What US-Russian Negotiations Could Usefully Discuss: Deploying Effective Defenses Against Short-Range Missiles

(Washington, D.C.): One of the most important essays concerning strategic matters to be published in years appeared last month in National Review. Entitled "Multilateral Madness" and authored by Dr. Lawrence Goldmuntz, this article thoughtfully assesses the looming menace posed by ballistic missile proliferation and the urgent need for defenses against such threats.

Unfortunately, Dr. Goldmuntz — who formerly served as the executive secretary of the Federal Council for Science and Technology — confirms that, as documented in several recent Center for Security Policy Decision Briefs,⁽¹⁾ the Clinton Administration is moving in exactly the opposite direction:

"The most effective defense against ballistic missiles is one that destroys the missile during the boost phase when it is most vulnerable….Any future development of this option is being bargained away in the discussions with the Russians on ‘clarifying’ the ABM Treaty signed in 1972. Judging by the route that the Administration is taking in these negotiations, we are giving up precisely the technology that is most likely to prove effective in our defense and the defense of our allies."

In his article (which is attached), Dr. Goldmuntz elucidates the technical considerations that make space-based boost-phase defenses the most militarily and cost-effective available, underscoring the importance of utilizing such technologies as Brilliant Pebbles for defenses against shorter-range missiles. He also emphasizes the common interest Russia should feel in achieving the earliest and most efficient possible defense against such weapons given the proximity of its southern and eastern regions to shorter-range missiles launched from the Mideast or Far East.

The Goldmuntz essay is of the utmost importance, however, because it offers President Clinton an excellent alternative to his present course: Rather than using the upcoming summit meeting with President Yeltsin to "strengthen the ABM Treaty" — a euphemism for the Administration’s plan to expand the scope of the impediment to missile defense represented by this accord, Mr. Clinton could seize the opportunity to build on past Yeltsin statements of support for a "global security system" which he hoped the two nations might "design jointly, produce jointly and use jointly."

Dr. Lawrence Goldmuntz enumerates several valuable suggestions for how cooperation with the Russians might be structured so as to meet the mutual need for effective defenses against missile attack. His analysis should be carefully examined by everyone — starting with President Clinton — who must reckon with the growing vulnerability of American citizens, allies and forces overseas to missile attack.

– 30 –

1. See for example the Center’s recent Decision Brief entitled More Steps on the Slippery Slope Toward Terminating U.S. Theater Missile Defense Options (No. 94-D 87, 26 August 1994).