Flash: New York Times Endorses National Missile Defense

But General In Charge Says ‘Layered’ System Will Likely be Required

(Washington, D.C.): In its lead editorial in yesterday’s editions, the New York Times appears to have departed from its longstanding opposition to national missile defenses so as to endorse a treaty the Clinton-Gore Administration hopes to conclude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. There is probably less to this change of heart than meets the eye, however — just as there is less than Messrs. Clinton and Gore would have us believe to their administration’s professed intention to protect the American people against missile attack.

Mirabile Dictu

Sincere or not, the Times’ apostasy does not come easy. The relevant section of the editorial starts with a characteristic paean to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which it describes as “an integral part of the arms-control architecture Washington has developed with Moscow. Defense planners on both sides have felt comfortable with lower levels of offensive missiles knowing that they would not have to penetrate a defensive missile shield.”

Then, for the first time in memory, the Nation’s self-appointed newspaper of record acknowledged a reality that its reporters and editorial board have denounced, reviled and otherwise rejected for years:

But the ABM treaty was negotiated at a time when this kind of missile calculus was premised on a clash between the two superpowers. The likely emergence of smaller, less-predictable nuclear-armed nations over the next few years creates a different equation. Neither America nor Russia wants to be blackmailed by countries like North Korea threatening to unleash a handful of poorly aimed but highly destructive nuclear missiles. The technology of limited defensive missile shields has not yet been reliably perfected. But when it is, both countries should be free, within carefully negotiated limits, to protect their people from this kind of threat. (Emphasis added.)

With this statement, one of the last bastions of opposition to a national missile defense for the United States would appear to have fallen.

Not So Fast

The catch, of course, is to be found in the words “within carefully negotiated limits.” As a practical matter, this means that the United States may only “be free” to protect its people from long-range missile threats to the extent that the Russians agree.

In other words, if the Russians approve of our having a single, very limited ground-based anti-missile site in Alaska — an outcome for which the Clinton-Gore team is apparently prepared to pay handsomely (in terms of eviscerating the U.S. nuclear deterrent, political concessions, IMF bail-outs, etc.) — then national missile defenses will be okay with the New York Times and other devotees of the ABM Treaty.

On the other hand, if the Russians do not approve — and, therefore, there are no “negotiated limits” (carefully crafted or otherwise) — and the choice is then between protecting the ABM Treaty and protecting the American people, the arms control theologians will not concur in efforts to safeguard the latter from missile attack.

As awareness grows of the need for both nearer-term and more comprehensive anti-missile defense than can be provided by a 20- or even a 100-interceptor system in Alaska, the Clinton-Gore Administration and its friends have begun to obsess about the threat such additional capabilities would represent to the ABM Treaty they call the “cornerstone of strategic stability.” According to the 30 March editions of the Washington Post, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told reporters last week that “Clinton’s plan…’is to get the limited system locked down in a deal with [Russia’s acting President Vladimir] Putin’ in order to block Republicans from pushing forward with a broader, full-scale, national ABM system.”

Gen. Kadish Makes the Case for Not Limiting Missile Defenses

Unfortunately for the Clinton-Gore-Biden team, the man entrusted with overall responsibility for the U.S. National Missile Defense program — Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish (USAF) — recently publicly stated his belief the United States will need a layered type of defense across a broad front, comprised over time of a range of systems to address an evolving threat. In particular, in remarks at a breakfast meeting on 30 March co-sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation and the National Defense Industrial Association, Gen. Kadish observed that the inherent mobility of naval systems, in concert with ground-based Army systems, makes a lot of sense from a theater or national missile defense perspective. He also emphasized the need for boost-phase defenses, for which sea-, air- and space-based weapons will be necessary.

The Bottom Line

The moment of truth has arrived. In light of the emerging danger, as the New York Times put it, of “countries like North Korea threatening to unleash a handful of poorly aimed but highly destructive nuclear missiles” at this country and/or its forces or allies overseas, there is no more time for idle or misleading talk about deploying national anti-missile capabilities. It must be done. And to be done, the United States must announce its determination to proceed with the steps necessary to put into place, as quickly as possible, the sort of layered, comprehensive missile defenses Gen. Kadish correctly believes will likely be needed.

There is, in particular, no more time for Russian objections, threats or obstructionism. The Kremlin will adjust to the new reality of an American commitment to defend itself against third parties once that commitment is expressed at the highest levels. Until that step is taken, however, the Russians will exercise whatever veto over U.S. missile defenses that we grant them. That outcome may fulfill the hidden agenda of the New York Times, the Clinton-Gore Administration and their comrades in disarmament. It will not satisfy, however, the legitimate defensive needs and expectations of the American people.