Defining Issue: Bush Speech Offers Stark Alternative on Missile Defense, Nuclear Deterrence

(Washington, D.C.): For the first time in sixteen years, it appears that fundamental differences between the candidates on strategic deterrence will feature prominently in a presidential election. With remarks yesterday by Texas Governor and presumptive Republican nominee George W. Bush and responses from the camp of Vice President Al Gore, the American people seem likely to be offered the sort of stark choice last seen when President Ronald Reagan sought reelection in 1984. At that time, Mr. Reagan ran on a platform of peace through strength, a restored nuclear deterrent and a missile defense for the American people in his campaign against former Vice President Walter Mondale — who rejected both the philosophy and its applications, in favor of an unquestioning embrace of bilateral arms control with the Kremlin.

Compare and Contrast

In a speech to the National Press Club, Gov. Bush made the following key points:

A Post-Cold War Strategy

• “The Cold War era is history. Our nation must recognize new threats, not fixate on old ones.”
• “Russia itself is no longer our enemy. The Cold War logic that led to creation of massive stockpiles on both sides is now outdated. Our mutual security need no longer depend on a nuclear balance of terror. While deterrence remains the first line of defense against nuclear attack, the standoff of the Cold War was born of a different time.”
• “The Clinton-Gore administration…remain[s] locked in a Cold War mentality. It is time to leave the Cold War behind and defend against the new threats of the 21st century.”

A Commitment to Defending America — and Her Forces and Allies Overseas

• “America must build effective missile defenses based on the best available options at the earliest possible date. Our missile defense must be designed to protect all 50 states and our friends and allies and deployed forces overseas from missile attacks by rogue nations or accidental launches.”
• “The Clinton administration at first denied the need for a national missile defense system. Then it delayed. Now the approach it proposes is flawed, a system initially based on a single site, when experts say that more is needed.”
• “A missile defense system should not only defend our country; it should defend our allies, with whom I will consult as we develop our plans. And any change in the A.B.M. Treaty must allow the technologies and experiments required to deploy adequate missile defenses.”

Letting U.S. National Security Determine Strategic Force Levels, Capabilities

• “America should rethink the requirements for nuclear deterrence in a new security environment. The premises of Cold War nuclear targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.”
• “As president, I will ask the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of our nuclear force posture and determine how best to meet our security needs¹. While the exact number of weapons can come only from such an assessment, I will pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national security.”
• “It should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has been already agreed to under Start II without compromising our security in any way. We should not keep weapons that our military planners do not need.”

In His Own Words

Even more impressive, in some respects — and an even more eloquent rebuttal to pronouncements from the Gore camp that “Bush’s agenda is irresponsible and shows that he lacks the depth of experience to keep America safe and secure” — were Governor Bush’s extemporaneous responses to questions from the press.² These included notably the following:

• Concerning the Upcoming Moscow Summit: “I…suggest…that [Mr. Clinton] not hamstring the ability of the next president to fully develop an antiballistic missile system to protect ourselves and our allies. As I said, no treaty, no agreement, would be better than a flawed agreement. I’m concerned that this administration is not fully devoted to the development of a antiballistic missile system that will work.”
• Concerning Missile Defense Technology: “…The world has changed a lot since the 80s. Science is evolving. Laser technology is evolving. There’s a lot of inventiveness in our society that hasn’t been unleashed on this particular subject.

“And…I see a treaty that makes it hard for us to fully explore the options available, the options available to keep the peace. And there needs to be an administration with a firm commitment to exploring all options and all opportunities. Be able to understand, you know, whether or not a space-based system can work, like some hope it can….I don’t think [that under this Administration] there’s been the full commitment to determining what the opportunities and options are for the country.

• Concerning Public Misconceptions About America’s Defenselessness: “The interesting fact is a lot of people think we can defend ourselves against an accidental launch. I think if you were to ask Americans, they will tell you that we’ve got the capability of defending ourselves. But it’s not the case.” ³

• Concerning Relations with Russia: “I look forward to working with Mr. Putin and explaining my point of view and my attitude about the post-Cold War era. I’m going to look him right in the eye and say, You’re no longer the enemy. And we’re not your enemy. Surely we can work together to bring certainty into an uncertain world.'”
  “I’ll look forward to working with the Russians. But if they don’t [reciprocate], the level of nuclear readiness is going to meet our needs. It’s going to meet the needs of the United States of America. I will never put our security at risk.”
  “As to sharing [missile defense-related] information and technologies with the Russians, it depends upon how Russia behaves, depends upon how Russia conducts itself as a member of the family of nations.”

Music to the Chiefs’ Ears

As it happened, while Governor Bush was speaking, the basic thrust of his remarks was being echoed in an important Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on START III and the ABM Treaty featuring the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander-in-Chief of Strategic Command, Admiral Richard Meis. The Nation’s top military officers testified that they believed a comprehensive national security assessment — presumably, a study very like that called for by Gov. Bush — would be required before they could recommend reductions in strategic offensive arms below the 2000-2500 levels agreed to in the Helsinki framework accord. In other words, as far as they are concerned, President Clinton would be on his own if he were to pursue such an initiative with the Russians at next week’s summit.

Like Gov. Bush, the JCS and Adm. Meis emphasized the need to stop thinking of U.S. deterrent requirements in the context of the bipolar Cold War paradigm. To be sure, their testimony and answers to Senators’ questions reflected a view that Russia may reemerge as a threat — and that U.S. forces must be sufficiently robust to constitute a hedge against that possibility. The uniformed military, though, is thinking outside of the Cold War “box” in which the Clinton-Gore Administration clearly remains.

A Case in Point: The N.P.T. RevCon

The latest evidence of the Clinton-Gore team’s commitment to a very different — indeed, truly reckless — approach to matters involving deterrence and nuclear arms can be found in the consensus it permitted to be reached at the just-concluded Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Highlights of that agreement not only bespeak a proclivity for fatuous, unverifiable and unworkable arms control agreements. They also constitute a legacy of mischievous promises that threaten to prove a security policy nightmare to Mr. Clinton’s successors and the Nation.

For example, in the course of the NPT RevCon, the United States joined the other participants in pledging to implement a radical anti-nuclear agenda that includes the following from the joint communique:

• [An] unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI [of the NPT].
• The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.
• The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a program of work which includes the immediate establishment of such a body.
• The principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures.
• Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems.
• Arrangements by all nuclear weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside of military programs.
• Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

The Bottom Line

The Gore campaign’s response to the Bush speech leaves no doubt where the Vice President stands. As the New York Times reported today:

Mr. Gore’s aides sharply criticized Mr. Bush, saying his approach to nuclear security was unrealistic, that it would not be accepted by the Russians and that it would undermine years of arms control agreements. Mr. Gore’s advisers pointed to Mr. Bush’s opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and said the Governor advocates the radical rewriting, if not outright abolition, of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty….Mr. Gore, like Mr. Clinton, favors negotiating with the Russians to change the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and make way for the more limited missile defense system.

The stage is thus set, finally, for a real choice by the American people on matters that involve, literally, national survival. Both of the presidential candidates — and, for that matter, candidates for the legislative branch — are to be encouraged to amplify upon their positions concerning missile defense and nuclear deterrence, further sharpening what could — and should — be a defining issue in Campaign 2000.

¹Importantly, Gov. Bush also qualified what could otherwise be a highly problematic element of his remarks — i.e., his statement that “the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status” — by declaring that “I will ask for an assessment of what we can safely do to lower the alert status of our forces.”

²Governor Bush also addressed impressively a question unrelated to nuclear strategy concerning his willingness to revise U.S. policy toward Cuba: “I’ll review the policy toward Cuba when Fidel Castro has free elections, frees prisoners and has freedom of the press.”

³In this connection, the House Republican Conference on Capitol Hill today viewed a powerful 30-second television advertisement being aired this week by the Coalition to Protect Americans Now! designed to inform the American people about their actual, utter vulnerability to missile attack — and the responsibility the Clinton-Gore Administration bears for that dangerous situation. Part of this ad was featured in a report broadcast last night on the CBS Evening News and the text of its audio track appears in today’s Washington Post: “Where will you be when the missiles are launched? Dangerous nations like North Korea and Iran will soon have nuclear missiles that can hit our cities. But America has no defense against missile attacks — Clinton and Gore have left us unprotected. Nearing the election, they admit maybe we do need a missile defense — but only a limited system — and only with Russia’s permission. Where will you be?”