What Proponents of Missile Defense Argue and Rebuttals
"If the political will were present, the United States could deploy a ballistic missile system now"
Proponents of national missile defense argue that if the U.S. were to pull out of the ABM Treaty, it could deploy a national missile defense system now. True, the U.S. could deploy a national missile defense system, but it would not work. Current missile defense tests have succeeded only 4 out of 18 times.
“Expecting the required development and testing for deployment readiness to be completed by the end of 2000 is unrealistic.” Welch report p.18
“DOD faces significant challenges in the NMD program because of high schedule and technical risks…Furthermore, developing and deploying an NMD system in the 6 years allotted under the 3+3 program will be a significant challenge for DOD given its past history with other weapon systems.” GAO report, Dec. 12, 1997.
"The new threats to the U.S. require immediate action"
In fact, the U.S. has faced a threat from long-range missiles for 40 years. Deterrence worked then, and will almost certainly work against the new threats. Even so, the new threats have to be balanced against the old threats and other priorities.
[I support deployment] If the threat warrants it, and I do not think that right today, the threat warrants it … I also think that we must balance the threat with the other priorities that you’ve heard discussed here today, which weighs into the best military advice.
General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, Department of Defense before Senate Armed Services Committee, September 29, 1998
"The Clinton Administration is not spending enough on missile defense"
Clinton’s proposed fiscal 2000 budget includes $4.2 billion for missile defense programs (theater and national), approximately the same as the Bush Administration. Moreover, the United States has spent $67.7 billion on missile defense since 1983, yet has nothing to show for it.
The major problem …It’s been the technical difficulties. I will not point to just funding for it, I would point, primarily to the technical difficulties meeting the challenge of intercepting a bullet with a bullet, if you will, in space.
General Lester Lyles, Head of BMDO 1997 testimony
"If the U.S. spent more money, we could deploy a NMD sooner"
But I am told — I am not an expert in this particular field, but it is the best information that I have. It’s not a question of - putting additional resources into it will not get us further down the line in terms of an actual deployment date. If that would do that, I would support it.
Defense Secretary William Cohen, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, February 3, 1999
Even with additional funding, NMD development and deployment cannot proceed any faster than the current schedule.
General Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, Vice Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, October 2, 1998
"The United States is vulnerable to an attack by a weapon of mass destruction"
This is true; the terrorist bombings in Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, and the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway demonstrate how vulnerable the U.S. and its allies are to terrorist attacks. Even a perfect missile defense system could not defend against these contingencies, which are far more likely since they do not betray their origin, unlike ballistic missiles. A better policy would be to destroy these weapons before they could be used, and to improve civil defense capabilities.
"The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a Cold War anachronism and should be abandoned"
The ABM Treaty is as vital today as it was during the Cold War. Russian President Boris Yeltsin has repeatedly stated that Russia will not reduce its nuclear arsenal unless the United States adheres to the ABM Treaty. It is clearly in the U.S. interest to negotiate deep reductions in the Russian stockpile of nuclear weapons, rather than allow them to remain deployed and/or fall into the hands of terrorists or “rogue” states.
With respect to the ABM Treaty, I believe it’s in our interest to maintain that…I think is important to maintain the limitations on offensive missiles. To the extent that there is no ABM Treaty, then certainly Russia or other countries would feel free to develop as many offensive weapons as they wanted, which would then set in motion a comparable dynamic to offset that with more missiles here.
Secretary of Defense William Cohen press conference, January 20, 1999
"A national missile defense system is affordable"
A 1996 Congressional Budget Office report estimated that the cost to build, deploy and operate the ballistic missile systems envisioned in the “Defend America Act” through the year 2030 was between $78 and $184 billion. While the latest proposals are slimmed down, they are still very expensive. Increased funding for national missile defense saps funds from other Pentagon priorities such as ships, aircraft, tanks and quality of life.
"Arms control does not work"
No treaty is one hundred percent effective or verifiable. Yet, largely due to the START I Treaty, Russia has dismantled over 2,500 nuclear warheads. Furthermore, when the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was negotiated in 1968, it was predicted that at least 25 nations would develop nuclear weapons. Currently, only eight nations possess nuclear weapons. Compare this to the success rate of the Patriot Missile in the 1991 Gulf War, less than 10 percent. Based on the historical evidence, arms control provides a far more effective means to destroy weapons of mass destruction than could be hoped of any missile defense system.
"The U.S. can go ahead and use the Navy’s Aegis System for a quick National Missile Defense option"
I am concerned that some groups outside the Department of Defense have advocated this architecture as a 'quick, cheap and easy' approach to NMD. My experience - and the findings of the report confirm this - that such an approach is much more complicated. Moreover, over twenty years of defense acquisition experience tells me that when someone advertises a system as 'quick, cheap or easy,' it seldom is … A stand-alone sea-based NMD architecture that could protect all 50 states is estimated to cost $16 billion to $19 billion.
Lt. Gen. Lester L. Lyles, Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization before the Senate Armed Services Committee, February 24, 1999