INHERENCY: NMD WILL BECOME A REALITY IN THE STATUS QUO
NMD HAS TAKEN ON A LIFE OF ITS OWN AND HAS CHARMED ITS ADVOCATES
Jack Ruina March 04, 2001, The Washington Post SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. B03 HEADLINE: 46 Years, No Winners. Aim Elsewhere //VT2002acsln
The idea of a nationwide missile defense has taken on a life of its own, independent of the state of technology or the political problems it might entail. Advocates cling to it blindly, looking for answers it cannot provide. But in the case of NMD, we are seeking a technical solution to a security problem that would be better addressed through diplomatic and political efforts.
ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ON MISSILE DEFENSE IS HOW FAST TO DO IT
Justin Brown, Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor, January 18, 2000, SECTION: USA; Pg. 2 HEADLINE: 'Star wars' shield threatens treaties // acs-ln 1-24-2000
For the US, however, the prospect of having umbrella protection of all 50 states is almost irresistible. It is supported in principle by most politicians, with Democrats preferring a slower timetable and Republicans wanting to deploy as soon as possible - even if it is at the expense of the ABM treaty.
OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AN NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM WILL BE BUILT
Joseph L. Galloway; U.S. News & World Report March 29, 1999 ; Pg. 30, 32 HEADLINE: Seeking a silver bullet // lnu-acs
Technical considerations aside, missile defense as a political issue has achieved critical mass. Joseph Cirincione, a senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a leading skeptic on missile defense, said the action this week in Washington made it virtually certain that some sort of system will be developed over the next five years: "This system is going to be built."
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE HAS SOLID SUPPORT FROM ALL SIDES
PAUL MANN Aviation Week and Space Technology July 5, 1999 ; Pg. 30 HEADLINE: Historic Turn Eyed In Missile Defense // lnu-acs
Despite such issues, NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE has gained decisive bipartisan political support in Congress this year for the first time, and technological development proceeds apace (AW&ST Mar. 22, p. 29). Today, ''even the arms control community has moved toward a serious consideration of NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE, [possibly] as a complement to deterrence,'' notes Bruce G. Blair of the Brookings Institution.
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE IS NOW SUPPORTED BY ISOLATIONISTS AND ACTIVISTS ALIKE
Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post September 5, 1999SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A06 HEADLINE: Korean Missiles Push U.S. Defense Plans; Some Fear Buildup Could Hurt Stability // lnu-acs
Traditionally, conservatives have been the biggest supporters of missile defense for isolationist reasons, said Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. But the threat that rogue states could pose to U.S. forces around the world with nonnuclear missiles, and the specter of a rogue state lobbing a long-range nuclear missile toward the continental United States, have rallied liberals who support an activist U.S. foreign policy to the cause of missile defense.
"Missile defense makes interventionist policy possible," Kagan said.
REPUBLICANS WANT A QUICK NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM AS A POLITICAL TOOL
Editorials; The Atlanta Journal and Constitution July 8, 1999, SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 18A HEADLINE: Missile defense a costly fantasy // lnu-acs
Republicans have backed the program in part out of blind allegiance to anything proposed by Ronald Reagan, in part out of equally blind faith in American technology, and in part because they believed they could use the issue to portray the Democrats as weak on defense.
REPUBLICANS WANT TO SACRIFICE ARMS CONTROL AND THE ABM TREATY TO GET NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
ERIC SCHMITT, The New York Times August 30, 1999, SECTION: Section A; Page 1; HEADLINE: DEMOCRATS READY FOR FIGHT TO SAVE TEST BAN TREATY // lnu-acs
"For Republicans, arms control is a secondary approach for national defense," said Senator Gordon H. Smith, an Oregon Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Hindering that goal, Republicans say, is the Administration's continued embrace of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which limits the kinds of national defenses Russia and the United States can develop.