw.org)
5) No time for NMD? Bulletin of Atomic Scientists May/June issue
6) Europe and Missile Defense: Tactical Considerations, Fundamental Concerns? Arms Control Association, Andrew J. Pierre, May 2001 http://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/May2001/pierre.html

1) Bush, Putin To Meet June 16: Missile Defense, Nuclear Arms Top Agenda for Slovenia Summit Washington Post, 19 May 2001, Pg. 17

By Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed yesterday to hold their first meeting June 16 in Slovenia to discuss U.S. plans for missile defense, which Moscow has resisted, as well as deep cuts in nuclear arsenals and a variety of regional issues.

The summit was announced during a day of meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who said he expected the talks to be "lively . . . full of content and very directed at discussing very specific issues." Ivanov met three times yesterday with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, as well as with Bush, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and members of Congress.

The Bush-Putin summit, experts said, is aimed at putting U.S.-Russian relations back on track after some initial tension over Bush's determination to push ahead with missile defense and over the mass expulsions of nearly 50 diplomats on each side because of espionage allegations.

Missile defense remains the most contentious issue, and Ivanov and Powell said yesterday at a joint press conference that they had established two working groups, one on potential threats to international stability and the other to examine the role and future of arms control agreements. Talks on missile plans continued last night between Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov.

Bush has called the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972, a relic of the Cold War and has urged a new strategic "framework." Critics, including many leading political figures in Europe and China, have argued that Bush's plan could destabilize international arms control accords and spark a new arms race.

Ivanov said Russia was willing to talk about the issue to "determine what the challenges to stability are, and how to resolve them." He had earlier told reporters following talks with Bush that, "There can be no breakthrough on missile defenses. There can only be lengthy consultations. This is not a question to be resolved in a single day."

Though Ivanov and Powell struck a friendly tone in their press conference, Powell did warn that the talks with Moscow over missile defense would not be allowed to obstruct U.S. plans indefinitely.

"Consultations can't be a substitute for action. So we will take the necessary time to get the views of all who have an interest in this matter and factor those views into our consideration," he said. "At the time when we think there has been enough consultation and we've reached agreements with others, then we will act on those agreements or act on what we believe are our best interests at that time."

Powell said the Slovenian capital of Ljubljana was chosen as the site of the summit because it was hospitable and convenient for both leaders' schedules.

But Slovenia, once a republic of Yugoslavia, also provides a symbolic backdrop for the Bush-Putin summit meeting, said Russia expert Thomas Graham of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, because it is one of the countries usually mentioned as a possible candidate for membership in NATO. It is also high on the list of countries to be admitted to the European Union when the EU expands into Eastern Europe.

Graham said that while the choice of Slovenia enables the United States to make a statement about the possible expansion of NATO, the decision for Bush to make a special stop to meet Putin could bolster the Russian president's prestige at home.

Powell and Ivanov also discussed a range of other issues yesterday, including United Nations sanctions on Iraq. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia -- meet next week in New York to discuss a British and American proposal to refocus the sanctions on the regime by loosening restrictions on civilian goods and tightening the embargo on military and "dual-use" items. Each member has veto power. "We also have our own proposals," Ivanov said without elaborating. But he added that "we have a common understanding of the final goal that we are striving to reach." Powell said the U.S. side had expressed concern about freedom of the press in Russia, especially in the wake of the takeover of an independent television station that had been critical of Putin's government.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), one member of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who met Ivanov, also raised the issue of press freedom. "If not resolved, these human rights violations could become a huge impediment to the progress of U.S.-Russian relations," he said later in a statement. Powell also said he raised U.S. concerns about the situation in Chechnya, where Russian troops have been battling Chechen nationalists. He said Ivanov had promised that Russia would allow an assistance group from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to return to Chechnya.

At the press conference, Ivanov said he would convey U.S. protests over the jailing of John Tobin, a U.S. exchange student sentenced last month to 37 months in prison for possession of a small amount of marijuana. Tobin's family has cited his e-mail messages to the U.S. Embassy as evidence that he was framed after refusing to spy for Russia.

2) ?Democrats Plot Strategy On Missile Defense: Lawmakers to Take Aim at Technological, Financial Aspects of Global Shield Plan? Washington Post, 20 May 2001, Pg. 14

By Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer

In closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill this month, Democratic members of Congress have been honing a response to President Bush's call for a global shield against ballistic missiles. Their strategy is not to attack the idea of missile defense, but to question whether the technology works and whether the diplomatic and financial trade offs are worthwhile.

Party leaders believe this message has two major strengths: It mirrors voters' practical concerns, as shown by opinion polls, and it maintains unity in Democratic ranks. If that unity continues, they predict, they will be able to derail, delay or modify whatever concrete plan the administration eventually unveils.

"On whether or not it's ultimately desirable to pursue [missile defense], there's some division" among Democratic lawmakers, said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "But there's overwhelming agreement . . . that a major financial commitment at this point is a mistake."

Frank was one of 12 House Democrats who gathered in the office of Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) to begin hashing out their strategy May 3, just two days after Bush gave a major speech on missile defense at the National Defense University.

The issue had the potential to split the party's hawks and doves. But instead, all of the Democratic lawmakers at that first meeting -- from the liberal Frank to the more conservative Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) -- agreed they could take aim at Bush's speech and avoid the pitfall of looking soft on defense, participants said. One called Bush's vague plan a new Maginot Line, comparing it to the French fortifications that created a false sense of security and were easily circumvented by Germany in the first year of World War II.

"This knits together our pro-defense people with our more liberal doves," said a source close to Gephardt. "They come at it from different ways, but even our most pro-defense people think that A: The technology doesn't work yet, and B: The money is not there."

Most Democrats also argue for trying to amend, rather than abrogate, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. They say that scrapping the treaty, which Bush called outdated, would erode trust with Moscow and perhaps encourage the Russians to keep their nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert.

The first test of Democratic unity will come when the Bush administration seeks money to start construction of the first elements of a missile defense system. One possibility is a request for money to break ground at Alaska's Shemya Island, which would be used for long-range radar. At that point, the administration might be able to peel off some Democrats, many of whom back the idea of a limited missile defense system and most of whom support continued research and development.

Nearly 100 Democratic experts on defense and foreign policy have formed a group called Americans for Forward Engagement. They have made nuclear weapons issues, including missile defense, their first priority and have been advising members of Congress.

Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) also has met recently with senators, House members and former Clinton administration officials to plot strategy on missile defense. One senator said he wanted to avoid leaving himself open to a 30-second campaign attack ad that would say he voted to leave San Francisco exposed to nuclear annihilation. But most Democrats see relatively little danger in criticizing Bush's plan at this point.

"The number of people who have stopped me in the street and said, 'The North Koreans are coming!' is quite small," Frank said. "More people are worried about gasoline prices. More people in public housing are worried about drug crime."

Skelton, with two military bases in his district, is more hawkish than Frank but still is skeptical of Bush's pledge to build a worldwide missile shield, possibly including weapons based on land, at sea and in space. "I'm not opposed to [missile defense] at all. I just think we should take a deep breath and treat it like other weapons systems: Don't rush to judgment," Skelton said. "To deploy something that doesn't work is not the right thing for the American people. Who's going to argue about that?"

A January Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll of 1,513 adults supports Frank's and Skelton's assessment of the electorate. Asked whether they favor building a system designed to protect the United States from missiles, 80 percent said yes. But when various qualifications were added to the question, support plummeted.

If the system were to cost $60 billion to $100 billion, support dropped to 45 percent and opposition grew to 47 percent. Asked whether they would support missile defense if scientists raised doubts about whether it ever could completely protect the United States, supporters outnumbered opponents 50 percent to 44 percent.

If missile defense were to lead to a new arms race, 45 percent said they would support it; 49 percent were opposed. Asked how they would feel about the system if it broke a treaty with Russia, respondents who support missile defense plunged to 37 percent, with 56 percent opposed.

The Bush administration's push for a tax cut also could complicate the case for missile defense. With a big government surplus, the question for lawmakers would have been whether they favored missile defense at all. But after a $1.35 trillion, 11-year tax cut, the question may become whether they support missile defense vs. something else.

"They have exacerbated this by not budgeting for this," Frank said. "Once it becomes clear what the implications of the tax cut are, people are going to feel more threatened by illness, by hazardous waste, whatever -- all of which are going to have to back off for this."

Skelton worries about possible trade-offs with other military programs. "We have the finest military in the world today," he said. "I would hope the research and development money for this would not dig into the dollars we need to keep our ships afloat and armies deployed."

Other Democratic foreign-policy experts say Bush, by focusing on missile defense, is already ignoring more likely threats. One example: The administration's budget proposes a cut in money for the Nunn-Lugar program, which helps Russia dismantle old nuclear weapons and safeguard the weapons materials.

Another concern is whether the administration is doing enough to guard against weapons of mass destruction that might be delivered in a car, suitcase or boat. "I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. We have our priorities wrong," a former government official said. "We're going to spend $100 billion or $200 billion on this and believe that we have security when the real vulnerability is not being addressed."

But a Democratic Senate staffer said that at some point, congressional Democrats will have to forge their own position, rather than criticize Bush's, and that could prove difficult. "It's much more easy to be against what might be proposed than to craft a clear, affirmative message," he said.

The Democratic position has shifted since 1999, when the Senate voted 97 to 3 to endorse a national missile defense system. That came after a long-range missile test by North Korea. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D Conn.) was one of the co-sponsors of the measure.

"There was kind of a bipartisan fever on this, and the only question was not whether, but what," said the former government official. "On the Democratic side of the Hill, the fulcrum has shifted from 'I've got to be for this because I can't be against it' to . . . a greater desire to ask harder questions."

Those questions, he said, include: Will it work? Will it stimulate an arms race in Asia, with China adding to its arsenal and followed by responses by Japan, South Korea and India? Will Europe pay to be included in a missile defense system? And, if not, will the United States pay for Europe or allow a divergence between U.S. and European security?

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, speaking at a May 10 meeting of the World Affairs Council, said, "The overarching question is whether a national missile defense will make our country more secure, or less so."

3) ?Senate threat to US missile plan? by Michael Ellison, The Guardian, 29 May 2001

President George Bush's cherished hopes for a son of star wars missile defence system have been made an early target for his Democratic opponents who take control of the Senate at the beginning of next week.

"The president has said that he wants to deploy and I think that is a premature decision and we certainly wouldn't be prepared to do that," said Tom Daschle, the new leader of the Senate, which will be in the control of the Democrats following Vermont Republican James Jeffords's decision to sit as an independent.

Carl Levin of Michigan, who will be the new chairman of the Senate armed forces committee, said: "The administration has simply not looked at problems which [missile defence] creates. They've only looked at the fact that there is a threat. There are much greater threats to which we are not addressing resources."

Mr Daschle did not say that he would try to kill the $60bn programme, which is opposed by Russia, China and many of Nato allies who stand by the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. "It wasn't dead under the Clinton administration and it shouldn't be dead under this administration or a Democratic majority in the Senate," he said. "We're for continued research.

"But if you're asking, 'Should we violate the ABM treaty?' if you're asking, 'Should we alienate every ally and Russia and China besides?' if you're asking, 'Should we commit to something, deploy something that still hasn't been shown to work?' I'd say no. Let's continue to move it forward but let's get the facts first and let's try to work out the problems first."

The missile defence system, beset by technical difficulties and political hurdles, is intended to create a defensive blanket protecting the US from so-called rogue nations such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran, tracking and destroying incoming projectiles. It breaches the ABM treaty, signed by the US and the former Soviet Union, which forbids the development of a national defence system.

Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, refused to scrap the programme. "We'll be able to get the president's agenda forward because it's an agenda for America," he said.

Other Republicans were less confident. "The reality is the Democrats will control the committee agendas," said Chuck Hagel, a senator from Nebraska who is a member of the foreign relations committee.

"So when you take an issue like missile defence, where there are significant differences between the Democratic Senate leadership and the president, it changes the dynamics considerably."

Mr Bush is understood to be hoping to persuade Russia to agree to scrap the ABM treaty by offering to buy arms, supply aid and conduct joint anti-missile exercises. "We want to convince the Russians that it is in their best interest to move beyond the ABM treaty and to develop a new relationship with us," Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, said.

Mr Daschle said also that drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic national wildlife refuge would be blocked now that the Senate had 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and one independent. But his inability to thwart the president at will was exposed at the weekend when 12 Democratic senators backed Mr Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut programme.

Nor is there any guarantee that membership of the Senate will remain as it is for long. Robert Torricelli, the Democratic senator from New Jersey, is being investigated over his relationship with a contributor who gave him cash and gifts.

If Mr Torricelli were to go before he is due for re-election in 2002, the Republican governor of the state would nominate a member of that party as his replacement, upsetting the balance once again.

4) DOUGLAS FEITH Background and Policy Positions (Courtesy of Council for a Livable World http://www.clw.org)

The President has nominated Douglas J. Feith to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Feith is managing attorney of Feith & Zell, P.C. During the Reagan Administration Mr. Feith served on the White House National Security Council staff and in the Department of Defense as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy and as Special Counsel to Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. Mr. Feith is a graduate magna cum laude of both Harvard College and the Georgetown University Law Center. Douglas J. Feith resume on Feith & Zell, P.C. web site

===================== Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty =====================

"The ABM Treaty lapsed by operation of law -- that is, automatically when the U.S.S.R. dissolved in 1991. It did not become a treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation." (The Washington Times, April 25, 2000)

=================== Middle East Peace Process ===================

"He's (Clinton) better at making peace agreements than making peace.? (The Boston Globe, October 24, 1998)

"Supporters [of the Oslo peace process] - like so many distraught battered wives - simply cannot be persuaded there is no romance, there is no peace process." (The Washington Times, August 12, 1997)

======================= Chemical Weapons Convention =======================

"No decent person wants poison gas to proliferate. [The CWC] is a stunning... example of arms control diplomacy resulting in the opposite of its intended effect." (Sen. Helms Press Release, March 11, 1997)

"I'm afraid we're making the same errors in this agreement that we made with Russia in nuclear disarmament talks. It will undermine our diplomacy.? (The Diane Rehm Show, February 18, 1997)

Senator Biden: ?But as I see this, multilateral is the only way to limit these chemical weapons, yet paragraph 6 on Article X refers to bilateral. Paragraph 1, which defines assistance, I believe trumps paragraph 3, but ultimately paragraph 1's definition lies in paragraph 7. It defines what international assistance is. That is where it is defined??

Mr. Feith: "I would just say, Senator Biden, if everybody in the Senate devoted the kind of meticulous attention to the words that you have done, I am confident that there would be a much greater understanding and much less support for the treaty. I do compliment you on paying close attention. This treaty looks worse when you look at it closely, so I very much applaud your careful attention. Senator Biden: "Now, that is a nice smart-ass comment."(Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, April 9, 1997)

========================== Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty ==========================

?But others in the group, including Frank Gaffney and Douglas Feith, Perle's former deputies for nuclear forces and arms negotiations, suggested that the treaty's defects were severe enough to require renegotiation.? (The Washington Post, February 4, 1988)

================ Overthrowing Saddam ================

?What is needed now is a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime.? (Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf?s Open Letter to the President,February 19, 1998. Feith was a signatory.)

========= Blacklisted =========

According to a February 21, 1984 Associated Press story Feith made enough enemies at the U.S. Information Agency to be placed on a ?blacklist? barring participation in the agency?s overseas program.

========================= Lawsuit Against President Clinton =========================

Feith represented 41 members of Congress who sued President Clinton for failing to spend more funds on missile defense programs as mandated by the Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995. Both Lockheed-Martin and Northrop Grumman, who would benefit from increased funding were clients of Feith?s firm. (Roll Call, July 22, 1996)

========================= Lobbying for Turkish Government ========================

Feith and Richard Perle established a lobbying organization whose sole client was the Turkish Embassy. Feith and fellow lobbyists were tasked with influencing Congress and their former offices in the Administration despite only recently leaving their posts. Another conflict of interest emerged when Perle, who has strong connections with Israel, became involved in Turkish-Israeli military negotiations. Turkish officials also denied knowledge of Feith?s resignation from a White House position in 1982 ?allegedly because of his involvement with Israel.? (MidEast Markets, February 20, 1989)

5) No time for NMD - Bulletin of Atomic Scientists May/June issue

The Bush administration is intent on building an anti-ballistic missile system. But that system will not protect the United States from nuclear weapons. Here's why:

In order to protect any target, a defence system must he 100 percent effective at stopping every warhead that is aimed at it. If only one war-head strikes, the result is devastating: The temperature at the sun's core reaches 27 million degrees Fahrenheit, but the temperature at the centre of a blast of a 1-megaton bomb (common in both U.S. and Russian arsenals) is four times hotter. Wind speeds a mile and a half from ground zero exceed 2,000 miles per hour. Destruction and death from the blast alone is total within 5 miles of the centre, severe within 10 miles. Beyond 10 miles, fire and radiation take a heavy toll. Nuclear weapons unleash energies that are indescribable on a human scale.

No defence is likely to he anywhere near 100 percent effective. It is very difficult to shoot down an incoming missile warhead with an ABM. Ballistic missile warheads reach altitudes of more than 600 nautical miles (more than twice the height at which the space shuttle orbits), are very small (U.S. warheads are typically about 6 feet long and 18 inches wide at the base and resemble a large artillery shell), and travel 10 times faster than a rifle bullet (a typical re-entering ballistic missile travels at about 15,000 miles per hour). To successfully intercept a warhead, the kill vehicle must travel through the same one-and-a half-foot wide area of space during the same three-thousandths of a second.

Tests to date have not been encouraging. In 10 tries against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) since 1984, ABMs made successful intercepts only three times, for a 30 percent success rate. And that was under ideal test conditions - defenders knew everything there was to know about the incoming war-heads, the time and place of launch, flight trajectory, and radar signature - information that would not he available in the real world.

Suppose, however, that despite all these difficulties, the problem of hitting small and Extremely fast-moving targets could be mastered, and the warhead interception rate seemed to be 100 percent. Would that he a clear signal that it was time to build a national missile defence (NMD)?

Unfortunately, the answer is no. In practice, the use of countermeasures would cause the effectiveness rate to plummet, For example, a single ICBM might carry 10 warheads and as many as 200 decoys. These decoys are virtually indistinguishable from the warheads. They will fool both ground and space-based radars and infrared sensors aboard the interceptors. So far, none of the interceptors tested have been able to distinguish decoys from actual warheads. Decoys are also relatively easy to make and can overwhelm by saturation alone. For example, to guarantee a 100 percent kill rate, the United States might need 210 interceptors to intercept 10 warheads.

As if this were not enough, the warheads could he placed inside inflatable balloons, which would he released and inflated during the coast phase of the re-entry vehicle's trajectory. The balloons, which can be covered by metallic foil making them impervious to both heat and radar detection, may or may not contain a warhead. The defence system might be able to detect 210 balloons, but it wouldn't be able to tell which (if any) contained warheads. A kill vehicle might hit a balloon (which could he quite large); yet still miss the relatively small warhead inside. A single ICBM could hurl a "cloud" of hundreds of balloons, decoys, and warheads.

Other methods of fooling the system include metallic chaff that could be dispensed to blind radars. Some decoys could carry small, active transponders, which send out false echoes, Further confusing the radars. Warheads could also be coated with radar-absorbing materials. Special heat-absorbing aerosols as well as flares could further confuse infrared sensors. Warheads could also he jacketed in containers of Freon, virtually eliminating the heat signature. Compared to the enormous difficulty in design and construction of nuclear weapons and the rockets that carry them, all of these countermeasures are relatively easy to implement. U.S., British, and Russian ICBMs have been equipped with countermeasures for more than a decade.

The Russians have a missile right now, the SS-27, or Topol-M, which carries a "MARV" - a manoeuvrable re-entry vehicle that moves in unpredictable ways to avoid interception.

Then there are nuclear effects. A single nuclear device, detonated at high altitude, would generate a huge, expanding cloud of ionised gas, blocking electromagnetic radiation and virtually blinding radar for 30 minutes. A nuclear explosion would also emit an electromagnetic pulse that disables microelectronic systems. A 1-megaton bomb detonated in outer space could disable an unprotected satellite at a range of 15,000 miles. Hardening satellites and other electronic devices against these effects is only moderately effective.

The electromagnetic pulse distorts radio communications, disables both ground- and space-based radar, and blinds interceptors' infrared sensors. Consequently, even the most capable ABM system so far imagined would he instant junk once nuclear weapons are detonated in outer space. No proposed ABM system carries its own nuclear devices to destroy incoming warheads; nuclear explosions would disable the system. And there is nothing to prevent the enemy from deliberately detonating a few bombs in space during an attack, or alternately, salvage-fusing nuclear warheads (rigging them to detonate on impact). In either case, once one warhead was intercepted, no more interceptions could take place.

Not all threats come in the form of an ICBM. Even if all the above-mentioned difficulties Were overcome, the United States would still not he protected. An NMD System Operating above the atmosphere would be useless against cruise missiles, which skim along the earth's surface at 200 feet or less. Cruise missiles can he delivered from submarines, surface ships, and planes.

Even if cruise missiles could be intercepted, enemies could deploy large nuclear mines off the U.S. coast. Even more ominously, some nuclear devices are small enough to he delivered in a suitcase.

Suppose some as-yet-unimagined defence could be constructed against all these threats, would The United States he protected then? Sorry, the answer is still no.

Even a nation of relatively moderate industrial capacity could construct a "Doomsday" device a la Dr. Strangelove, by modifying enough nuclear bombs with metal cobalt to poison the world's atmosphere. Of course, against that type of attack, all missile defences would be useless.

The point is, of course, that there are no effective defences against nuclear weapons. As Richard Nixon concluded during his presidency, "Every instinct I have motivates me to protect the United States, but it is impossible to do so, and we must all learn to live with that fact."

Some argue that now is the time to unilaterally break the ABM Treaty. Some think any NMD system, no matter how inept and ineffectual, would be better than none at all. But building an ineffective ABM system will be worse if we believe it works. Political leaders will be tempted to take actions they would otherwise regard as too dangerous. Better to have no defence at all than one that leads us to a false sense of security.

George S. Roth
Leonard T. Roth
Tampa, Florida

Mark Bromley
Analyst
British American Security Information Council (BASIC)
Lafone House
11-13 Leathermarket Street
London SE1 3HN
Phone: +44 (0)20 7407 2977
Fax: +44 (0)20 7407 2988
Website: http://www.basicint.org