Missile-defense plan could backfire on U.S.

Published June 14, 2001

It's a heck of a note when you find that reason and logic are on the side of the Russians and Chinese. But that's the case in regard to George W. Bush's desire to build an anti-ballistic missile-defense system.

Let's look at the facts. Bush says we need the system to protect us from the launch by small rogue nations of one or two ICBMs. He often mentions North Korea and Libya.

This argument is absurd. It is impossible to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile without the United States knowing precisely where it came from. Any small country that launched one against us would face certain and total annihilation.

For this scenario to occur, you would have to have a suicidal lunatic willing to destroy himself and his country for the dubious pleasure of inflicting what would be, from the United States point of view, relatively minor damage. And since no one man can launch an ICBM, you would also need a chain of command of military officers willing to sacrifice themselves and their families for, in effect, stinging an elephant. That is simply not believable.

Furthermore, Bush is saying that while the threat of retaliation deterred the Soviet Union when it had thousands of missiles and warheads, it will not deter some little two-bit country with only three or four. That doesn't make sense. It is far more likely that, if some small country wished to do us harm, it would simply load a warhead on a rusty freighter and detonate it in the harbor of an American city.

Now when you conclude that Bush's stated reason for scrapping the ABM Treaty and proceeding to build a defense system is nonsense, you are faced with two disturbing inferences. One, the leader of a superpower is stupid as is his whole top echelon of advisers; or two, he is lying and has another reason for wanting to build an ABM system.

The latter is the far more believable. And, if I were a Russian or a Chinese, I would infer that his real reason for wanting this system is to nullify any nuclear deterrent by both China and Russia. In other words, I would conclude that Bush seeks to have the United States in a position to dominate the world without fear of challenge.

That being the case, the solution is obvious. The only way to overcome an ABM system is to throw more missiles at it than it can handle. Hence, the Russians and the Chinese are telling the truth when they say that if Bush proceeds, it will set off a nuclear-arms race. Neither country is going to sit still while the United States achieves nuclear superiority.

I truly cannot understand Bush's reasoning on this issue. I pray he is not so naïve as to believe that the Russians and Chinese are going to believe him when he says he's willing to spend billions of dollars to protect the United States from small countries. They have already made it clear that they are not buying his story.

Nor should we make the mistake of thinking the Chinese and the Russians are too broke to add missiles to their arsenals. Command economies have the advantage that they can ignore the sacrifices a military buildup would impose on other areas of the economy. The Russians are already producing a new road- and rail-mobile ICBM.

For a country that always depicted itself as the champion of peace and democracy, we have acted strangely since the end of the Cold War. Instead of disbanding NATO, we expanded it and used it to launch an offensive war against Yugoslavia. Instead of bringing Russia into the family of Western nations, we have deliberately poked it in the eye at every opportunity. We have launched military operations against Panama, Iraq, Sudan and Somalia. And we continue to peddle advanced armaments all around the world.

From the outside looking in, America must present a picture of an arrogant bully intent on establishing hegemony over the rest of the world. That is the road to endless conflicts. It is not the road to peace.

If Bush is sincere about fearing small nations, then he should propose that Russia, China and the United States pool their money and talent and work jointly on an ABM system all three countries could deploy. I doubt he will do that. I fear he will take steps that in the long run will lead the world to the misery of war.

Americans have traditionally not paid much attention to foreign policy, but it is by far the most dangerous area. What damage bad domestic policy does can usually be corrected with a new election and without bloodshed. Mistakes in foreign relations, however, can have very nasty consequences. Ten million people died in World War I, which not a single one of the nations involved wanted to happen. A chain reaction of mistakes, bad judgments, delays and misunderstandings led to that destructive war.

I would feel better if Bush read more history.

Charley Reese can be reached at [email protected] or 407-420-5315.