We come back to the issue of
a national missile defense (NMD),
which was taken up by the debate in Congress again on S.257,
(H.R.4 in the House),
the National Missile Defense Act of 1999
("It is the policy of the United States to
deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile
Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States
against limited ballistic missile attack [whether accidental, unauthorized,
or deliberate]."), put many of the usual anti-NMD
Senators in a tough position. The revelations of the emergent Chinese missile
threat made it difficult for them to come out against defending the nation,
yet they had to support their precious paper treaties and gentlemen agreements
with people who are neither gentlemen, nor very agreeable (the 1972 Anti
Ballistic Missile Treaty; ABM -- allows both sides to develop and deploy
one missile defense system each, a provision which the Soviets took full
advantage of, but which we did not, beyond a brief initial attempt). S.257
is essentially identical to last year's NMD legislation, which was filibustered
by the democrats and failed to gain cloture by a single vote.
Much was made by Senator Joseph Lieberman(D)
of the opposition to such of a national missile defense by our "friends",
the Russians. Developing and deploying such a defense, it was claimed,
would violate the ABM Treaty which we signed with the Soviet Union. Which
is, of course, ludicrous. That treaty is dead, because the other signatory
no longer exists. Yet it is upon that dead treaty that opponents of a NMD
based their objections, saying that we should explain to the Russians that
any NMD which we develop, because of its limited nature, is aimed at defending
the U.S. against an attack by rogue and terrorist nations, and is not designed
to defend against any potential Russian attack. In response to which it
might be asked, "Why not?" Why should the U.S. keep itself vulnerable to
a potential attack by Russia? Shall we shut down our NMD system if we see
a missile coming from Russia? Will American citizens be any less dead if
they are vaporized by a Russian nuclear warhead rather than, say, a Chinese
or a North Korean nuclear warhead?
Senator Carl Levin(D) also
voiced opposition to the NMD, preferring to rely on paper treaties: "I
agree with the President's senior national security advisors that enacting
this bill will make us less secure. It puts at risk our decades long efforts
to reduce strategic offensive nuclear weapons in Russia and increases the
likelihood that these weapons will proliferate to rogue states." "The stakes
are that Russia has been reducing the number of nuclear weapons on its
soil; they have done that because they have a treaty with us which has
permitted them to do that called the ABM Treaty, and that without that
treaty in place; those reductions are going to end."
By all means, lets not risk make
the Russians mad by defending ourselves. If there was no possibility of
a Russian attack, either intentional or accidental (just last month, the
Washington Post reported that the danger of an accidental Russian missile
launch is increasing), why should the Russians care if we spend billions
of dollars on a defense? What is it about leftists that they find
the simple act of self defense , whether on a personal, individual level,
or on a national level, so distasteful? Are they so enamored of victim
hood that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of Americans
to a nuclear attack?
At least there are some Senators who are not afflicted by the leftist "sacrificial
lamb" disease.
Senator
Jesse Helms(R) called enactment of S.257 merely
the first step: "Ultimately, the President
must agree or be compelled to agree by an overwhelming congressional override
of his veto to begin immediately the building and deploying of a national
missile defense." "I am among those who have become increasingly frustrated
as the Clinton administration has squandered month after month, year after
year, dithering and delaying, and otherwise reacting in ostrich like fashion
to the fast approaching threat of missile attack by a rogue regime." "Nero
fiddled as Rome burdened the crowd in charge on Pennsylvania Avenue may
wake up one morning and realize that they have been playing with the safety
of the American people and playing fast and loose." "China is on the verge
of tripling or quadrupling, the number of warheads pointed at our cities,
and this, Mr. President, is the same country that flexed its military might
by firing missiles in the Strait of Taiwan in an effort to intimidate a
long standing and peaceful ally of the United States. The People's Republic
of China that is to say, Communist Chinas is the same nation that engaged
in a bit of nuclear blackmail by threatening a missile strike against Los
Angeles."
Senator Jon Kyl(R):
"The administration's diplomacy has been inconsistent,
distracted, and shortsighted at best. Its military programs are hobbled
by outdated arms control strictures. Proliferation outstrips anti proliferation
efforts and rogue state offensive weaponry is advancing more rapidly than
the administration's programs to counter them. The time has come for the
United States to defend itself from the increasing missile threat;".
Indeed. It is long past time for Americans
to start asking; to start demanding to know from their elected servants;
how much of our national security has been sacrificed and why, and to hold
responsible those charged with the duty to "provide for the common defense"
of the United States and who have failed, for whatever reasons, to do so.
