IMPACTS: NMD DESTROYS RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

ABROGATION OF ABM TREATY WILL DESTROY RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

The U.S. effort to create a working missile defense system violates the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) Treaty, which is a dangerous path to tread on. For two decades the ABM Treaty--which limits development, testing and deployment of missile defense systems--was the cornerstone of stable relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, and it continues to be vital to U.S.-Russia relations today. Strong U.S.-Russian ties are in many ways dependent on the ABM Treaty, and moves to abrogate the treaty could have serious repercussions.

FROM THE RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE, THE ABM TREATY IS VITAL FOR INTERNATIONAL STABILITY AND SECURITY

The Toronto Star May 12, 1999, HEADLINE: RUSSIA, CHINA CRITICIZE U.S. DEFENCE SYSTEM // lnu-acs

Sidorov said it was hard to over-estimate the pact's ''tremendous significance as a factor of strategic stability and international security'' and it should be prevented from collapse.

''Such a development would inevitably upset the whole system of international treaties in the disarmament field,'' Sidorov said.

INCLUDING EUROPE IN AN NMD SYSTEM WOULD ONLY PROVIDE MORE OF A THREAT TO RUSSIA

Samuel R. Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, February 13, 2001, The Washington Post SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A21 HEADLINE: Is This Shield Necessary? //VT2002acsln

It has been suggested that we could address Europeans' concerns by including them in our missile defense system or helping them build their own. But such an amalgamation would be more capable against Russia and thus more likely to stiffen its resistance to change in the ABM; it could also increase the chance Russia would respond in ways that would reduce strategic stability -- for example by retaining multiple-warhead ICBMs it has agreed to eliminate.

THE INITIAL USA MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM WILL POSE A THREAT TO RUSSIA

Janadas Devan The Straits Times (Singapore), October 31, 1999, SECTION: Review Focus shield"; Pg. 41 HEADLINE: Missile talks up in the air // ln-acs-11-11-99

Some US experts agree. The system the US is planning "is indistinguishable from a defence that is designed to be aimed at Russia and China" if more interceptors and sensors are added, said Prof Postal, though he maintained that the defence can easily be overcome by a variety of countermeasures.

FAILURE TO RESPECT THE ABM TREATY LEADS TO A RUSSIAN NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE

Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) March 29, 1999, SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 12A HEADLINE: Star Wars lite; Missile defense would be costly mistake // lnu-acs

     Proponents of National Missile Defense assume that the Russians will accept changes in the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty to permit nationwide deployment, or that the ABM Treaty is not worth preserving. But that attitude glosses over the true danger: 7,000 nuclear warheads still on Russian missiles. The more a weakened Russia is alienated by U.S. strategic policy, the greater the risk that it will return to Cold War attitudes. The risk is heightened by Russia's shaky government.

RUSSIAN CURRENT NUCLEAR STATUS MAKES THEM VERY SUSPICIOUS OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE EFFORTS

Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies at King's College London, The Independent (London) August 22, 1999, SECTION: COMMENT; Pg. 24 HEADLINE: WHY AMERICA SAYS IT NOW NEEDS 'SON OF STAR WARS';  THE WEST NO LONGER REQUIRES A NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, BUT IT FEARS THAT OTHERS STILL DO. // lnu-acs

It was chiefly the futility of trying to defend themselves against such advantages that prompted the US and the Soviet Union to sign the 1972 ABM Treaty. Now the Americans' new plans explicitly break its provisions - which means they must either abrogate it or get the Russians to agree to amend it. From Moscow's perspective, this is all highly suspicious. Russia may be more dependent on a nuclear strategy, but its arsenal suffers from the dire state of its economy. It has no money for extensive modernisation, let alone for a ballistic missile defence of its own. Russians can envisage a situation in which they are at the mercy of the US because it can intercept their decrepit missiles before they reach their targets.

WE CANNOT TELL RUSSIA THAT NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE IS AIMED AT SO-CALLED "ROGUE" NATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO REALLY HAVE A LOT OF ICBMS

Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies at King's College London, The Independent (London) August 22, 1999, SECTION: COMMENT; Pg. 24 HEADLINE: WHY AMERICA SAYS IT NOW NEEDS 'SON OF STAR WARS';  THE WEST NO LONGER REQUIRES A NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, BUT IT FEARS THAT OTHERS STILL DO. // lnu-acs

In these discussions, the Americans argue that their proposed new system is not geared to Russia but to the "rogue" states. Yet at present none of these has any missiles capable of reaching US territory. Moreover, there are other ways to deliver nuclear weapons than ballistic missiles, from so-called "suitcase bombs" to devices hidden on ships entering New York or some other port. The real missile threat from these states tends to be much more regional. Indeed, the Americans maintain that the Russians, too, have a stake in improved defences as they are definitely within range of almost all the new nuclear states. For the same reason the Americans have been working closely on "son of Star Wars" with Israel and Japan. Israel has been putting substantial resources into defensive technology after its Gulf war experience of Scuds, while Japan can see itself getting caught up in any turmoil in the Korean peninsula or Chinese aggression over Taiwan or the much disputed Spratley Islands.