A November Missile Defense

Anyone wondering just how far President Clinton will go to get Al Gore elected might consider the risks he’s taking with national missile defense.

It would be reassuring to believe that the NMD system the Administration is pursuing would do what it needs to do: protect the nation against a deliberate or accidental launch of a ballistic missile–and do so quickly since the threat is growing apace. Instead, the system the Administration is contemplating is aimed at meeting a higher priority: get Al Gore elected.

From Mr. Clinton’s standpoint, the main advantage is that the Russians will probably go for it. If he can get Moscow to agree to amend the ABM Treaty, he can claim a foreign-policy victory before the November election. Never mind that there’s no way to amend the ABM Treaty to make it possible to build an effective defense.

Ultimately, an effective defense will be a “layered” defense: on the sea, on the ground and in space. The best course is to work on all fronts simultaneously, with a twofold objective: First, get something out there fast, even though it may be imperfect, and second, work hard on developing and deploying a more sophisticated defense in a few years’ time. The Administration’s favored system, however, is the worst of both worlds: a complex ground-based system that will take years to develop and once deployed won’t protect all of the country against a variety of threats.

The system the Administration is looking at would link a network of ground-based radars and space-based sensors with 100 missile interceptors located at a single site. The high-profile failure of last month’s interceptor test isn’t the problem here. The anti-missile technology is clearly on the right track; an interceptor test last fall succeeded and no one seriously doubts that the technology can be perfected.

Rather, the problem is the Administration’s likely location of the interceptors–Alaska. This is a fine spot from which to get a good shot at a missile coming from Russia, North Korea or China, but it would be far less effective against one originating in Iraq, Libya or any ship off the East Coast. In other words, Hawaii would be well protected but not New York. Actually, it’s not just Alaska. Any single-site NMD system poses an inherent problem of coverage and even a two-site system probably couldn’t cover the country well enough. The U.S. is just too big and the potential threat could come from too many directions.

This is one reason many NMD experts prefer to begin with a sea-based system, since ships can be repositioned as needed to meet a variety of threats against the U.S. or its allies. Supporters say such a system could be patched together quickly and relatively cheaply using components that already exist or are in the works; a Pentagon report agreed it could be done. There’s just one problem with this option: It violates the ABM Treaty in so many places that there’d be nothing left after the requisite amendments. This makes it unacceptable to the Russians–and to the Clinton Administration.

The Administration’s NMD system, designed with the express aim of making it palatable to the Russians, is another matter. Contrary to its public protestations, Moscow isn’t too perturbed about an NMD system that will take years to deploy (even if the taxpayers are willing to foot the bill) and in any event won’t provide a good enough defense to deter would-be buyers of Russian missile technology.

And so a deal is in the works. An influential member of the Duma said this month that a compromise on the ABM Treaty was possible and would probably include steep cuts in the limits on strategic warheads and an end to the ban on MIRVs, missiles that can hit more than one target. It’s absurd enough that the Administration is asking Russia’s permission for the U.S. to build a defense against terrorists or rogue states. But to “pay” for it with cuts in our nuclear arsenal is even more absurd.

The CIA reported this month that the threat of missile attack is higher than ever, as more and more terrorists or rogue states have the ability to build or buy long-range ballistic missiles. And so Mr. Clinton’s promise to make an announcement this summer on what kind of NMD system and when to deploy it ought to be something to cheer about. Instead, it’s just another political maneuver in the campaign to elect Al Gore. It will take another President to do what the U.S. ought to have done long before this: Exercise its option to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and get to work.