"The ABM (1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) places severe constraints on strategic ballistic missile defence by prohibiting the development, testing or deployment of CABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile land-based.
"Its loss in order to pursue prohibited programmes in strategic defence would be a disaster. It would lead almost inevitably to the unravelling of the entire fragile web of arms-control agreements of which the ABM Treaty is the centrepiece . . ."
So wrote Prof Ernest Walton, fellow emeritus, chairman, and M.P. Fry, secretary of the Irish Pugwash Group, on January 17th, 1985. It was one of several letters from the Irish Pugwash Group - some of them also signed by Senator Mary Robinson - to The Irish Times in the 1980s. The prestige of the signatories and the calm, analytical tone of the letters ensured attention.
President Bush's May Day speech concerns the futures of our children and grandchildren. The first thing one should say is that the content was moderate, well-organised and carefully phrased. Perhaps this only shows that the President has good speech-writers. But the effort to deal with the concerns of other governments has been welcomed.
The Clinton Administration proposed a limited National Missile Defence (NMD) system to defend the US and its allies against missiles from "rogue" states like North Korea. The Bush proposals are called Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD). Although also referred to as "limited", they will be wider than the NMD proposals and may eventually involve militarising space. "We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defence to counter the different threats of today's world. To do so we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty", which "does not recognise the present or point us to the future".
There have been suggestions that Russia might agree to modify the treaty; this does not appear in the speech. Such agreement seems unlikely, although Russian reaction is welcoming consultation. The US has indicated withdrawal from the treaty "is not imminent". Six months' notice is needed. But the intention seems clear.
What of other arms-control agreements covering intermediate-range missiles, etc? Will "the fragile web" unravel if the ABM Treaty is dismantled? Is a nuclear arms race likely - the menace that the treaty lifted from the hearts and minds of humankind, 30 years ago?
The world has changed since 1972. President Nixon signed a treaty with a Soviet Union that had nuclear forces comparable to those of the US in numbers, modernity and readiness. That USSR has vanished; the nuclear forces of Russia, though still formidable, are in considerable disarray. Some of the large "missile launch fields", such as Kazakhstan and Ukraine, are no longer available. There are huge maintenance problems. Missiles deteriorate. Even in the US there is talk of the cost of "stewardship" of operational missiles. The US may believe that Russia cannot afford a missile race.
What of China? It seems true that China has been sensible about inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). It has about 20.
China has many shorter-range missiles which could hit Japan, Taiwan and other neighbouring states, including Russia. It seems there are places in China that the US cannot hit. So, in the absence of ballistic missile defences in the US and its allies, some ICBMs might survive for a second strike.
Restraint in developing ICBMs has served China well, allowing it to avoid the crippling effects of an arms race. What if the Soviet Union had ignored arms and space races and concentrated on raising living standards?
It is intended to deploy a basic ABM capacity during Mr Bush's first term (ending 2005). One quick way to get interim wide coverage might be to upgrade local or "theatre" missile defence systems, like the Patriot, "THAD" (Theatre High Altitude Defence) or the US navy's system. These are local systems to defend rather limited areas. The treaty prohibits giving them "strategic" capabilities to deal with ICBMs.
The Patriot system, hurriedly provided to Israel during the Gulf war, was perhaps too local. It was really a "point" system to defend a town, etc. It has been said that it did perform its real function - keeping Israelis out of the Gulf war and the Saudis in.
It is intended to develop a "layered" system with land, sea and (eventually) space-based components. When and where possible, missile launches should be detected and reacted to before a missile goes through its booster phase. At that stage it is more easily detected and followed because it is surrounded by a burning plume of rocket fuel. It has not yet launched its warheads or decoys. So the interceptor must ascend quickly and find the "hard-body" of the missile inside the plume.
Obviously, the nearer the interceptor launchers are to the attacking missile sites the better the ability to detect launches early. It is thought that two ships, stationed off the North Korean coast, could do this.
The space component of BMD is said to be 10-30 years ahead. Don't be gob-smacked if it appears much sooner. This component is the real "Son of Star Wars". The space-based detectors will "see" over the horizon for instant detection and reaction to launches. The vulnerable space-based interceptors orbiting the earth of past plans seem likely to be replaced by powerful chemical lasers which can destroy missiles in their boost phases or earlier.
The accuracy and inter-operability of all systems will challenge the scientists, engineers and researchers. But the all-absorbing fascination of electronics, ever flexible, alluring, and dazzling with new possibilities, is already beckoning to such men and women:
This is the millennium task that man
Has set himself in his high fever.