News

DATE=03/27/99 TYPE=ON THE LINE NUMBER=1-00725 TITLE=THE MOVE TOWARD MISSILE DEFENSE EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037 CONTENT= THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE ANNCR: ON THE LINE -- A DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES POLICIES AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES. THIS WEEK, "THE MOVE TOWARD MISSILE DEFENSE." HERE IS YOUR HOST, ROBERT REILLY. HOST: HELLO AND WELCOME TO ON THE LINE. THIS MONTH, THE U.S. CONGRESS VOTED TO DEPLOY A MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM AS SOON AS IT IS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE TO DO SO. THE VOTE CAME SIXTEEN YEARS AFTER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN FIRST ANNOUNCED THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE, OR S-D-I. S-D-I WAS A CONTROVERSIAL EFFORT TO DEFEND THE U.S. AGAINST POSSIBLE SOVIET MISSILE ATTACK. THE NEW PROGRAM IS MORE MODEST IN ITS AIMS. AS PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON EXPLAINED, "WE ARE COMMITTED TO MEETING THE GROWING DANGER THAT OUTLAW NATIONS WILL DEVELOP AND DEPLOY LONG-RANGE MISSILES THAT COULD DELIVER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AGAINST US." JOINING ME TODAY TO DISCUSS THE U.S. MOVE TOWARD MISSILE DEFENSE ARE THREE EXPERTS. GARY MILHOLLIN IS DIRECTOR OF THE WISCONSIN PROJECT ON NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL. HANK COOPER IS CHAIRMAN OF HIGH FRONTIER, AN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION PROMOTING MISSILE DEFENSE. HE IS FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE ORGANIZATION AT THE U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. AND SPURGEON KEENY IS PRESIDENT OF THE ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION AND FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY. GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM. HOST: GARY MILHOLLIN, WHY IT SEEMS ALL OF A SUDDEN, AFTER SIXTEEN YEARS AND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CONTROVERSY OVER MISSILE DEFENSE, DO BOTH HOUSES OF THE U-S CONGRESS OVERWHELMINGLY VOTE TO DEPLOY A MISSILE DEFENSE? WHY HAS THAT HAPPENED? MILHOLLIN: FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. FIRST, NORTH KOREA IS CLEARLY ON ITS WAY. IT FIRED A THREE-STAGE MISSILE OVER JAPAN THAT REALLY GOT EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION. SECOND, I THINK THERE'S A FEELING THAT OUR RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA ARE UNCERTAIN AND THAT THE RUSSIAN INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH CONTROLS ITS MISSILES IS DETERIORATING. AND SO THE THREAT OF AN ACCIDENTAL LAUNCH FROM RUSSIA IS GOING UP. AND SO THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY MOTIVATING FACTORS. AS FAR AS ROGUE NATIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS HARD TO SEE ANOTHER CASE, OTHER THAN NORTH KOREA, WHERE A SO-CALLED ROGUE NATION COULD POSSIBLY DEPLOY A LONG-RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILE THAT WOULD HIT THE UNITED STATES. HOST: IRAN? MILHOLLIN: IRAN COULD, BUT NOT ANY TIME SOON. AND I THINK ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE THEORY IS THAT IT DOESN'T PROTECT AGAINST CRUISE MISSILES, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST LIKELY AVENUE THAT A LOT OF COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO TAKE. HOST: LET ME ASK HANK COOPER, WITH ALL THE WORK OVER THE YEARS YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS, WHY NOW IS THERE, AS GARY MILHOLLIN SAID, A GROWING AWARENESS OF A NEW THREAT? COOPER: I AGREE WITH MOST OF GARY'S ASSESSMENT. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT [FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY] DON RUMSFELD LED A COMMISSION THAT WENT SO FAR AS TO SAY THERE WERE A NUMBER OF NATIONS THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS COULD THREATEN THE UNITED STATES. AND THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE CLOCK STARTS. I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH HELD A CLOSED SESSION THE SAME DAY AS THE VOTE TO HEAR THE RUMSFELD COMMISSIONERS REPORT IN CLASSIFIED FORM ON ALL THE WORK THAT THEY HAD DONE. I THINK THEY WOULD INCLUDE IRAN AMONG THE NUMBERS. THEY WOULD ALSO INCLUDE EVEN IRAQ SINCE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE CONTINUING INSPECTIONS GOING ON THERE. AND I AGREE WITH GARY THAT WE NEED DEFENSES AGAINST CRUISE MISSILES. THERE'S JUST NO INHIBITIONS ABOUT BUILDING DEFENSES AGAINST CRUISE MISSILES AND WE SPEND A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THAT AREA, IN THE AREA OF AIR DEFENSE. BUT THERE ARE POLITICAL BLOCKS TO DEFENDING THE UNITED STATES AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILES, THE A-B-M TREATY. HOST: SPURGEON KEENY, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION? KEENY: WELL, I THINK I DIFFER WITH BOTH OF THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE THREAT FROM SO-CALLED ROGUE STATES IS VASTLY EXAGGERATED. THE RUMSFELD REPORT WAS A WORST, WORST CASE ASSESSMENT AND MAKES THE IMPLIED ASSUMPTION THAT, WHEN SOME COUNTRY POSSIBLY GETS A WEAPON THAT COULD REACH THE UNITED STATES, THERE WAS ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANCE IT COULD BE USED OR EVEN THREATENED TO BE USED, BECAUSE THEY WOULD CERTAINLY BE DETERRED BY THE CONSEQUENCES TO THAT COUNTRY. NOW, AS TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION, I THINK, AS SENATOR [JOSEPH] BIDEN SAID, IT IS SOMETHING OF POLITICAL THEATER. AND ESSENTIALLY THE LEGISLATION KICKS THE PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE THE SENATE LEGISLATION SAID, YES, IT'S THE POLICY TO DEPLOY AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE OF THE FIFTY STATES AS SOON AS IT IS TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE. BUT IT ALSO SAID THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE REDUCTIONS IN THE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ARSENAL. AND THESE ARE PROBABLY INCOMPATIBLE PROPOSITIONS. SO IT WILL BE UP TO THIS PRESIDENT OR FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO SORT THIS OUT INTO AN ACTUAL DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO DEPLOY. HOST: THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT AND I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT. RUSSIA, THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY, REACTED TO THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT BY SAYING THEY THINK IT POSES, AND I'M QUOTING THEM, A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE WHOLE PROCESS OF ARMS CONTROL AS WELL AS STRATEGIC STABILITY, UNQUOTE. AND OF COURSE CHINA HAS ALSO OBJECTED TO THE POTENTIAL OF THE U.S. DEPLOYING MISSILE DEFENSE. HOW DOES THIS ACT AFFECT ARMS CONTROL AND THE STATUS OF THE A-B-M TREATY? MILHOLLIN: WELL, I THINK IN THE CASE OF RUSSIA IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THE KIND OF SYSTEM THAT WE COULD CONCEIVABLY BUILD WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING RUSSIA FROM DETERRING US FROM AN ATTACK ON RUSSIA. RUSSIA'S MISSILES ARE NUMEROUS ENOUGH TO GET THROUGH ANY DEFENSE WE COULD CONCEIVABLY BUILD. SO I DON'T THINK THE RUSSIANS COULD CREDIBLY CLAIM TO BE THREATENED. THE CHINESE HAVE A MUCH SMALLER FORCE, AND THE CHINESE MAY AT SOME POINT DECIDE TO USE MISSILE THREATS AGAINST JAPAN AND AGAINST TAIWAN, AS THEY'VE ALREADY DONE. IN THAT CASE, IF WE PERFECT A MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE EXPORTED TO THOSE COUNTRIES, THEN THE CHINESE MAY FACE A DIMINUTION IN THEIR ABILITY TO PROTECT THEIR FORCES. AND SO I THINK CHINA HAS MORE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT THAN RUSSIA. HOST: ALL RIGHT, HANK COOPER? COOPER: I THINK THIS IS A B-RATED RE-RUN. AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, I SPENT FIVE YEARS IN GENEVA NEGOTIATING WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND THE LINE WAS PRECISELY THIS: AFTER THE S-D-I WAS INTRODUCED, THAT IT WOULD DESTROY ARMS CONTROL, THAT IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE TO NEGOTIATE REDUCTIONS AS LONG AS THERE WAS A SERIOUS S-D-I PROGRAM, ETC, ETC. AND AS YOU KNOW, DURING THAT PERIOD WE NEGOTIATED THE I-N-F [INTERMEDIATE-RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES] TREATY. AND WE NEGOTIATED START-1 WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRAINTS ON OUR ABILITY TO CONDUCT RESEARCH, EVEN MORE DRAMATIC RESEARCH THAN, I MIGHT SAY, WHAT IS GOING ON TODAY, INCLUDING ON THE WIDE VARIETY OF SPACE SYSTEMS. MOST NOTABLY, I WOULD NOTE THAT BORIS YELTSIN IN JANUARY OF 1992 MADE THE PROPOSAL THAT BECAME START-2 AND IN THE SAME SPEECH MADE AT THE UNITED NATIONS, HE PROPOSED THAT WE WORK TOGETHER ON A GLOBAL DEFENSE TO PROTECT THE WORLD COMMUNITY. SO THE LEADER OF RUSSIA, AT THAT TIME AT LEAST, SAID THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY WITH NEGOTIATIONS ON FURTHER REDUCTIONS AND ALSO ON BUILDING DEFENSES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS PROPOSAL. I THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE GREAT STRATEGIC FAILINGS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THAT WE DIDN'T LOCK THAT INTO A FORMAL AGREEMENT. HOST: SPURGEON KEENY, YOU RAISED THE PROBLEM. . . . KEENY: WELL, THE RUSSIANS CERTAINLY PERCEIVE IT AS A PROBLEM. AND IN FACT THEIR LEGISLATION TO GO AHEAD WITH RATIFICATION OF START-2 HAS A SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT THE U-S REJECTION, REPUDIATION OF THE A-B-M TREATY OR CIRCUMVENTION OF IT, WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR THEIR WITHDRAWING FROM THE TREATY AND THEY HAVE REITERATED THIS AT ALL LEVELS. SO I THINK THEY SEE THIS AS THE BASE FOR MOVING TOWARDS A DEFENSE THAT WOULD THREATEN THEM, PARTICULARLY IF YOU NEGOTIATE SUBSTANTIAL FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN THEIR NUCLEAR ARSENAL. HOST: BUT, AS GARY MILHOLLIN SAYS, THIS SYSTEM COULDN'T POSSIBLY POTENTIALLY THREATEN THE RUSSIANS, SO WHY WOULD THEY REACT THIS WAY? KEENY: WELL, THEY CAN SEE THE SYSTEM, IF IT REALLY WAS WORKABLE, AND DEPLOYED, YOU WOULD SIMPLY ADD MORE MISSILES, MORE SITES. IF YOU ADD TO THAT THE NAVY'S WIDE-AREA THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE -- WHERE NAVY ADVOCATES ARE ADVERTISING THAT IT WOULD MAKE AN EXCELLENT NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE AND COULD BE DEPLOYED FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE EAST AND WEST COAST -- YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE EYES OF PARANOID COUNTRIES, THAT ARE SUFFERING CONSIDERABLE ECONOMIC DISTRESS, THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE AN OPENING GUN IN AN EFFORT OF THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE A TRUE DEFENSE AT THEIR EXPENSE, AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE'S. SO THEY SEE IT AS BEING FUNDAMENTAL IN THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT ONLY THE IMMEDIATE START PROPOSALS, BUT THE LONGER RANGE FURTHER REDUCTIONS. HOST: ANY REACTIONS, HANK COOPER? COOPER: I THINK THAT'S REALLY MUCH OVERSTATED. AND I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT JUST THE NAVY THAT'S A PROPONENT OF THE SEA-BASED OPTION. THAT WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON MY WATCH AT S-D-I -- THAT THE NAVY BECAME INTERESTED IN THIS SUBJECT AFTER I DID A REVIEW IN 1990 THAT SAID, LOOK AT THE GLOBE, AND YOU SEE THAT MOST OF IT IS WATER AND THAT SHIPS CAN BE BETWEEN ANY THREATENING PARTY, THIRD WORLD, WHEREEVER ELSE, AND THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL AS MANY OF OUR ALLIES AND FRIENDS AROUND THE WORLD. AND IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO BE SURE THAT THE SHIPS WE ALREADY HAVE DEPLOYED, SOME FIFTY-FIVE CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS, WITH THE SAME LAUNCH TUBES THAT ARE USED TO LAUNCH A TOMAHAWK MISSILE, COULD ALSO USE THOSE LAUNCH TUBES TO LAUNCH DEFENSIVE INTERCEPTORS AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILES TO DEFEND THE FLEET AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK, TO DEFEND FRIENDS AND ALLIES, AND ALSO TO DEFEND AMERICANS. THE FRIENDS AND ALLIES PART IS OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT NAVY THEATER-WIDE IS ALL ABOUT. THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO FULLY ENABLE THE SYSTEM WOULD ALSO PERMIT FORWARD-BASED SENSORS AS A PART OF THE ARCHITECTURE. AND THAT WOULD ENABLE THE SAME DEFENSE TO DEFEND AMERICA. THE SHIPS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN COULD INTERCEPT MISSILES OUT OF NORTH AFRICA, LIBYA, FOR EXAMPLE, GOING OVER THE POLE. AND THE SEA OF JAPAN COULD INTERCEPT MISSILES OUT OF NORTH KOREA, WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO TOKYO OR THE UNITED STATES. BUT IF WE DO NOT PERMIT IT FULLY TO BE ENABLED, THEN IT WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE FAR ENOUGH TO INTERCEPT THE MISSILES HEADED TO THE UNITED STATES. AND SO, IN EFFECT, WE ARE DUMBING-DOWN THOSE VERY DEFENSES THAT WE WOULD USE TO DEFEND JAPAN IN ORDER TO NOT LET THEM DEFEND THE UNITED STATES. AND WE BELIEVE THAT'S WRONG. HOST: YOU MEAN IF IT'S BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE A-B-M TREATY, IT WILL BE. BUT WILL IT BE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE A-B-M TREATY? GARY MILHOLLIN? MILHOLLIN: I THINK ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS, JUDGING FROM EVERYTHING WE'VE SEEN SO FAR, IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THIS SYSTEM WILL NEVER WORK, THAT IS, IT WILL NEVER WORK TO DEFEND AMERICAN CITIES AGAINST ANY KIND OF A STRONG MISSILE THREAT, WHETHER IT BE BALLISTIC OR CRUISE MISSILE THREAT. IT MAY BE ABLE TO KNOCK DOWN A FEW ACCIDENTALLY LAUNCHED MISSILES, BUT I CAN'T SEE A TIME WHEN AMERICANS COULD SAY WE ARE NOW PROTECTED AGAINST A NUCLEAR ATTACK BY MISSILE BY THIS SYSTEM. HOST: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT ISN'T THE POINT, EVEN WITH A PARTIAL DEFENSE, THAT YOU INTRODUCE AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY ON THE PART OF YOUR POTENTIAL ENEMY WHO CAN NO LONGER COUNT ON THAT MISSILE HITTING ITS TARGET. AND THEREFORE THEIR THREAT, WHICH THEY WOULD TRY TO TRANSLATE INTO SOME POLITICAL POWER, HAS LESS CREDIBILITY. MILHOLLIN: THAT'S RIGHT. THE MEANS EXIST NOW ALREADY TO BUILD EITHER BALLISTIC OR CRUISE MISSILE SYSTEMS THAT WILL COMPLETELY DEFEAT THIS DEFENSE. AND IF THE DEFENSE GOES INTO EFFECT, IT IS QUITE PROBABLE THAT THOSE SYSTEMS WILL BE BUILT. AND SO WE ARE, IN FACT, STARTING A NEW ARMS RACE. WE'RE SORT OF PUSHING THE ARMS RACE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. HOST: ALL RIGHT, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL GET REACTIONS. WOULDN'T ONE EFFECT OF A MISSILE DEFENSE, EVEN A PARTIAL MISSILE DEFENSE, BE TO REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR ROGUE REGIMES TO SPEND WHAT FEW RESOURCES THEY HAVE ON CONSTRUCTING INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES, OR BUYING THEM, BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE EFFECTIVE. MILHOLLIN: I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL REASON WHY REGIMES WON'T DO THAT. HOST: SO, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD EFFECT OF BUILDING A MISSILE DEFENSE. MILHOLLIN: IT WOULD BE IF THOSE REGIMES PLAN TO DO THAT ANYWAY. I THINK IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THOSE REGIMES WILL GO THE CRUISE MISSILE ROUTE, BECAUSE TO BUILD AN I-C-B-M [INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE] THAT HITS THE UNITED STATES, YOU HAVE TO TEST IT ACROSS THE WORLD. YOU HAVE TO FIRE IT ACROSS OCEANS AT REMOTE TARGETS AND EVERYBODY WATCHES YOU DO THAT. AND AS SOON AS THAT HAPPENS, EVERYBODY IS DOWN YOUR NECK. YOU CAN DEVELOP A SEA-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE SYSTEM WITHOUT THAT DISADVANTAGE. HOST: OR A SUITCASE BOMB. THIS IS THE ARGUMENT THAT IT WON'T WORK. BUT PLEASE, MR. KEENY? KEENY: WITH REGARD TO THE TREATY, YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY BUILD A SYSTEM WITHIN THE EXISTING A-B-M TREATY, BUT I DON'T THINK ITS GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE ONE THAT WILL DEFEND ALL FIFTY STATES AND EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF AMERICAN TERRITORY. I THINK THAT'S A RIDICULOUS REQUIREMENT, BUT THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT. AND SO TO TRY TO MEET THAT OBJECTIVE AND THE LEGISLATION SAYS IT'S TO BE AN EFFECTIVE SYSTEM, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS. IT'S HARD TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE ARCHITECTURE DOESN'T EXIST. YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. BUT GOING BY THE WHOLE THRUST OF THE PROGRAM, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY EVERY OPERATIONAL ARTICLE IN THE A-B-M TREATY. THIS YOU CAN SAY, SO YOU DO IT. BUT THE POINT IS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY MAJOR UNDERTAKING AND IT'S GOING TO RESISTED STRONGLY BY THE RUSSIANS. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK ITS CREDIBLE TO TALK ABOUT A JOINT OR AN INTERNATIONAL A-B-M SYSTEM AT THIS STATE IN THE WORLD. IT'S JUST NOT A PRACTICAL PROBLEM. HOST: OF COURSE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, SENATOR [JESSE] HELMS, HAS ALREADY STATED THAT, AS FAR AS HE CAN TELL, AND HE'S OPERATING UNDER THIS UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE OF THE DEMISE OF THE SOVIET UNION IN 1991, THERE IS NO A-B-M TREATY. KEENY: WELL, THAT'S AN ABSURD PROPOSITION. IT'S THE EXECUTIVES THAT DECIDE ON THE CONTINUITY OF A TREATY; IT'S NOT THE CONGRESS. AND TREATIES ALWAYS OVERLAP DIFFERENT REGIMES. IT'S SUGGESTING THAT RUSSIA IS NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND A LONG LIST OF OTHER OBLIGATIONS. THERE'S NO WAY THE CONGRESS CAN ENFORCE THAT. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL RULE, AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST, THAT IT'S A POLITICAL ISSUE THAT THEY CANNOT RESOLVE. HOST: OKAY, HANK COOPER? COOPER: WE'LL SEE ABOUT THAT, HOW THE SUPREME COURT RULES OR WHATEVER. I WOULD JUST NOTE THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER RUSSIA IS PART OF THE U-N, OR LATVIA OR LITHUANIA OR A HOST OF OTHER NATIONS ARE PART OF THE U-N. IT'S AN ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS BECAUSE THE A-B-M TREATY DEALT WITH THE ENTIRE COMPLEMENT OF THOSE FIFTEEN NATIONS AND THE NAME OF THE GAME IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS BASICALLY TO REWRITE A TREATY LEAVING A BUNCH OF THEM OUT AND SPECIFYING IN EFFECT ONLY FOUR AS THE PARTNERS, OUR PARTNERS IN THE TREATY. AND THEY ARE SEEKING TO DO THIS UNILATERALLY, WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE U-S SENATE. AND THAT'S THE BASIS OF SENATOR HELMS' OBJECTION. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION BUT WHAT IF THE AGREEMENTS THAT, IF THERE WERE A TREATY, WOULD BE AMENDMENTS TO THE TREATY, WERE SENT TO THE SENATE -- THESE WERE NEGOTIATED NOW A YEAR AND A HALF AGO -- THAT THE SENATE WOULD NOT SUPPORT RATIFICATION OF THOSE AGREEMENTS. AND AT THAT POINT SURELY THE A-B-M TREATY WOULD BE NULL AND VOID. KEENY: IF THE SENATE IN THEIR WISDOM REJECTS THOSE AMENDMENTS, AND THEY MAY, THEN YOU REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL TREATY. IT JUST MEANS THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PART OF IT. AND THIS IS NOT A CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ARRANGEMENT. THIS WAS UNDERTAKEN BY [FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE] BUSH AND [FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES] BAKER WITH THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION INTO RUSSIA. AND IT WAS THE ENGAGEMENT OF UKRAINE, KAZAKHSTAN AND BELARUS WAS PUSHED BY THEM. AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT RUSSIA HAD THE OBLIGATIONS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY SIGNED AND THEY WERE ENGAGED IN IT. ONE, BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS GENUINE STATES. TWO, IT WAS PART OF THE DEAL WHEREBY THEY GAVE UP THEIR NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. HOST: IN OUR LAST MOMENT HERE, HANK COOPER, MAYBE THE WHOLE QUESTION IS OBVIATED BY THE FACT THAT GARY MILHOLLIN IS RIGHT. IT WON'T WORK. COOPER: WELL, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. THIS IS A POINT WE DISAGREE ON. WELL, THE PROOF OF PRINCIPLE IS NOW SOME FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, AND IT'S BEEN DEMONSTRATED MULTIPLE TIMES. THE ISSUE IS ONE OF ENGINEERING, DISCIPLINE AND MANAGEMENT TO BUILD SYSTEMS THAT IN FACT CAN DEFEAT THE BALLISTIC MISSILE. HOST: AN UPGRADED PATRIOT RECENTLY KNOCKED OUT A DUMMY WARHEAD. COOPER: I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE WHAT THAT MEANS. THAT'S A FAIRLY SHORT-RANGE DEFENSE THAT WOULD BE USEFUL -- CERTAINLY FAR BETTER THAN THE PATRIOT IN THE GULF WAR -- BUT WOULD NOT NOT BE VERY EFFECTIVE AGAINST LONG-RANGE MISSILES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. MILLHOLLIN: AND THE THEATER DEFENSES HAVE NOT WORKED, YOU WOULD CONCEDE THAT? COOPER: NO, I WOULDN'T CONCEDE THAT. I THINK LOCKHEED-MARTIN AND A LOT OF OUR INDUSTRY HAS LET US DOWN. AND I MEANT WHAT I SAID A MOMENT AGO ABOUT A LACK OF ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE AND MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE. IF YOU GO AND YOU CHECK WHAT FAILED, IN MOST CASES IT WAS TWENTY-FIVE TO THIRTY-YEAR-OLD TECHNOLOGY THAT FAILED IN THE VARIOUS EXPERIMENTS -- HAD BEEN DONE PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE INTERCEPTOR GOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO COMPLETE THE HIT TO KILL, YOU KNOW, IN THE BASKET. HOST: WE'RE OUT OF TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR JUST VERY BRIEFLY FROM EACH ONE OF YOU, WITH THIS BIG POLITICAL CHANGE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? WILL THE UNITED STATES DEPLOY A MISSILE DEFENSE ? GARY MILHOLLIN? MILHOLLIN: NOT UNLESS WE CAN BUILD ONE THAT WORKS. HOST: OKAY, HANK COOPER? COOPER: BECAUSE WE CAN BUILD ONE THAT WORKS, IT WILL HAPPEN. HOST: PLEASE, MR. KEENY? KEENY NOT IN THIS ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE CLINTON WILL BE IN NO POSITION TO MAKE A RATIONAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE NONE OF THE COMPONENTS NOR THE SYSTEM WILL BE ABLE TO BE TESTED BEFORE MID-YEAR 2000. HOST: I'M AFRAID THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE THIS WEEK. I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR GUESTS -- GARY MILHOLLIN FROM THE WISCONSIN PROJECT ON NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL; HANK COOPER FROM HIGH FRONTIER; AND SPURGEON KEENY FROM THE ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION -- FOR JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THE U.S. MOVE TOWARD MISSILE DEFENSE. THIS IS ROBERT REILLY FOR ON THE LINE. 26-Mar-99 11:37 AM EST (1637 UTC) NNNN Source: Voice of America .