National Missile Defense is a Bad Idea

Andrew Raff
December 19, 2000

Now that George W. Bush is going to be the next President and he has nominated key members to his national security team, the types of foreign and national security policies that the next administration is going to pursue are becoming clearer. In his campaign speeches, Bush has voiced strong support for building a national missile defense system. Going ahead with such a policy now is a Bad Idea for the US.

The purpose of a national ballistic missile defense system, ridiculed as "Star Wars" during the Reagan years, is to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles using either ground or space-based missiles or lasers. Because a ballistic missile is a relatively small target moving at very high speeds, the interceptors need to be very highly precise to strike their targets. In tests earlier this year, a prototype system failed two of three tests. These tests were artificially simple, and would not reflect operating reality, as the system could not differentiate between a missile and a decoy.

Bush is ready to deploy this system within his presidency, even though the system has not tested successfully. The diplomatic costs of moving to deploy it would be far greater than the already high costs to build the system. Deploying the system will require that the US abrogate the ABM treaty with Russia. While supporters of national ballistic missile defense will argue that the treaty was signed with the USSR, not modern Russia and is void, Russia has been acknowledged as the successor state to the Soviet Union in international treaties and affairs. Abrogating the treaty, which is possible according to the terms, would increase tensions between the US and Russia and could cause an end to future nuclear arms reduction treaties. While Russia does not have the funds to develop a missile defense system or increase its nuclear stockpile, it is likely that Russia would continue to maintain its current level of nuclear arms, even as environmental, budgetary and security concerns argue for further reductions.

China has made it known that if the US deploys a missile defense system, it will increase its nuclear stockpile. Increasing the stock of nuclear arms worldwide decreases security, even if the US is protected from ballistic missiles. With more nuclear weapons in circulation, a higher potential for ?gloose nukes?h exists. These could be delivered to the US by a non-missile delivery method. Terrorists and rogue states are less likely to use ballistic missile technology than they are to hand deliver a warhead.

While missile defense has the potential to protect the US from ballistic missile attack, it will not protect our allies in NATO, Japan or Taiwan. Creating a system that only protects the US will cause severe tensions with the important allies in NATO and reduce the deterrent capabilities of the alliance.

Developing the system will benefit defense contractors, not the American people. The current, flawed prototype is the result of twenty years of research. While critics argue that research has been under funded since Reagan left office, a non-functional billion-dollar system must not be deployed. A useful ballistic missile defense system will require more research and development. However, spending billions of dollars on missile defense will not address the fundamental security concerns of the US in the twenty first century. Deploying missile defense will likely stop progress on nuclear arms reductions between the US and Russia. A ballistic missile defense system will be a twenty first century Maginot line. It will not address the security concerns of the post-Cold War era, but will defend against the threat of the Soviet Union. The money that would be required to build a national ballistic missile defense could be better used on nuclear arms reduction and on building constructive relations with our adversaries.

Andrew Raff majored in International Relations and Russian East European Studies at Tufts University