Defend America? - Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - Editorial

National Review, Oct 23, 1995 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 19

Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois has introduced a measure under the title, Defend America Act of 1995. He is joined by Rep. Martin Hoke of Ohio in coming up with an idea strange to the imagination, namely that the defense of America depends to some extent on the freedom to act, and that that freedom to act was substantively forfeited in 1972 in the ABM Treaty.

We are talking about that legendary bone of contention that allegedly forbids certain kinds of experiments in anti-missile technology, and flatly forbids deployment in more than one site. For a long time, a technical argument engaged legislators and diplomats as to whether experiments focused on the "brilliant pebble" were precluded under the terms of the 1972 agreement. The idea has been to arm satellites with slingshots, in effect, to destroy atmosphere-bound missiles. But the interesting question became, in the first phase, Why don't we pull away from the 1972 treaty? When Caspar Weinberger was secretary of defense under President Reagan he argued the legitimacy of experimentation, but Congress was not convinced, and appeasers all over the world argued against pulling back from any treaty the Soviet Union had agreed to.

Mr. Reagan, though the proud author of the original insight into anti-missile missiles (the Strategic Defense Initiative), never got around to serving the six-month notice required by the treaty to announce its rescission. Out of office, Mr. Weinberger publicly argued in favor of rescission, but his voice and other voices were drowned out by appeasers and others afraid of any initiative the Soviet Union would frown on.

But of course now, although we have a treaty, there is a question whether the entity with which we entered into that arrangement still exists. The government of "Russia" is not the legitimate heir to the government of the Soviet Union, any more than the government of Lenin was the heir to the government of Nicholas II. Still . . . (it is argued) it does no particular harm to proceed as though the treaty were alive. The thing to do is to rescind it.

Now this can hardly be interpreted as a provocative act given that the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction is no longer operative, since Russia and America are no longer at war against each other. But the Senate of the United States, on September 6, reached a "bipartisan compromise" on the matter of missile defense. The senators who produced that compromise claimed to have been guided by their concern for missile defense. But what they proceeded to do was to authorize future deployment only on behalf of America's allies, and American forces abroad. The important question, which has to do with research and deployment for continental defense, is therefore skirted, leaving us, in the phrase of defense strategist Frank Gaffney, in a state of "abject vulnerability" to nuclear attack by missiles of a rogue state.

The senators who framed the great evasion of September 6 acknowledge all the correct things. "The threat that is posed to the national security of the United States by the proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles is significant and growing, both quantitatively and qualitatively. . . . There is a danger that determined countries will acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in the near future and with little warning by means other than indigenous development." The senators' research even acknowledges that "the concept of mutual assured destruction, which was one of the major philosophical rationales for the ABM Treaty, is now questionable as the basis for stability in a multipolar world." So? So -- do nothing. That is, nothing that contributes to continental defense.

Congressman Hyde, with his keen eye for the quick of a question, acknowledges that the shadow of the 1972 treaty has the effect of dimming strategic and tactical visibility, and should be disposed of once and for all. Accordingly, the Hyde - Hoke measure would direct the President to notify the Russian Federation that the United States intends to exercise its right under the treaty's Article XV to withdraw from the accord.

One has to hope that an enlightened debate will ensue. There aren't really many questions that need answering. 1) Does rescission of the treaty in any conceivable way endanger Russia? (No.) 2) Can research and deployment help us to shore up our defenses? (Yes.) 3) Are there other nations that might benefit from a vigorous anti-missile program? (Yes. All nations that wish protection from missiles.)