ANSWERS: NMD WILL NOT LEAD TO VARIOUS PREDICTED PROBLEMS

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE WILL NOT GIVE THE USA FIRST STRIKE CAPABILITY

Ellery Block The Columbus Dispatch April 3, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL & COMMENT , Pg. 7A HEADLINE: RUSSIA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM U.S. BALLISTIC-MISSILE DEFENSE // lnu-acs

The notion that a missile- defense system would give the United States a first-strike capability, although frequently repeated during the Cold War era, was false then and is false today. Many evaluations have been performed, ranging from simple- minded measures of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's mutual-assured-destruction, or MAD, theory to highly sophisticated net strategic calculations combined with policy interpretations of their outcomes.

NMD SYSTEM WILL CAUSE NORTH KOREA TO DECREASE ITS MISSILE DEVELOPMENTS

Deploying a missile defense system to protect Americans is more likely to make countries like North Korea weaken their commitment to their missile programs, because they will become less likely to inflict damage on the United States yet too costly to maintain. Since vulnerability all but guarantees the effectiveness of their missiles, deploying missile defenses to close the vulnerability gap would remove the incentive to develop a missile strike capability against the United States. As the following discussion shows, recycling old Cold War myths about arms control and missile defense will only undermine America's ability to develop and deploy a capable system to defend itself from attack.

LINKING NMD WITH DEEP NUCLEAR CUTS CAN LEAD TO EFFECTIVE BIPARTISANSHIP

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

With a unified approach to missile defense and START III, we might be able to reconcile strategic defense with reduced nuclear weapons in a manner acceptable to the Russians and our allies, though perhaps not the Chinese. And by retaining the political framework of arms control while escaping the strictures of the ABM treaty, we might be able to deploy a more cost-effective defense with genuine and enduring bipartisan support.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE WILL NOT REMOVE DETRRENCE BETWEEN THE MAJOR POWERS

MICHAEL A. DORNHEIM Aviation Week and Space Technology August 16, 1999 ; Pg. 66

HEADLINE: National Missile Defense Focused on June Review // lnu-acs

None of the options would protect against a full Russian attack, so the rules of mutual assured destruction and the intent of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 still apply. Some solace is gained by the reasoning that a country rich enough to pose a sophisticated threat has enough to lose that they will be deterred by mutual assured destruction.