Clinton leaves defense decision to successor

KaMaKaZe

New member
"The 1972 treaty prohibits a national defense against ballistic missiles, and the administration has tried unsuccessfully to persuade Moscow to amend the treaty to allow a limited defensive system."

Would Moscow be so kind as to explain how they have abided by this treaty as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Clinton leaves defense decision to successor

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (September 1, 2000 8:52 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - President Clinton has decided to leave the tough decision on beginning deployment of a national defense against ballistic missile attack to his successor, two senior administration officials said.

The president planned to announce his decision in a speech Friday at Georgetown University.

Work on the project, known as national missile defense, will go forward with additional testing of a "kill vehicle" to destroy warheads in flight and development of other key components, including a new booster rocket.

In the face of strong objections from Russia and reservations among many Democrats in Congress, Clinton chose not to authorize the Pentagon to award contracts to begin building a new high-powered radar in the Aleutian Islands, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

The radar is an essential element of the missile defense system because it would track incoming warheads.

Awarding the contracts this fall would have allowed the radar construction to begin next spring - a timetable that, on paper at least, would have kept the missile defense project on track to completion by 2005.

By putting off the initial step, Clinton in effect has pushed back the 2005 target date by at least one year.

Other details of Clinton's decision were not immediately available, including whether the 2005 target date has been reset for 2006 or 2007.

Clinton had said he would consider four main factors in deciding whether to proceed with the deployment process now: technical feasibility, cost, the urgency of a missile threat against the United States and the impact on arms control of proceeding with missile defense.

The proposed national missile defense, projected to cost about $60 billion, is designed to protect all 50 states against attack by a limited number of long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea or the Middle East. It is a scaled-down version of the global missile defense pursued during the Reagan administration that came to be known as Star Wars for its focus space-based lasers and other exotic weaponry.

In weighing his decision, Clinton faced conflicting pressures. Republicans in Congress have pushed hard for years for a national missile defense, and last year they gained passage of a law requiring the Pentagon to deploy such a system as soon as "technologically feasible." The anti-missile testing program, however, has suffered numerous technological setbacks, including a failed flight test in July.

Clinton based his decision on recommendations from Defense Secretary William Cohen, who is perhaps the administration's strongest proponent of national missile defense, as well as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the president's national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

Cohen has not publicly discussed his recommendation, but he had indicated recently that he saw reason to consider whether going forward now might put undue pressure on Clinton's successor to affirm or reverse the decision.

Putting off the start of construction of the X-band radar on Shemya Island in the Aleutians gives the Clinton administration and its successor more time to negotiate a deal on the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. The 1972 treaty prohibits a national defense against ballistic missiles, and the administration has tried unsuccessfully to persuade Moscow to amend the treaty to allow a limited defensive system.
[/quote]

The story can be found HERE.

------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!

oberkommando sez:
"We lost the first and third and now they are after the Second!(no pun intended)"

As seen in Atlanta's AJC, The Vent: "Hey, where do you sign up for one of Mr. Gore's new giveaway programs?"
 
The U.S. has had little success with destroying incoming IRBM/ICBMs. Both
China and Russia have indicated they would stop destroying such missiles and/or
begin increasing their inventory of such missiles if we begin to build an ABM
defense system.

Therefore, if we begin an ABM defense system which can NOT perform effectively
we will be in a worse position that we are now.

Waiting until we have a system that works, then building it quickly, may well be the
bright thing to do.
-----

Do you have ANY idea how it hurts me so imply our current President may have
done something right? (Whimper!)
 
Back
Top