National Missile Defence and ABM

The issue of national missile defense(NMD) has assumed more significance in this post-Cold-War era since the deployment of long-range ballistic missiles. It has become one of the most hotly debated and widely discussed issues among various nations. Its aim is to install an effective national missile defense system to defend the United States against ballistic missile attacks from rogue states. But the NMD conflicts the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed by the United States and USSR in 1972. The ABM Treaty prohibits either signatory from providing a defensive system that would cover its entire landmass, as the NMD program is intended to do. The treaty allows only the national capital or a selected ballistic missile field to be protected. Over the last three decades, the ABM Treaty has been seen as the foundation for negotiations and treaties aimed at promoting nuclear stability and restraint. The treaty binds the US government both by law and policy. But the present US administration is of the view that the ABM treaty no longer is valid in the New World Order.

The deployment of NMD would mean revising the ABM Treaty and considerable alterations to the Treaty. It would require elimination of Article I of the treaty, which deals with bans on nationwide defenses. If X-band radars are to be placed in other nations Article IX should be amended to facilitate such a move. Russia rules out changes to the ABM Treaty but the US wants changes in the ABM treaty.

With the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, the US is viewing the NMD as a shield against the danger posed by the so-called rogue states like Iran and North Korea which are capable of firing intercontinental missiles that could deliver chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against the territory of the United States. Russia on the other hand wants to preserve the ABM treaty and they have submitted a resolution to the United Nations in this context, which calls to preserve the treaty. Russia feels that making modifications or scrapping the ABM treaty would lead to a new arms race.

The ABM Treaty, along with the START Treaty and IRBM Reduction Treaty, makes a strategic triad which determines strategic stability in the world. Therefore, violations of the provisions or changing the status quo as regards deployment of the ABM system would seriously affect the global situation. While the US can legally terminate the treaty and proceed unilaterally to build a NMD system, it is better to formulate a mutually satisfactory arrangement.

In order to maintain nuclear stability the deployment of NMD should be in harmony with the current ABM Treaty, a revised treaty, or a successor arrangement negotiated between the US and Russia. The preservation of the treaty would encourage reduction or elimination of nuclear arsenals.

But violation of the treaty by the US will force Russia and China to respond with their own buildups and this will trigger a new arms race which will affect the entire world.