Today's date:
 


GLOBAL VIEWPOINT

GLOBAL VIEWPOINT
GLOBAL ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT
EUROPEAN VIEWPOINT
NOBEL LAUREATES
12/13/01

WITHOUT ABM TREATY THERE ARE NO LIMITS TO OFFENSIVE BUILDUP

By Robert McNamara

Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense and president of the World Bank, developed the strategic concept of "mutually assured destruction." His comments are adapted from a recent interview with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels.

Included is a sidebar from Tang Jiaxuan, the foreign minister of China.


WASHINGTON
-- In November 1966, when I met with President Lyndon Johnson in Austin, Texas, to go over the proposed defense budget, we had photographs that showed the Russians had begun to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow.

We assumed it would be insane for them to deploy it just around Moscow and, therefore, concluded this was a first step toward a nationwide system. In response, the U.S. Congress at that time wanted appropriations for the counter-deployment of a U.S. ballistic missile defense system.

I opposed this, arguing that the proper response was a further buildup of the U.S. nuclear force to compensate for any losses caused by their defense. When President Johnson made this case to Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin in 1967, I remember Kosygin pounding the table and making the opposite case: "Defense is moral; offense is immoral." But that is absurd. What is moral is what avoids the use of nuclear weapons.

In the end, we pursued a joint track of no defensive system and limits on the buildup of offensive weapons. Ultimately, that led to the ABM Treaty and the SALT arms reduction treaties.

My theory then, and my belief today, is that you cannot limit offensive weapons by treaty in the face of an unlimited defense. If one side is limited by treaty, say, to 3,000 warheads and the other side installs a defense system with no restraints, at some point that unlimited defense will kill so many of those 3,000 warheads that "unacceptable damage" cannot be assured and the stability of deterrence is lost.

That is what underlies the linkage between the ABM Treaty and limits on offensive weapons.

If I were in the shoes of Russia or China, it would be logical either to limit arms reductions or, in the case of China, build up. We Americans will argue among ourselves, some saying this defense system will make us perfectly secure and others saying it won't work.

Not knowing, how will the Russians or Chinese ever accurately appraise the "kill capability" of our defense system? How can a leader be charged with defending his own country respond? He can only do the responsible thing in the face of uncertainty and assume the worst-case scenario.

If you are dealing with the security of your country, with the possibility of nuclear war, you have to look at the worst cases. So, it is neither an irrational nor illogical response to expand offensive capability in the face of a U.S. deployment of missile defense. That is what makes the situation so dangerous for the future.


IS THE REAL INTENTION OF A U.S. MISSILE SHIELD TO GAIN ADVANTAGE OVER CHINA?


By Tang Jiaxuan

Tang Jiaxuan is the foreign minister of China. The following is excerpted from an article he wrote exclusively for Global Viewpoint earlier this year. China says its position remains the same.


BEIJING -- Just as the ABM Treaty cannot be viewed in isolation, neither can a U.S. missile defense program. Offense and defense are always indivisible. Enhanced defensive capabilities, to a large degree, mean improved offensive capabilities as well.

This is particularly true for the United States, the only superpower. The United States possesses the biggest nuclear arsenal and the most sophisticated conventional weapons in the world, and it pursues a nuclear deterrence policy based on first use of nuclear weapons. A missile defense system will thus become a multiplier for U.S. offensive weapons. It will severely impede the nuclear disarmament process in the world at large and will render the U.S. initiative on the reduction of offensive nuclear weapons meaningless.

People cannot help but ask what on Earth is the real intention behind U.S. insistence on developing a missile defense system in defiance of the international community? Is it really to defend against missile threats from the few so-called "problem states" or for greater military advantage over other big countries?


(c) 2001, Los Angeles Times Syndicate International, a division of Tribune Media Services
For immediate release (Distributed 12/13/01)