Bush's Offer to Jointly Develop Missile
Defense System with Russia Unwise
by David T. Pyne, Esq., Columnist and Legal
Analyst
.jpg)
In
the wake of the recent signing of a sweeping new nuclear arms disarmament treaty
between the United States and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin in Moscow,
Russian President Putin (both right) has reportedly accepted President
Bush's invitation to join the US in the cooperative development of a new US
missile defense system. Mr. Bush had issued this invitation for the same
reason he accepted Putin's demand to sign a nuclear arms disarmament treaty,
which he had initially resisted and the
Pentagon opposed. That reason was to appease Russia following Bush's laudable
decision, announced last December, to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. This represents
yet another in a series of major US concessions designed to reward President
Putin for his timely and vital military assistance to the Russian and Iranian-backed
Northern Alliance, without which the US could not have won such a quick military
victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The recently finalized agreement
for de-facto Russian membership in the NATO alliance is another major concession
to Mr. Putin.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin have reportedly agreed to set up a new joint committee on missile defense. The Russians pushed for language limiting the scope of the planned US missile defense system in the recently signed arms control treaty. However, President Bush persuaded them to accept this language in a separate 'strategic framework' document, which accompanied the treaty. This language is reportedly a reiteration of Bush's previous assurances to the Russians that the planned missile defense system will be of a limited nature and will not be effective or capable of defending the US from a hypothetical attack by Russian nuclear missiles.
Historically, Russia has been vehement in its opposition to a US deployment of national missile defenses. However, President Putin opted to lessen Russian opposition to them in exchange for major concessions by the US listed above. Last year, the Russians proposed using Russian S-300, S-400 and yet-to-be-developed S-500 ABMs to provide a joint 'theater' missile defense system to defend Europe from ballistic missile attack from rogue states. This was primarily a Russian attempt to divide the US from its European allies and solidify European opposition to US NMD, a bid which was ultimately unsuccessful. The Russians now hope to win a few contracts from the Americans in the multi-billion dollar scheme to defend the US from ballistic missile attack. While the US would be sure to benefit from the acquisition of Russian technology, which is unparalled in the area of missile defense, it is unclear whether the Russians could serve as trusted partners in a bid to help design, build and deploy a US missile defense system aimed at enhancing US national security. Joint development of such a system with Russia would enable Russia to be fully appraised regarding its vulnerabilities and what countermeasures it could best employ to defeat and neutralize it using a wide variety of asymmetric means.
However, one important fact remains off limits to discussion by US and Russian negotiators. That is the fact that the Russians already have deployed a vast and potent missile defense system to defend their country consisting of thousands of the very S-300 ABM-capable missiles, which Putin offered to jointly field with Europe to defend them against long-range ballistic missile attack. In 1997, William T. Lee, a retired senior CIA and DIA analyst, reported on the existence of a massive Russian national ABM system in his authoritative work, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion. Many of Lee's assertions are corroborated by the leftwing Center for Defense Information's Russian Federation Nuclear Arsenal website, which states that the Russians built 10,000 SA-10 (S-300 series) ABMs with a limited capability to shoot down strategic missiles and warheads. Mr. Lee says that the Russians have a total of 8500 of these missiles deployed to defend their country today all of which are linked together via a battlefield management system in Moscow and phased array radars deployed throughout Russia. The CDI website also states that the Russians deployed 1750 nuclear armed S-300 SAM/ABMs variants, which Mr. Lee identifies as being equipped with neutron warheads.
Following full implementation of planned Bush nuclear disarmament measures mandated by the new treaty, these dual purpose SAM/ABMs could presumably shoot down whatever part of our strategic nuclear deterrent would survive a hypothetical Russian nuclear first strike, effectively depriving the US of its ability to deter a Russian nuclear attack. Mr. Lee has stated that the Russian overall offensive nuclear and strategic defensive advantage over the US actually multiplies even if both the US and Russian offensive nuclear arsenals were to be downsized. This is because the reductions in US warheads mandated by the treaty would greatly reduce the number of target warheads that Russian ABMs would need to shoot down in the event of nuclear war between the US and Russia. Mr. Lee's writings confirm that the Bush Administration's planned dismantlement of the bulk of the US nuclear deterrent would leave the US dangerously vulnerable to such a disabling Russian nuclear first strike. Russian inclusion in joint development of the new US missile defense system will only serve to create a further potential vulnerability for the US. ***
© 2002 David T. Pyne, Esq.
David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who works as an International Programs Manager in the Department of the Army responsible for the countries of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East among others. He is also a licensed attorney and former Army Reserve Officer. In addition, he holds a MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. Mr. Pyne currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Virginia Republican Assembly. He is also a member of the Center for Emerging National Security Affairs based in Washington, D.C.
COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.
Home | About Us | Archives | Forums | Links | Resources | Submissions | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer