World Tribune.com


Space Defense: The Sequel


See the John Metzler archive

By John Metzler
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

June 7, 2000

UNITED NATIONS -- Americans love movie remakes. Witness the hype over Star Wars II or Mission Impossible II or the host of forgettable Rocky movies. So too in defense matters; we seem to be set on revisiting the taut political-defense drama of the 1980's with a revived Space Defense techno-thriller on how can America be defended from incoming ballistic missiles?

President Bill Clinton's Moscow meeting with the new Kremlin Chief Vladmir Putin was a seemingly stillborn attempt to sell the Russians on amending the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) as well as to build upon the later arms control successes of Ronald Reagan. Clinton came off empty-handed. The canny KGB pedigree Putin is too smart to give in to a lame-duck and furthermore knows that Clinton's plan probably has the conviction of a political shill. The Russians seek more lucrative strategic and economic quid pro quo before agreeing to anything.

While its politically correct to chastise the rogue states such as North Korea or Iran, there's an absurd decorum in not citing communist China. Naturally too the mighty Russian nuclear arsenal which Clinton assured us for a number of years is "no longer aimed at America's children," remains potent albeit it under new management.

The original script for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) dubbed Star Wars by its many smirking detractors, including I'm certain the majority of harlequin "hawks" in the current Administration, would have established a space based defense shield against a Soviet missile attack. A flawless program, certainly not, but when Moscow tried to counter it triggered the Kremlin's massive military spending coronary happily quickening the demise of the Soviet Union.

Thus SDI even in its embryonic stages caused the Soviets psychological uncertainty over the effectiveness of their strategic rocket forces not to mention an economic inability to keep pace with advanced U.S. defense technology.

Years later, we realize that rogue states notably communist North Korea, Islamic Iran and loony Libya have the capability to do some very nasty things to us on a one shot basis. So too does the People's Republic of China whose missile capacity has been qualitatively enhanced throughout massive espionage and legal technology transfer from the USA on Bill Clinton's watch.

Our European allies, notably Germany's Socialist Gerhard Schroeder government are skeptical over an U.S. defense program which also offers them a missile shield. Gone are the days when Chancellors of stature such as Helmut Schmidt or Helmut Kohl (of opposite political parties but a single strategic vision) would look beyond politics de jour.

Yet most Euros are not thrilled over the plan as they fear -- with some reason -- that the measure may be the impetus for a new arms race. Others see a defense decoupling of the U.S. with Western Europe. Washington presses for a land-based limited missile defense by 2005, the probable danger date for North Korea's ability to attack the continental USA.

Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger writing in Forbes Magazine asserts, "Meanwhile the U.S. remains undefended and vulnerable while Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea continue to develop or add to their existing arsenals of lethal weapons which we blithely assume will never be used against us."

Naturally there's the bigger question--would the National Missile Defense program actually work? Clinton cut research funding in 1993. Beyond pro and con arguments, it's a truism to assert that the current state of computer and military electronics have progressed in quantum leaps and bounds since the early 1980's when Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger rather quixotically defended the SDI plan before a skeptical Congress.

President Clinton wants to give a go ahead on some sort of missile shield on his watch -- is it the oft-cited "legacy thing," or a more calculated short term election maneuver which has more to do with shielding Al Gore's vulnerable defense flank in November 2000?

John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.

June 7, 2000


Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com

Return toWorld Tribune.com front page
Read today's Back Page