ROGUE STATE MISSILE ATTACK DANGERS ARE EXAGGERATED
UK DEFENSE DEPARTMENT PLAYS DOWN THE RISKS OF BALLISTIC MISSILE WMD ATTACKS
ALEXANDER NICOLL February 8, 2001 Financial Times (London) SECTION: NATIONAL NEWS; Pg. 3 HEADLINE: NATIONAL NEWS: Change in climate 'may spark future wars' //VT2002acsln
However, the MoD's threat assessors give only lukewarm backing to the US fear of ballistic missile attack by "rogue states" - against which President George W. Bush plans to build expensive and controversial new systems. Although some countries will develop missiles able to deliver weapons of mass destruction, they conclude: "The risk of air-launched WMD attacks will remain very low."
NEW MISSILE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE, AND THOSE THREATS CAME TO NOTHING
BOB DROGIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER, Los Angeles Times September 10, 1999, SECTION: Part A; Page 1; HEADLINE: MISSILE THREAT TO U.S. 'SERIOUS,' REPORT WARNS // lnu-acs
Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the new assessment is less helpful to policymakers.
During the Cold War, he said, Brazil, Argentina, Libya, Egypt and South Africa were all developing their own missile systems--efforts that since have been abandoned.
MISSILE THREATS TO THE USA HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED
William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, World Policy Institute at New School University. January 21, 2001 The Baltimore Sun SECTION: PERSPECTIVE, Pg. 1C HEADLINE: Reviving Star Wars; President Bush, with his selection for defense secretary, places national missile defense high on U.S. agenda //VT2002acsln
The missile threat facing the United States has been exaggerated, to say the least.
North Korea, the main impetus behind the current push for an NMD system, has agreed to a moratorium of new missile tests, has begun rapprochement with South Korea and has expressed a willingness to cap its nuclear and ballistic missile programs (exports and production) as part of a framework agreement with the United States.
U.S. intelligence analyst Robert Walpole has pointed out in testimony before Congress that a ballistic missile is the least likely way a foreign nation would choose to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to U.S. territory, because ballistic missiles have a "return address" that would allow swift and devastating retaliation by the United States.
Beyond the unrealistic threat assessment, few remarked at the time that the panel's chair was far from an objective analyst on this subject, given his parallel role as a card-carrying member of the missile defense lobby.
MISSILES ATTACKS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE BECAUSE SO-CALLED "ROGUE" LEADERS WANT TO STAY IN POWER
Ben Sheppard, Jane's Sentinel editor, The study of ballistic
missile proliferation formed part of his MSc in Strategic Studies. Jane's Intelligence Review October 1, 1999 HEADLINE: Ballistic missile proliferation: a flight of fantasy or fear? // ln-10/99-acs
Despite propaganda by the adversary threatening to launch a devastating chemical, biological or even nuclear strike, the chances of such a lethal attack actually occurring are remarkably slim. Regimes such as those of Saddam and Milosevic are primarily concerned with their own survival. Any adversary, whether it be Saddam, Kim Jong-Il or a hostile Iranian leadership, would be fully aware that launching a chemical, biological or even nuclear strike would bring large-scale conventional or even nuclear retaliation. Even if the regime in question survived a nuclear response, a retaliatory strike of this magnitude would almost certainly terminate its ability to govern its country effectively. Ultimately, regimes such as North Korea, Iraq or Iran which launch SSMs against Western Europe or North America will consider the survival of their power base as being of paramount importance. Launching non-conventionally armed SSMs against the West would entice a catastrophic retaliatory attack, preventing the rogue state from turning obvious defeat into 'victory' for domestic consumption to avert the ensuing internal strife that could lead to their regime being overthrown.
LONG RANGE MISSILES ARE NOW OLD-FASHIONED FORMS OF WMD DELIVERY
WILLIAM J. BROAD March 4, 2001 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel SECTION: CROSSROADS; Pg. 02J HEADLINE: Smaller cheaper, stealthier, deadlier //VT2002acsln
The passionate debate over missile defense has obscured an important fact: Today, a number of experts believe that long-range missiles are passeA compared with other threats. Big missiles, the reasoning goes, are lumbering, fire-breathing monsters built more for prestige, intimidation and political symbolism than for firing at enemies half-way around the globe.
Robert D. Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs at the Central Intelligence Agency, told Congress last year that attackers who target America with weapons of mass destruction are "probably more likely" to use suitcases, cars, jets, rockets and other small launchers than big missiles. Such alternatives, he said, "are less costly and more reliable and accurate."
"They can also be used without attribution," he added.