Page 65 - January Febuary 2016 Issue
P. 65
Arms Race, Arms Control and the Future of Missle Defense
the threat of overwhelming force. That this Treaty has slowed but has not stopped the spread
approach can work is shown by how quickly of nuclear weapons, and proliferation is clearly
Libya gave up its missiles and nuclear becoming increasingly problematic in a world in
weapons after coalition forces invaded which the Chinese and Russians in particular are
Iraq. Ronald Reagan understood well the seeking multi-polarity. The Chemical Weapons
psychology of a strong national defense. He Convention is unenforceable, and the Biological
once said, “We know only too well that war Weapons Convention is unveriiable.
comes not when the forces of freedom are
strong, but when they are weak. It is then that The ABM Treaty, by which we restricted our
tyrants are tempted.” own ability to protect the nation, did little to
constrain the activities of the Soviet Union.
Those who argue that deploying missile President George W. Bush decided to pull us
defense would spur others to build more out of that problematic treaty, and nothing
missiles and set off an arms race ignore catastrophic occurred. Rather, we began making
history. Since the beginning of the Cold progress in testing and ielding basic missile
War, the U.S. has had no missile defenses defenses. Moscow’s bluster over our plans to
to protect Americans, yet that did not stem ield 10 interceptors in the Czech Republic and
arms buildups in Russia, China, North Korea, Poland is just that: bluster-an excuse for Moscow
Iran, or elsewhere. The greatest strides in to spend its petrodollars to modernize its military
reducing the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and forces rather than to help its citizens become
the Soviet Union came in the late 1980s, more prosperous and free.
at the same time the U.S. was pursuing the
Strategic Defense Initiative. Likewise, the If diplomacy cannot prevent Iran from acquiring
2002 Moscow Treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons, we will need an entirely new
our strategic nuclear warheads by about two- deterrence regime. We may need to strengthen
thirds by 2012 was signed even as we were military, security, and intelligence cooperation
withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile with others in the region who feel threatened,
(ABM) Treaty. A world with missile defenses such as Iraq, Turkey, Israel, and the six members
is actually more stable and safer. of the Gulf Cooperation Council. We may need
to increase our air and naval presence in the
Those who contend that all we really Persian Gulf. We may well want to include
need are more treaties and more arms missile defenses in our discussions with them,
control instruments also ignore history. with the goal of further increasing stability in
Such agreements may reduce the numbers the region. We should also continue to work
of strategic weapons and slow their through the hugely successful Proliferation
proliferation, but they cannot stop them. Security Initiative to limit the spread of missile
They work only if the signatories abide by technology.
them. Arms control agreements that merely
reduce the size of arsenals do little to change What will not work is marginalizing our own
this dynamic if they are not veriiable and defenses and assuming that the rest of the world
enforceable. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation will follow suit. Terrorists and rogue states want
65
the threat of overwhelming force. That this Treaty has slowed but has not stopped the spread
approach can work is shown by how quickly of nuclear weapons, and proliferation is clearly
Libya gave up its missiles and nuclear becoming increasingly problematic in a world in
weapons after coalition forces invaded which the Chinese and Russians in particular are
Iraq. Ronald Reagan understood well the seeking multi-polarity. The Chemical Weapons
psychology of a strong national defense. He Convention is unenforceable, and the Biological
once said, “We know only too well that war Weapons Convention is unveriiable.
comes not when the forces of freedom are
strong, but when they are weak. It is then that The ABM Treaty, by which we restricted our
tyrants are tempted.” own ability to protect the nation, did little to
constrain the activities of the Soviet Union.
Those who argue that deploying missile President George W. Bush decided to pull us
defense would spur others to build more out of that problematic treaty, and nothing
missiles and set off an arms race ignore catastrophic occurred. Rather, we began making
history. Since the beginning of the Cold progress in testing and ielding basic missile
War, the U.S. has had no missile defenses defenses. Moscow’s bluster over our plans to
to protect Americans, yet that did not stem ield 10 interceptors in the Czech Republic and
arms buildups in Russia, China, North Korea, Poland is just that: bluster-an excuse for Moscow
Iran, or elsewhere. The greatest strides in to spend its petrodollars to modernize its military
reducing the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and forces rather than to help its citizens become
the Soviet Union came in the late 1980s, more prosperous and free.
at the same time the U.S. was pursuing the
Strategic Defense Initiative. Likewise, the If diplomacy cannot prevent Iran from acquiring
2002 Moscow Treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons, we will need an entirely new
our strategic nuclear warheads by about two- deterrence regime. We may need to strengthen
thirds by 2012 was signed even as we were military, security, and intelligence cooperation
withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile with others in the region who feel threatened,
(ABM) Treaty. A world with missile defenses such as Iraq, Turkey, Israel, and the six members
is actually more stable and safer. of the Gulf Cooperation Council. We may need
to increase our air and naval presence in the
Those who contend that all we really Persian Gulf. We may well want to include
need are more treaties and more arms missile defenses in our discussions with them,
control instruments also ignore history. with the goal of further increasing stability in
Such agreements may reduce the numbers the region. We should also continue to work
of strategic weapons and slow their through the hugely successful Proliferation
proliferation, but they cannot stop them. Security Initiative to limit the spread of missile
They work only if the signatories abide by technology.
them. Arms control agreements that merely
reduce the size of arsenals do little to change What will not work is marginalizing our own
this dynamic if they are not veriiable and defenses and assuming that the rest of the world
enforceable. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation will follow suit. Terrorists and rogue states want
65
