President George Bush set out his plans for a nuclear missile defence system this week, in an important elaboration of his central foreign policy platform. He coupled them with proposals for radical cuts in US stocks of nuclear weapons and with significant undertakings to have genuine consultations on the new system with allies and the other powers involved. That has helped to mitigate hostile reaction to what is potentially a very dangerous development, which could trigger a new nuclear arms race.
Mr Bush insists it is necessary to go beyond assumptions built into Cold War strategic balances between the United States and the Soviet Union. They were guaranteed by the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which left both sides open to destruction if they initiated a nuclear exchange. An effective missile defence system, removing that vulnerability from one of the states involved, would give it a crucial advantage to assert its power and interests, in the sure knowledge that it could not be matched by its adversaries. Such an imbalance is what analysts fear will trigger a new arms race.
To prevent that happening it will be essential to ensure any changes in nuclear strategy are made through multilateral negotiations rather than unilateral actions taken by one superpower to protect its own interests. That is the critical test to be applied to Mr Bush's announcement this week. His promise to engage in a genuine consultative process dulled the edge of potentially hostile responses, notably from President Putin of Russia. But there are clear distinctions between informing other states, consulting them and negotiating such changes multilaterally. In an international system still so based on power politics and national interests, Mr Bush must not be surprised by suspicions that his plans are intended to bolster the US unilaterally. Analysts say shifts in the vocabulary used may signal important modifications in the nuclear doctrines involved. Thus, Mr Bush no longer refers to a national missile defence system but to ballistic missile defence - possibly a move towards a more negotiated change. There is renewed emphasis on a multi-layered system encompassing land and sea-based missiles which could be deployed against the "rogue states" such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran which preoccupy Mr Bush's advisers without threatening other large powers such as Russia and China. Nonetheless, the space-based elements which do worry them are still firmly there in the plans, although they need years of more highly expensive research and development to bring them anywhere near deployment.
Considering these proposals one is left with a firm sense of the dangerous redundancy of nuclear weapons in a changing world. Ireland has played an active role in campaigning against nuclear proliferation and in favour of phasing these weapons out altogether. To confront theoretical risks from such "rogue states" with such elaborate and costly technological fixes, devalues the roles of politics and diplomacy, which are surely much more capable of tackling them. Mr Bush has an awful lot of convincing to do before missile defence is generally accepted.