IMPACTS: LOSS OF THE ABM TREATY MEANS MORE GLOBAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

IF WE ABROGATE THE ABM TREATY, NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION POLICY WILL COLLAPSE

Richard Durbin St. Louis Post-Dispatch March 23, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. B7, HEADLINE: STAR WARS PLAN WOULD UNDERMINE U.S. SECURITY // lnu-acs

Our broader nuclear nonproliferation goals could also be undermined by the demise of arms control. The grand bargain forged when the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was negotiated was that the nuclear countries would work toward nuclear disarmament, in return for the non-nuclear countries forgoing them.

If we take a unilateral action that undermines the START process, there will be no grand bargain, and we will have no argument against any country, including the rogue states, acquiring nuclear weapons.

LOSS OF ABM TREATY MEANS THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL FRAMEWORK WILL COLLAPSE AND MANY NEW STATES WILL GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS

John Donnelly, Globe Staff, The Boston Globe, October 19, 1999, SECTION: NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. A1 HEADLINE: Arms control specialists see risk in US treaty moves // ln-10-29-99-acs

"You can feel it already," said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank. "In the interconnected framework of treaties and agreements, if you take one of the key elements out, you risk the whole structure and it could collapse. That's what's happening here."

Cirincione and other arms control specialists, as well as some Clinton administration officials, see various possible grim consequences ahead.

They foresee Russia abandoning all talks on cutbacks of weapons. They predict nonnuclear states, especially some in Asia such as Japan, will reevaluate whether to acquire nuclear weapons.

UNILATERALLY PROCEEDING WITH MISSILE DEFENSES REGARDLESS OF THE ABM TREATY COULD UNDERMINE U.S. NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS.

Unilaterally proceeding with missile defenses regardless of the ABM treaty could undermine U.S. non-proliferation efforts.

China, with its relatively small strategic nuclear arsenal, might oppose further efforts to reduce nuclear weapons if the United States abandons or weakens the ABM treaty. China has already threatened an arms race in space if the U.S. deploys theater defenses in Asia. Chinese resistance to further nuclear measures could induce other regional powers to follow suit, thus eroding support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

REJECTION OF THE ABM TREATY WILL RESULT IN GLOBAL MISSILE PROLIFERATION

David Buchan and Stephen Fidler: Financial Times (London) October 6, 1999, Pg. 22 HEADLINE: Star Wars strikes back: Will a US plan to create a shield against missile attacks start a new arms race, // ln-acs

These reactions to US plans, which are essentially defensive and will still require years to perfect, may seem a bit hysterical. But Russia is not the only country to see the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability which, if kicked away, could bring the rest of the arms control edifice crashing down. "What would this [scrapping the ABM treaty] do to missile control regimes, and what would its effect be on the third world?" asks a senior British official. He worries it might sap efforts to get India and Pakistan to sign up to nuclear test ban and non-proliferation treaties, or be read by industrial countries as an admission of defeat in the battle to keep missile technology in responsible hands.

WITHOUT PROTECTING THE ABM TREATY MORE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WILL LEAK OUT OF RUSSIA AND TO TERRORIST STATES OR GROUPS

PAUL MANN Aviation Week and Space Technology March 22, 1999 ; Pg. 29 HEADLINE: Support Gathers Steam For National Missile Defense // lnu-acs

Landrieu's amendment enshrined two policies in the bill, not the NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE declaration alone, Levin asserted. Without her amendment, future nuclear reductions under the START pact with Russia might have been jeopardized, heightening the risk that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would leak to terrorist states or groups.

As for the Cochran bill itself, Levin claimed ''the Administration didn't change its position, the bill was changed.''