For almost forty years America's strategic nuclear position remained unchanged. Only the Soviet Union possessed nuclear missiles which could hit American cities. Therefore, our defense policy was based on mutually assured destruction, or "MAD." If either side attacked first, then the other side would still launch a devastating attack on the aggressor. Unfortunately, our strategic situation has now changed for the worse.
Not only does the old Soviet Union (now "Russia") still have most of its gigantic arsenal aimed at the USA, but now we face a threat from Red China that could be even more devastating. Through spying and other means, Red China has stolen America's most modern nuclear technologies, (including long range delivery systems). In fact, the Red Chinese even purchased some of this dangerous knowledge from Clinton's Commerce Department via the Loral Corporation. (SEE "Did Clinton Commit Treason?" back at my home page for details on Clinton selling nuclear secrets for campaign money.)
Even worse, the pentagon reported in May of 1999 that Red China has sold this deadly technology to Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran. In a few years, there will be SIX hostile powers with nuclear missiles pointed at the USA. (i.e. China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. These nations are all headed by politically unstable governments, and emotionally unstable political leaders.
In this unstable situation, we can no longer assume that all of these hostile governments will refrain from attacking due to the fear of "MAD" (mutually assured destruction). Such an assumption is literally "SIX times more dangerous" than it was when our only threat came from one nation, the Soviet Union. This is because there will soon be SIX nations pointing nuclear missiles at the US, not just Russia alone.
Therefore, because MAD can no longer be relied upon to prevent nuclear attack on America, we must build an anti ballistic missile defense system. If you don't believe me, then please read the following excerpts from Henry Kissenger's recent May 26 1999 testimony before Congress:
* "I do not believe [the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)] could work in a world of many nuclear powers."
* The continued observance of the 1972 ABM Treaty has been a "deliberate policy choice." If the U.S. is attacked, "how could such a government explain to the American people" that we chose not to defend ourselves?
* It would be "difficult for any arms control system to reduce [potential damage from a nuclear exchange] to [levels] that are acceptable." Even if you could get to START III levels, that would still be "morally unbearable."
* "I cannot imagine what an American president would say to the American public if there should be an attack, and if he would have to explain that he did nothing to prevent or defeat the resulting catastrophe. I think the legitimacy of government would be threatened if such a condition existed."
On the 1972 ABM Treaty:
* "...the [ABM] Treaty was signed with an eye to an environment that simply does not exist today."
* The "ABM Treaty must not be allowed to stand in the way of national missile defense."
* "I am not in favor of attaching new significance to the ABM Treaty."
* "An impressive array of technical options cannot be adequately explored until we solve the problem of ABM Treaty restrictions on development and testing. We need to find a way to end the restrictions the ABM Treaty impose on the research, development, testing, and deployment of missile defense systems as soon as possible....I would not let it stand in our way."
On the Need to Act Now:
*"I believe it is strategically and morally necessary to build a missile defense: strategically, because of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missile technology to deliver them; morally, because the doctrine of MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION which I have opposed in my writings for at least thirty years, IS BANKRUPT"
* "I believe that we should proceed with the development of the best technology for the defense of the United States I believe we should create a national missile defense as soon as it is possible to do so" with a system upon which there is a consensus.
On Giving Russia a Veto Over U.S. Missile Defenses:
* Negotiations with Russia, on such issues as nuclear reductions, should not be permitted to postpone the decision to proceed with an anti-missile defense.
* "I am more concerned about third countries that I am about Russia."
On the question of Developing only Theater Missile Defenses:
"[It] isn't natural for us to protect our allies more than ourselves."
The Lack of an ABM system Encourages Nuclear Proliferation:
* "One of the reasons ballistic missiles are so attractive to so many countries is that there are currently no defenses against them History teaches us that weakness is provocative and, in a real sense, the absence of missile defense provokes others into seeking such weapons."
The Center for Security Policy provided two expert witnesses who spoke on the issue of whether the old 1972 ABM treaty was still legally binding. They wisely concluded that the old treaty was NOT legally binding on the USA.
In summary, these two legal experts stated that the 1972 treaty was exclusively between the USA and the Soviet Union. There were no other parties to the agreement. It was purely bilateral. But in 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. It was succeeded by at least ten separate, sovereign nations (Ukraine, Belorus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, The Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikstan).
When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, so did America's obligations under the treaty cease to exist. The old ABM treaty between the USA and USSR did not somehow magically become a treaty between the USA and the Russian Federation. When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, so did our obligations under the 1972 treaty.
CLINTON'S Policy; Keep America Vulnerable:
Bill Clinton (for reasons yet unknown, besides perhaps sheer incompetence) has claimed that the old ABM treaty is still somehow legally binding on the USA. But he has offered conflicting and unsatisfactory legal support for his claim. Clinton even signed "agreements" with all the Soviet Union's successor states to this effect. However, none of these "agreements" were ratified by the Senate, (as required for any treaty under the US Constitution). Therefore, Clinton's so-called "agreements" are not legally binding on the USA.
Transcripts of Congressional Testimony provided by the
Center for Security Policy, Wash DC)
For more detailed information on this important issue, please visit them at: http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1999/99-D63at.html
by: Peter Hauer