Ship-based Missile Defense
The question was: “Which of the following statements best represents your position on a missile defense system, Statement A or Statement B? A: Constructing a national missile defense system will undermine our nuclear treaty with Russia and produce an unstable international situation. Statement B: Our best hope for long-term defense is developing our own missile defense system and not relying on treaties.” (Zogby America, February 2000)
The answer was: 61.6% took B, about half as many took A, and nearly 11% were unsure.
The question was: “Which of the following statements best represents your position on a missile defense system, Statement A or Statement B? A: Constructing a national missile defense system will undermine our nuclear treaty with Russia and produce an unstable international situation. Statement B: Our best hope for long-term defense is developing our own missile defense system and not relying on treaties.” (Zogby America, February 2000)
The answer was: 61.6% took B, about half as many took A, and nearly 11% were unsure.
The battle for public support of missile defenses has been a long one, but this and other indicators now suggests that the American people believe that a missile threat exists and that we must be prepared to defend ourselves and our allies and assets abroad.
The battle over which systems and how and when to deploy is being waged full force – partly because the President, when asked, still chooses answer A. The same administration that declared itself poised to walk the country over the bridge to the 21st Century remains committed to the 30-year-old ABM Treaty signed by the U.S. and the defunct U.S.S.R. The Treaty, aside from the fact that it is probably invalid because one signatory no longer exists, does not account for today’s threats, which are far more diffuse and complicated than the old bilateral ones.
But there is hope. In Congress there is movement to use the mechanism contained in the ABM Treaty to withdraw from it, and within the defense establishment there appears to be an increased willingness to advocate the deployment of systems that are available within reason, rather than holding out for a “perfect” system that would defend everything from everyone while staying within Treaty restrictions.
Admiral Jay Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), has advocated maximizing American defense capabilities by the use of ship-launched interceptors, despite the fact that the cruiser-based option would violate the ABM Treaty. [It should be noted that his entry into the debate was involuntary; his confidential memo having been leaked. But this in no way makes his point less valid.] He argued that adding a mobile layer of protection to the potential planned use of land-based interceptors would add flexibility to American options, as well as being cost-effective and more quickly deployed than the “Alaska option” being considered by the President.
We are pleased to see that the CNO is taking a practical, accessible approach to BMD – probably the most important defense issue of our day. And we hope the Commander-in-Chief takes Admiral Johnson’s expertise into account and decides with all due speed to provide a ballistic missile defense system for the United States, our allies and our assets broad. That would be a legacy worth leaving.