July-August 2000
Invulnerable Shield or Costly Illusion?
July 7 Test Failure Intensifies Debate About Feasibility and Wisdom of Deployment
The July 7 failure of the Pentagon's third test of the anti-ballistic missile system raise d a chorus of criticism about the viability of the entire idea. Since President Reagan first mounted his Strategic Defense Initiative in the early 80's, the U.S. has spent $30 billion without producing a single usable device.
Pressured by election-year politics, President Clinton deferred the deployment of a $60 billion initial system to his successor. Dismissing the Clinton plan, George W. Bush proposes a globe-girdling system to protect our European and Asian allies as well. Al Gore says Bush's plan won't defend us but will destroy half a century of arms control.
BMD is the most contentious foreign policy debate of this year's elections. These are the key issues:
- Would it work? Independent physicists, including former top Pentagon antimissile researchers, say that with just 100 seconds to distinguish between a real warhead and a blizzard of cheap decoys, the technical challenges are insurmountable.
- What will it cost? The Clinton administration estimates $60 billion for the initial deployment; the General Accounting Office estimates $120 billion. Will we be able to meet other urgent needs if we build BMD?
- How real is the threat from "rogue states?"
The chief threat cited by BMD advocates is North Korea, an impoverished, famine-stricken nation with no known allies. North Korea is said to be building a missile capable of reaching the U.S. by 2005. But facing an overwhelming counterattack, what would motivate them to launch one? If they were serious, why wouldn't they simply use a suitcase bomb?
- What will be its impact on arms control treaties? Even the limited system proposed by the President would require breaking out of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the linchpin of arms control. Russia has declared that if the treaty is broken, it will refuse to honor all existing treaties that reduce nuclear stockpiles.
- How will Russia and China respond? China has already warned that if we deploy BMD, they will expand their nuclear arsenals so they can still penetrate our shield. Where would it end?
- Why does no other nation support the idea? We can expect opposition from adversaries, but even our NATO allies believe BMD is a bad idea. All say it is strategically destabilizing and is likely to trigger a new global arms race. Is this the wisest use of our wealth and power?
In July and August, MMP mounted a major public education campaign on the proposed ballistic missile defense system. What was most unusual about this campaign was both the proportion of syndicated interviews over half and the range of media in which they occurred not only radio but large numbers of top tier TV and print outlets. In all, we scheduled 277 radio, television, print, and Internet interviews. Of these, 155 were nationally or globally syndicated. More than two-thirds of the radio interviews occurred on commercial stations, where global security issues are seldom given an informed airing. Some 39 nationally known authorities representing dozens of NGOs were interviewed on such topics as the technical feasibility of the program, its strategic and political implications, cost and budget issues, and impacts on nuclear non-proliferation.
Guest Speakers by Topic
Technical Feasibility: Will It Work? How Easily Can It Be Fooled?
Bruce Blair, Center for Defense Information
Jean DuPerez, New Agenda Coalition
Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Staff Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists
Lawrence Korb, Vice President and Director of Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy, M.I.T.
Strategic and Political Impacts: Does BMD Spell the End of Arms Control?
Natalie Goldring, Executive Director, Program on General Disarmament, University of Maryland; Director, Security and Disarmament Program, National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives
Admiral Eugene Carroll, Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information
Jack Mendelsohn, Executive Director, Lawyers Alliance for World Security and Committee for National Security
Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Director, Non-Proliferation Project
Reactions From Friends and Foes
Russia: Would BMD Trigger a New Arms Race?
Susan Eisenhower, Granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower; Founder and Chair, Center for Political and Strategic Studies
Ambassador Thomas Graham, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
China: Would BMD Push the Chinese Beyond a Minimal Deterrent?
Charles Ferguson, Director, Nuclear Policy Project, Federation of American Scientists
Zia Mian, Physicist and Research Associate, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton
The NATO Alliance: Will BMD Strain Relations?
Ambassador Jonathan Dean, Adviser on International Security, Union of Concerned Scientists
Merav Datan, Program Director, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War
Alistair Millar, Vice President, Fourth Freedom Forum
India and Pakistan: Will BMD Undermine Nonproliferation Efforts?
M. V. Ramana, Research Associate, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton
How Real is the Threat From Rogue Nations?
Leon Sigal, Director, Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project, Social Science Research Council
Tim Savage, Security Program Officer, Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development
Pork Pie in the Sky: What Will It Cost? Who Will Profit?
William (Bill) Hartung, President's Fellow, World Policy Institute
Does Ballistic Missile Defense Contain a Potential Offensive Capability?
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Outspoken Congressional Critic of BMD
Bruce Gagnon, Director, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
Karl Grossman, Professor of Journalism, State University of New York
Alice Slater, President, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment
Arjun Makhijani, President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Cultural and Historical Roots of "Star Wars": The Enduring American Dream of Invulnerability
Frances FitzGerald, Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist, New Yorker contributor
Jonathan Granoff, Vice President, Lawyers Alliance for World Security
Nuclear Abolition: Is No Offense the Best Defense?
Sen. Alan Cranston (CA-ret), Former Four-Term U.S. Senator, President, Global Security Institute; Director, Global Security Institute's Nuclear Weapons Elimination Initiative
Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
