|
 homas
Friedman opposes the Bush administration's rush to build a missile
defense and rip up the ABM Treaty, because, among other things,
the administration hasn't yet proved that "missile defense works
under battlefield conditions."
This is an interesting formulation. It used to be that critics simply
asserted that it was impossible to hit a "bullet with a bullet"
or have an interceptor distinguish between a warhead and a decoy.
But the recent missile-defense test has blown away both of these
idle assertions. So, now Friedman and others will essentially complain
that a system hasn't yet shot down a North Korean missile in the
midst of a crisis (i.e., "battlefield conditions").
It will be impossible ever to do that, of course, without lots of
testing. And this is the point that demonstrates either Friedman's
ignorance of the ABM treaty or his willful neglect of its provisions
to score a few anti-Bush points.
Friedman, in his column today, attributes the Bush administration's
eagerness to dump the ABM treaty to an unthinking theological hostility
to arms control. Then, in almost the same breath, he says that a
necessary condition of going forward with a defense must be demonstrating
that a system can work in real-world conditions.
Maybe Friedman doesn't realize this (in which case he should actually
read the ABM treaty he considers so important), but the treaty makes
impossible exactly the sort of testing he is insisting on —
so maybe the Bushies' skepticism about the treaty isn't so outrageously
irrational after all.
The administration wants to build a test bed in Alaska so testing
can proceed with more realistic scenarios, with targets coming towards
the United States and multiple radars involved in tracking them.
This would represent an important departure in the sophistication
of the tests, which heretofore have been limited to White Sands,
N.M., and a small island in the Pacific, in keeping with the ABM
treaty.
The planned test bed in Alaska may well violate the treaty, because
it can also serve as an operational base for a real system. So,
does Friedman want the fancier testing or the ABM treaty?
The administration plans for the fall a missile-defense test that
includes the AEGIS system that could provide a "boost-phase" defense.
But since AEGIS wasn't originally designed for long-range missile
defense the ABM treaty makes testing it in such a capacity off-limits.
The treaty, then, would ban this test. The same applies to a test
planned for February that would involve the integration of a variety
of radar and defense systems.
Again, does Friedman want the fancier testing or the ABM treaty?
He doesn't have to answer, since his job is just to throw as many
criticisms at missile defense as possible. But the administration,
since it is serious about trying to build a defense, has to address
this dilemma sooner rather than later, which is why it talks of
dumping the ABM treaty in a matter of months, not years. Theology
has nothing to do it.
That Vladimir Putin understands the administration's resolve is
a reason why he seems willing to talk about changes to the treaty.
Putin is really the linchpin to opposition to missile defense. It
is his (utterly unbelievable) threat to launch a new arms race that
gives the Europeans and Democrats like Joe Biden and Carl Levin
the ammunition to oppose Bush's plans.
But now that Putin thinks the administration is serious, he might
be calculating that it is better for him to try to wring some concessions
from Bush (or at least appear to do so) rather than just watch him
go ahead with missile defense anyway.
Let's hope that, with or without Putin, the treaty ends up in the
dustbin — so the tests that Thomas Friedman so fervently wants
can actually happen.
|
