A Times Editorial

Mission of defense

The shapers of defense policy need to assure the people of this country that greater safety will be gained with its chosen missile defense system.

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 7, 2000

President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin did not appreciably narrow their differences on the subject of nuclear missile defenses during their Moscow summit. Still, their discussion served a constructive purpose. Our government has moved to the verge of committing to a national missile defense system without adequate reflection in Washington -- and without adequate consultation with Russia and our strategic partners in Europe. The concerns expressed to the president by Putin and Western European leaders won't necessarily slow down Washington's rush to commit to such a system, but their views at least should provoke a fuller and more honest debate along the way.

President Clinton has said he will decide by the end of the year whether to move forward with a limited antimissile system. Congressional Republicans, along with GOP presidential nominee George W. Bush, are pressing for quick approval of a far more ambitious and expensive system. A commitment this year is said to be necessary to put in place a system by 2005 to protect against a potential threat from North Korea. However, the timing is being driven more by political considerations than by scientific or strategic ones, and a false sense of urgency is being fed by those who stand to profit from a system whose ultimate costs likely would be measured in the trillions of dollars.

The artificial deadline has stifled debate on crucial issues that need to be answered before Washington upends a system of strategic deterrence that has been the cornerstone of our security for half a century.

So far, tests have provided little reason for optimism that even a system with the limited aims envisioned by the Clinton administration will be feasible anytime soon. In any case, even a system that could reliably intercept a small number of ballistic missiles would provide only an illusion of security. Many experts say the threat of nuclear attack from terrorists or a rogue nation is more likely to emanate from within our own territory or from short-range missiles offshore.

Most crucial of all is the question of how our development of a missile defense system would affect existing strategic relationships. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the administration's top Russia expert, says Putin "made absolutely clear to President Clinton that (U.S. anti-missile plans) will undermine strategic stability, threaten Russia's strategic deterrent and provoke a new arms race." Western European leaders expressed similar misgivings to the president during his trip.

Putin did hold out the possibility of working in concert with the United States to defend against new threats that affect both countries. However, Putin said, "We're against having a cure which is worse than the disease."

The "disease" -- mutually assured destruction -- is one that gives any rational person pause. Yet it has prevented nuclear war for more than 50 years. As President Clinton, Congress and this year's presidential contenders continue the debate over a missile defense system, they owe the American people candor about what would realistically be gained and what realistically could be lost. Before we abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and destroy the foundation of that system of mutual deterrence, we must be certain that we are replacing it with a system that provides even greater security. To do otherwise would be an act of cosmic irresponsibility.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.