Majority in U.S. Backs Missile Shield, Poll Finds

A just-released poll has found that a majority of Americans supports proposals to build a missile defense system, even if the system is costly.

As President Bush arrived in Europe to try to sell his missile defense proposal to allies, the Council on Foreign Relations released the survey, which showed 51% of Americans in favor of an anti-missile shield and 38% against. It found that even liberal Democrats were nearly split on the proposal and showed that views didn’t change much after respondents were given the basic arguments for and against the system.

“The default position of the American public is: Protect us,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which prepared the survey for the Council on Foreign Relations.

The public’s views on the issue have become more important this year in light of the Bush administration’s desire to develop a system for deployment by 2004. Administration officials describe the system as a keystone of its national security policy and have signaled that they intend sharp increases in spending to explore promising antimissile technologies.

The results showed that the public has reservations and holds some seemingly contradictory views on the issue, researchers said.

For example, though building a system could force abandonment of arms-control treaties, the poll showed that 54% of Americans believe that arms control treaties are the best protection against a missile attack. In contrast, 34% thought an anti-missile system would be better protection.

The poll was conducted May 15 to 28 and involved 1,468 adults.

It indicated that, overall, arguments in favor of a missile defense system were less well known by the public than arguments against one. Yet the supportive arguments “are regarded as somewhat more compelling than the arguments against creation of a system,” Pew researchers wrote.

A majority of respondents saw merit in three major arguments in favor of a system: that a system could protect against accidental missile launches; that it could protect allies; and that current defenses are inadequate.

None of five arguments against building a shield was viewed by a majority as a convincing reason to oppose its creation, Pew researchers said. The arguments were: A system would be too costly; a system could trigger an arms race; the technology isn’t available; building a system could damage relations with China and Russia; and that no real threat exists.

Only 41% said the cost of a system was a reason to oppose it. And 34% said the threat to relations with Russia and China was grounds to oppose construction.

Among self-described liberal Democrats, 45% said they favored building a system, while 47% opposed the idea. Moderates were 55% to 34% in favor; it was 70% to 22% among conservatives.

Nevertheless, the public believes by 77% to 10% that terrorism is a greater threat than a long-range missile attack. And 53% said having treaties that would limit the arms race and help control the spread of nuclear weapons is the best way to protect the U.S.

Morton H. Halperin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior official in the Clinton administration, stressed the importance of the public’s reservations. He noted that only 29% of those surveyed said “we have a pressing need for this system now.”