International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Bulletin 19 - Missile Defense and North-East Asia

US BMD Plans After September 11 Attacks

Zhu Mingquan

Contrary to expectations by many people that it would distract attention and divert resources of the US from and slowdown the pace of the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) plans, on the whole, the terrorist attacks against New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001 has strengthened the impetus of the Bush administration's pursuit of BMD systems. While there is sometimes a subtle mitigation in the language used or in the posture adopted by BMD promoters in the US Administration and in Congress, they are virtually as active as before in advancing BMD in the context of anti-terrorism.

Different lessons learnt by different people

Right after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the debate over BMD was intensified for a while in the United States. Both opponents and supporters got their lessons from this tragedy.

Some Democrats cited the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as evidence that low-tech terrorism is the gravest threat to current American security and that missile defense is irrelevant to the threat. Also, they made use of this incident to criticize the Bush administration for focusing on the wrong threat. Representative John Tierney (Mass.) said, "I am hoping that it focuses people on what we've been saying all along." He stressed that incidents like the attacks were "much higher on the list of threats than anything the President would address with his national missile defense program." Mr. Levin (Mich.) pointed out that, while the attacks raised questions about the relevance of a missile shield, he and his Senate colleagues would try to work out disagreements or to defer any decision that would indicate dissent.^[1] Senator Dianne Feinstein (Cali.) stated that "I think we probably will not argue about it now. But eventually there will come a realization that these planes were missiles a defense shield could not defend against." Senator Kent Conrad (ND), chairman of the Budget Committee, alleged that "what we see here is that we are much more vulnerable" to terrorism than to missiles and "we've got to use our resources to defend against this sort of attack."^[2]

The hawkish Republicans draw different lessons from the September 11 terrorist attack. They countered that, if anything, the assaults only underscored the vulnerability of American cities to foreign attack and the need to protect them by all available means, including defenses against limited missile attacks by states such as North Korea or Iran. Also, they held that the investment in BMD system would not conflict with anti-terrorist needs. "I believe the American people are going to be roused out of an unwarranted sense of security to reflect upon their vulnerability," said Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy. "And there is no more egregious example of our vulnerability than our complete inability to stop even a single ballistic missile."^[3] Senator Chuck Hagel, (Nebr.) said, "What Tuesday showed is that attacks can come in many different forms." Senator Thad Cochran (Miss.) emphasized that "we can't predict what our enemies are going to use as a way to intimidate or harm us or our country. We can't just single out one or two things to work on."^[4]

There were some people between the two viewpoints, too. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D/Conn. ) was an example. According to him, the lesson from the attacks cuts both ways when it comes to missile defense. "It certainly shows we're vulnerable to more than missile attack," he said, but it also illustrated that "we 're vulnerable to missiles, too."^[5] Senator Arlen Specter, (Penn.) declared that "we have enough to do both."^[6] At the White House, Ari Fleischer, the Press Secretary, insisted that there was no question of balancing terrorist and missile threats. He said: "The two are not connected. The United States still faces risks of many natures. This was a terrorist risk that was carried out in a different form of delivery, within our borders. But that does not mean there are not other threats out there that also need to be addressed, per missile defense."^[7]

BMD: still a priority for the Bush Administration

As shown by the above analysis, even though the opponents of US BMD plans come to the conclusion from the September 11 attacks that the biggest threat to the nation was from terrorism, as opposed to a missile attack by a rogue state, its supporters still adhere to the idea of missile defense as stubbornly as before. There is another factor, moreover, that has strengthened their hands in promoting the BMD program: when the country was targeted by and is fighting against terrorism, both Congress and public are reluctant to oppose the President. At times like this, the need to rally the whole nation behind the President seems to overwhelm other consideration. Therefore, in the wake of attacks, BMD is still a priority in the agenda of the Bush administration.

Even early on September 17, nearly a week after the attacks, a senior US official confirmed that the Administration was prepared to inform Russia of Washington's readiness to press ahead with a unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 AntiBallistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to build a missile defense system. In response to questions about whether President Bush would still make missile defense a priority after the terrorist air attacks in the United States, this official said on conditions of anonymity that the Administration plans to tell Russia that "the likelihood of unilateral withdrawal has increased" as a result of the attacks. "Missile defense will not fade as a priority of the Administration," he continued, "these incidents prove that there are people in the world for whom the concept of deterrence doesn't mean a thing." He also added, "This was high-tech terrorism; these people had jet plane pilots. And if these people had access to ballistic missiles, do you think they wouldn't have used them?"^[8]

Under Secretary of State Bolton said to a press conference in Moscow on September 17 that the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington would not influence US National Missile Defense (NMD) plans. He emphasized that the United States had to continue its work on establishing NMD since it was threatened by international terrorism.^[9]

In fact, when the US House passed the defense budget of FY 2002 amounting to US $ 343.5 billion on September 25, only $ 0.4 billion was cut down from 8.3 billion asked by President Bush for BMD program and diverted to the combat against terrorism.^[10]

President Bush stated to a press conference in the White House on October 11: "In terms of missile defense, I can't wait to visit with my friend, Vladimir Putin, in Shanghai, to reiterate once again that the Cold War is over, it's done with, and that there are new threats that we face; and no better example of that new threat than the attack on America on September 11th.

And I'm going to ask my friend to envision a world in which a terrorist thug and/or a host nation might have the ability to develop - to deliver a weapon of mass destruction via a - via rocket. And wouldn't it be in our nation's advantage to be able to shoot it down? At the very least, it should be in our nation's advantage to determine whether we can shoot it down. And we're restricted from doing that because of an ABM Treaty that was signed during a totally different era.

The case cannot be even - the case is more strong today than it was on September 10th that the ABM is outmoded, outdated, reflects a different time. And I'm more than - I am more than anxious to continue making my case to them. And we will do what's right..."^[11]

Even before the summit meeting between President Bush and President Putin in mid-November, some key officials in the Pentagon and their allies elsewhere in the administration have continued their pressure for the United States to withdraw from the ABM Treaty sooner rather than later. They reiterated the case that the pact had constrained the NMD testing program and must go.^[12]

Nuclear threats remain but cooperation is needed

As said above, the September 11 terrorist attacks also influence the US BMD plans. The Bush Administration has moderated its unilateralism and embraced multilateralism after months of pursuing a largely go-it-alone policy on the issue, especially paying more attention to cooperation with Russia. It postponed a decision of withdrawing this autumn from the ABM Treaty of 1972 that some members in Bush's security team had wanted in order to clear the path for tests of new missile defense systems.^[13]

After the meeting between Putin and Bush on October 22, 2001 in Shanghai, the two leaders said that they had made progress on narrowing their differences on the ABM Treaty of 1972. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, said that Bush "didn't deliver a deadline" to the Russia leader, whose support Bush needs in the war on terrorism.^[14] According to a newspaper report, the United States had reached a decision on the specifics of deep unilateral cuts to its strategic nuclear arsenal. It would make Putin's future decision on the ABM Treaty more palatable to Russian military leaders.^[15]

Rumsfeld declared on October 25 that the United States had cancelled two tests of interceptor missiles for NMD so that it would not be criticized for violating the ABM Treaty.^[16]

Condoleezza Rice also confirmed this decision on October 28 when she was interviewed by correspondents of the New York Times. Moreover, she said, as a response to Russian cooperation in the war against terrorism, the United States would delay any decision to annul or revise the ABM Treaty.^[17]

Accordinly, a compromise on US BMD plans was reached when Putin visited the United States in mid-November. "The whole tone of this summit is not being confrontational about these issues. Everybody has downplayed the significance of agreement on the missile defense issue, and agreed not to make a big deal of it."^[18] Anyway, President Bush did not press his Russian counterpart for cancellation or revision of the ABM Treaty as suggested by vigorous advocates of US BMD plans.

Conclusions

In sum, against a backdrop of war in Afghanistan and the international mobilization against terrorism, the current US position on BMD is slightly more moderate and flexible. As shown by the US-Russian summit, the Bush Administration has postponed its decision to withdraw from the ABMTreaty, taking into account the views and sensibilities of others on the issue of BMD.

The United States, however, has not really changed its plans on BMD. In fact, the advocates of the plan are trying to use the September 11 terrorist attacks to prove that any dangers can be conceived and demand speedy implementation of BMD. Also, President Bush's position in pursuing this plan has been strengthened domestically with the intensified sense of crisis. Therefore, in the long term, BMD plan could get a boost from the Bush Administration.

In preparing this presentation for the conference "Moving Beyond Missile Defense" in Shanghai on Nov. 30/Dec. 1 2001, the author was assisted by Bo Yan, a Ph.D candidate in the Department of International Politics, Fudan University, Shanghai.

Zhu Mingquan is Deputy Director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai; No 220, Handan Road, Shanghai 200433, China; tel. +8621-65 64 25 97; mqzhu@fudan.edu.ch.