| Almanac
of Policy Issues Home : Search : Archive |
| The
development of a system capable of defending the United States against
a ballistic missile attack has been a dream for certain (generally
conservative) policy makers since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan
declared support for such a system, then termed the Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI) or, more commonly, Star Wars. In the 2000 presidential
elections, candidate George W. Bush declared his own support for
developing and deploying a National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The
concept is not without its critics, however, and it faces a series
of political and technological obstacles.
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed by United States and former Soviet Union, prohibits such defenses on a national scale, but allowed limited defenses in two locations in each country -- one around the national capital and one near a concentrated missile deployment site. The agreement was updated in 1974 to allow just one local area defense around either the capital or a key missile site, but not both. The Soviet Union elected to develop a system protecting Moscow, and Russia continues to maintain that system today. The United States briefly deployed a system in North Dakota in the 1970s, but quickly dismantled it when it was deemed cost-ineffective. In July, 1998, NMD supporters gained renewed momentum when a congressionally-mandated commission chaired by former (and present) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld concluded that rogue nations (e.g., North Korea, Iran, or Iraq) seeking to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system capable of reaching the United States could do so within five years of a decision to do so. A month later North Korea flight tested a three-stage missile, demonstrating that it was attempting to develop such a capability. Critics contend that the creating such a system would be cost-prohibitive. In an April 2000 report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that developing a complete system would cost at least $60 billion through the year 2015. Critics contend that it could easily cost twice that much to develop a system that would be of questionable reliability that, even if it worked, would be useless against weapons of mass destruction delivered through other means, such as by cargo ship, small aircraft or other unconventional methods. An American NMD system is fiercely opposed by communist China and (perhaps less stridently) by Russia. While the Clinton administration was not a strong supporter of the NMD idea, it did support ongoing research into its technological feasibility. Early tests produced mixed results. A limited test conducted on October 2, 1999 was successful, but subsequent tests in January and July of 2000 were not. On September 1, 2000 the Clinton administration announced that it would defer a decision on eventual deployment to the next administration. President Bush indicated during the 2000 campaign that he would support deploying a system that would not only protect the United States, but its allies and deployed U.S. forces overseas. The administration is now reviewing its options. - Updated 5/14/01 Related News
|
|
| Directories
News Government Organizations |
Articles
|
Back to Almanac of Policy Issues