Our representatives in Washington may finally summon the courage to withdraw from the obsolete Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and renounce the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.
In June the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would have endorsed continued adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The amendment's defeat could foreshadow an end to the insane policy of Mutual Assured Destruction, which many people call the MAD doctrine. This vote of 221 Republicans and 21 Democrats "suggests that there is, at long last, a growing -- and bipartisan -- appreciation that America's present vulnerability to ballistic missile attack is as reckless as it is absurd," says Frank Gaffney Jr., director of the Center for Security Policy. "The tally also admirably reflected the House leadership's determination to correct this grievous deficiency."
During an appearance on the Sunday morning TV show, "This Week with David Brinkley," a few days before the vote, House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued that the United States should "proceed with defending itself against ballistic missiles from countries like Iran, North Korea or Syria or Libya." Noting that an anti-ballistic missile system could be functional "within two or three years . . . for a very low cost," Gingrich declared his strong support for "setting aside the ABM Treaty" so that the United States can defend itself.
Some said that this House vote was "tantamount to a repudiation of the ABM Treaty." That's an exaggeration, but, according to Frank Gaffney, it's a good start. It shows that advocating abrogation of the ABM treaty is "no longer politically taboo." Gaffney predicts that "the new taboo will be the idea of perpetuating the American people's vulnerability to ballistic missile attack."
Frank Gaffney explains the vote like this: "First, the public is largely unaware that it is unprotected against missile strikes," or that the ABM Treaty requires that our country remain defenseless. "When acquainted with that reality, [Americans] overwhelmingly favor putting [U.S.] defenses into place," Gaffney observes. "Second, notice was served on those legislators who persist in voting against providing such protection [that they] will be held responsible for voting to perpetuate U.S. vulnerability."
The diehard supporters of the obsolete ABM Treaty were reduced to denying the threat of ballistic missile attacks from rogue nations, or insisting that maintaining a treaty with Russia is somehow more important than protecting ourselves against attacks from other quarters. Such arguments are clearly untenable. "The truth of the matter, of course, is that there is a growing threat -- both from indigenously developed [missile] systems and from those that can be bought on the world market," says Gaffney, noting that there are roughly 25 countries currently "working to acquire ballistic missiles and the chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons they might carry." The old model of two superpowers facing each other no longer reflects the world we live in. The 1972 ABM Treaty cannot protect us from rogue nations that commit terrorist acts and now have the capability of nuclear mischief.
