George W. Bush still thinks that missile defense will protect us. And he's going to make Japan spend $10 billion, make China furious, and throw away international law to do it!
As seen on Primary Colors 2004.
Not that anyone's talked about it in a while (though I suspect that
Condoleeza Rice's testimony under oath about pre-September 11 defense priorities will bring it into sharper focus), but before the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration was spending a great deal of money trying to build a
National Missile Defense to counter the supposed proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missiles to rogue states like North Korea and Iraq, which theoretically could tip them with chemical and biological weapons or multiple warheads. It could have been brilliant piece of defense strategy, with two small objections:
1. Building an national missile defense violates 1972's Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty between Russia and the United States, an international agreement that's a cornerstone of the international arms-control regime.
and
2. The system never really worked, and tests to prove it did were rigged to justify the huge expense and increasing tension with Russia the tests were causing, in just one of the many, although especially egregious cases of pre-Iraq deception of which this administration is guilty.
In what would prove to be a pattern of disrespect for international agreements, Bush unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the treaty in December of 2001, invoking the attacks as a rationale for increasing U.S. defenses on all levels. There were some protests, but no major actions from Russia or any other members of the international community. And until recently, not much seemed to be happening--tests were happening at pretty much the same pace, and there was no indication that a prototype was even close to being launch-ready.
But apparently, plans are going ahead to work with Japan, Taiwan, and Australia to launch a system by 2007. The plans, which include selling close to $2 billion in radar to Taiwan, $10 billion dollars in Japanese spending, including some on new missile systems and modifications of Aegis cruisers, and Australian, and potentially Indian, co-sponsorship of the system. This is not a good idea.
First, while a missile defense system in and of itself probably doesn't violate Japan's constitional provisions on remilitarization, the development of the necessary technologies put Japan in a position to start developing and exporting arms components. No matter how honest Japan's intentions, we've seen that the development of new weapons programs in Pakistan, in India, and other countries frequently involve huge proliferation risks, especially in a country that will be spending $10 billion, and probably a great deal more, on developing the technology.
Second, the radar sales to Taiwan seem like unnecessary provocation of China, a country that keeps its 30 nuclear missiles on low-alert status and has a no-first-use policy. I'm no fan of the one-China policy, which I think is fundamentally at odds with the democracy-promotion ideals that the administration is using to justify our current presence in Iraq. Taiwan's free and fair elections make its government infinitely more legitimate than China's dictatorship, but encouraging and supporting the results of those elections is the best way to encourage the trend towards independence. We should pledge to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression (which, given the low quality of China's sea-based troop transports actually don't seem that threatening yet), but there is no reason to antagonize China by giving Taiwan the technology to downgrade China's deterrent.
Thirdly, a missile defense has little to do with the actual threats facing the United States and other nations. September 11 proved definitively that there's no good reason to persue missile technology when you can wage asymetrical warfare much more cheaply and effectively, and when you don't want to be tied down or traceable by relying on a missile launch site. The major effect it has is to break down the deterrent system that's preserved the balance of power for decades, to spend hideous amounts of taxpayer money on unproven systems that were designed to confront a Cold War threat that no longer exists and only serve to fulfill the ideological goals of the neo-conservative movement, and to undermine international law. There are a lot of proposals in the Revolution in Military Affairs that I think are seriously worth considering, especially those that emphasize the use of drones and other technology to minimize U.S. casualties. It's unfortunate that the White House has chosen to focus on one of the most expensive and least proven military innovations around, instead of examining and developing new and creative warfighting technologies and techniques to address the wide array of asymetrical threats we face.