IMPACTS: NMD LEADS TO DANGEROUS USA ISOLATIONISM

THOSE WHO SUPPORT NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE WANT TO LIMIT USA WORLD LEADERSHIP ROLE

Jim Hoagland, The San Diego Union-Tribune October 7, 1999, Pg. B-14: HEADLINE: Figuring out America's global role // ln-acs

That issue is how involved America needs to be in the world to guarantee its own safety. "Little to not at all" seems to be the answer of those who will vote to reject the test ban treaty and then move forward to demand radical change or even abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia. This they say would ensure construction of a comprehensive U.S. national missile defense system.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SUPPORTERS WANT A TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION TO OUR SECURITY PROBLEMS, NOT GLOBAL INVOLVEMENT

Jim Hoagland, The San Diego Union-Tribune October 7, 1999, Pg. B-14: HEADLINE: Figuring out America's global role // ln-acs

But sentiment has also been growing in the Senate and elsewhere to have America rely almost entirely on its current technological superiority to guarantee American security. Anything that lessens U.S. ability to do what it wants, when it wants and how it wants for its own defense is to be rejected, in this view.

MISSILE DEFENSE SUPPORTERS DO NOT WANT MISSILE THREATS REDUCED THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE OUR NEED FOR NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

James O. Goldsborough, The San Diego Union-Tribune September 23, 1999, Pg. B-13 HEADLINE: When blackmail is a far smaller price to pay // ln-10/99-acs

The fence-builders don't see things this way. Faced with a choice between reducing an adversary's arms and building a fence against them, they will always prefer the fence. Congress' flagging support for the Nunn-Lugar Program, which pays nations of the former Soviet Union for destroying their missiles, stems from the concern that without enemy missiles, we won't need an anti-missile fence.