ANSWERS: NMD SYSTEM WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
NMD SYSTEM WILL PROMOTE CUTS IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS LEVELS
BAKER SPRING, Research Fellow The Heritage Foundation, July 13, 2000 MYTHS ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE AND THE ARMS RACE No. 1385
http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1385.html //VT2002acslnMyth #7: Missile defense is incompatible with efforts to reduce offensive strategic nuclear weapons.
Reality: Missile defense reduces both the reliance on and the need for greater numbers of offensive strategic nuclear forces to meet national security requirements.
Once a national missile defense system is deployed, America will not need to build up its offensive forces. With defenses in place, it would rely less on its offensive strategic nuclear weapons and more on non-nuclear defensive weapons to meet its national security requirements.
RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL NOT REACT TO NMD BY MIRV-ING THEIR NUCLEAR SYSTEMS
BAKER SPRING, Research Fellow The Heritage Foundation, July 13, 2000 MYTHS ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE AND THE ARMS RACE No. 1385
http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1385.html //VT2002acslnMyth #3: To overwhelm America's national missile defense system, Russia and China will invest in multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) capabilities.
Reality: Boost-phase defenses can effectively counter MIRVed missiles, which would deter hostile states from investing in them.
The assertion that deploying a national missile defense system for America will cause Russia and China to seek MIRV capabilities would be appropriate only in the context of the ground-based missile defense system planned by the Clinton Administration. That system would be capable of destroying individual warheads only in the mid-course phase of flight. It would have to intercept all the warheads that had been released during this phase. Russia and China could achieve relative advantages over such a limited system by acquiring MIRV capabilities for their land-based missiles.
The concern expressed by the scientists, however, will not pertain to a layered missile defense system that has a boost-phase intercept capability, enhanced by space-based assets such as sensors, interceptors, and lasers. This system was proposed in 1999 by The Heritage Foundation's Commission on Missile Defense.
11 Boost-phase defenses would destroy the missiles early in flight, when they are most visible and before they can release their warheads. Land-based missiles that have additional warheads have no advantage against such defenses. With a layered defense system in place, Russia and China would not have a strategic incentive to MIRV their land-based missiles because these missiles would not offer greater chances to penetrate America's defenses. 12 Obtaining the offensive advantage under these circumstances would require increasing their number of missiles. Russia is barely able to maintain the number of missiles it now has.BUSH SUPPORTS NMD AND DEEP CUTS IN NUCLEAR FORCES
PETER MALONE, managing director of CSP Associates, a strategy consulting firm, January 24, 2001, The Boston Globe SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A15 HEADLINE: MISSILE DEFENSE AND ARMS REDUCTION //VT2002acsln
PRESIDENT BUSH STRONGLY SUPPORTS BOTH NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE AND DEEP CUTS IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS. CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ARGUES THAT THE UNITED STATES CANNOT HAVE BOTH. ON THE CONTRARY, THE SUREST ROUTE TO BOTH MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT AND DEEP REDUCTIONS MAY LIE IN A NEW ARMS-CONTROL CONSTRUCT THAT ENVISAGES STRATEGIC DEFENSE AND STRATEGIC OFFENSE AS INTERCHANGEABLE ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER.
Under this construct, the United States and Russia would abandon the ABM treaty in favor of a new, more flexible agreement providing a common ceiling for both offensive and defensive systems.
As Bush argued last May, nuclear weapons no longer serve as central elements of a global posture of extended deterrence; they are no longer needed to offset conventionally superior enemies, and Russia is no longer our enemy.
NMD IS JUST PART OF A NEW AMERICAN ANTI-PROLIFERATION POLICY
The Guardian (London) January 13, 2001 SECTION: Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 21 HEADLINE: Leading article: Apocalypse tomorrow: The message: spend more on US defence //VT2002acsln
Which brings us to the second reason why this Pentagon analysis has to be taken very seriously. Just as the cold war gave rise to new generations of offensive missiles, the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction- accurately assessed or not - is now the principal justification for the next big US military expansion: into the multi-layered realm of defensive missiles and expensive new launch platforms like "stealth" destroyers and submarines and space-based vehicles. US National Missile Defence plans, rashly endorsed yesterday by William Hague, get only a small mention here. But they are an integral, and in the Pentagon view, clearly an essential part of the massive, many-pronged counter-proliferation programme now gathering pace in Washington. The military machine is already rolling. It will be very hard to stop.
BUSH WANTS TO COUPLE NMD WITH DEEP NUCLEAR REDUCTIONS
Greg Torode, January 28, 2001 South China Morning Post SECTION: Pg. 9 HEADLINE: Towards a new Cold War //VT2002acsln
Yesterday, he stressed both the need for strong defences and to work with a nervous Russia to cut arsenals. "I'm going to fulfil that campaign promise," he said of missile defence generally. "My point is: I want America to lead the world towards a more safe world when it comes to nuclear weaponry. On the offensive side, we can do so, and we can do so on the defensive side, as well."
NMD SYSTEM WILL ALLOW THE USA TO DE-EMPHASIZE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ITS DEFENSE
BAKER SPRING, Research Fellow The Heritage Foundation, July 13, 2000 MYTHS ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE AND THE ARMS RACE No. 1385
http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1385.html //VT2002acslnThe deployment of a national missile defense system by the United States will not lead to a strategic nuclear arms race. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true. A robust, layered missile defense system will allow the United States to rely less heavily on its nuclear forces than it now does. This is the case whether or not efforts at arms control with Russia and other states prove successful.