Bush Makes His Case for a U.S. Missile Defense

President Bush proposed Tuesday that the United States plunge into the new world of missile defense, abandoning both the treaty on which the global nuclear balance has rested for nearly 30 years and the underlying principles that have deterred nuclear war for more than five decades.

In a speech to a military audience at the National Defense University, Bush presented for the first time as president a lengthy explanation for the policy that underlies his expected push to junk the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

At the same time, he promised to reduce the nation’s reliance on nuclear forces, suggesting that he would embark on a unilateral reduction.

“My goal is to move quickly to reduce nuclear forces,” he said, promising that the United States would “lead by example.”

Outlining his argument for a missile defense system, he painted a need for a weapon of global reach, sweeping aside the deep skepticism of American allies in Europe, questions bordering on hostility from Russia and fear in Beijing that China would be the primary target.

And seeking to leave behind a deterrence built entirely around the threat posed by the superpower arsenals of nuclear weapons, Bush warned of a new threat posed by such “rogue” nations as North Korea and Iraq.

“To maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends, we must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us,” he said. “This is an important opportunity for the world to rethink the unthinkable and to find new ways to keep the peace. Today’s world requires a new policy; a broad strategy of active nonproliferation, counter-proliferation and defenses.”

The proposal faces opposition from crucial NATO allies and drew questions from members of Congress uneasy about abrogating the ABM treaty before there is any assurance the weapon system will work. There is also concern about the unknown price tag, which some say could exceed $100 billion.

“We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces,” the president said. “Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation. Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation.”

Justifying his move away from the ABM treaty, Bush said:

“No treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.”

The treaty, the focus of great controversy when it was enacted in 1972, prohibited the Soviet Union and the United States from building weapons that would counter the threat posed by intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of spanning half the globe in 30 minutes with a payload of nuclear warheads. Behind the treaty was the idea that if neither superpower could defend itself against the destruction of a nuclear weapon, it would be less likely to begin a nuclear war.

But much has changed since then, Bush argued: The Soviet Union is no more, the Cold War has ended and new threats have risen as additional nations have either obtained nuclear weapons, built missiles or threaten to do so.

“This treaty ignores the fundamental breakthroughs and technology during the last 30 years. It prohibits us from exploring all options for defending against the threats that face us, our allies and other countries,” the president said. He called for a “new framework that reflects a clear and clean break from the past, especially from the adversarial legacy of the Cold War.”

In criticism echoing that of other congressional Democrats, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said that abandoning a defense built on what came to be known as “mutual assured destruction” was “extremely risky.” He said that the ABM treaty was a key component in three decades of arms reductions and that, with no architecture for the weapons and no firm cost, there is no reason to press ahead with the program except “domestic political consumption.”

The skepticism of some of the United States’ European allies was evident a month ago during a photo session in the Oval Office, when German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was visiting Bush.

Schroeder asked rhetorically: “Is it technologically feasible? Can we truly implement it? Who is going to be covered under the shelter? Who’s going to be invited to be included [in] the shelter that we’re going to build? What are going to be the repercussions for the global disarmament process? What are going to be the repercussions on Russia and on China?”

The president said Tuesday that he would dispatch high-level envoys to Europe and Asia to present his case in key capitals.

Tuesday morning, he spoke by telephone with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin. He said later that he had called Putin to “assure him that my plans were in the best interests of our two countries.”

“I also made it clear to him that it’s important for us to think beyond the old days . . . when we had the kind of concept that if we blew each other up the world would be safe,” the president said. “I told him the Cold War is over and that Russia is not our enemy.”

Putin’s office said the Russian leader told Bush that Russia was ready to work with the United States toward nuclear arms reduction and to deter potential threats, without removing the disarmament accords built up over 30 years.

The Russian presidential press service focused on what it said was a Bush pledge not to adopt “one-sided decisions” that would upset U.S.-Russian stability.

Brushing aside differences over the missile defense system itself, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook drew attention to Bush’s commitment to reduce nuclear weapons, and NATO Secretary-General George Robertson praised Bush’s promise to consult with allies over the plan.

Still, there is resignation in Europe that Bush will be able to push through a program that has its roots in the “Star Wars” project launched nearly 20 years ago by President Reagan, said Ivo Daalder of the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, who was a member of the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration.

Bush’s plans reflect a sharp acceleration along the course most recently set in motion by Clinton, expanding a ground-based system to try to develop one that also places antimissile weapons in space and at sea.

“It’s preferable technologically. It’s preferable from a cost-effectiveness standpoint,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of sea- and space-based weaponry.

And moving beyond the system envisaged by the Clinton administration, in which missiles would be knocked down while soaring through space, the Bush team wants to explore technologies that would strike missiles just after launch, in what is known as the “boost” phase, as well as while in mid-course, or space, and as they reenter the atmosphere in the “terminal” phase.

The Clinton plan was estimated to carry a price tag of $60 billion; $4.7 billion is budgeted for it this year. Critics of the program say the Bush plan is likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build, although some advocates estimate the cost at tens of billions.

Among the critics, Tom Collina of the Union of Concerned Scientists challenged Bush’s assertion that the “rogue” nations pose the most urgent threat. He said the most serious threat is from the potential of an accidental launch of missiles from Russia’s huge and aging arsenal--a threat that could overwhelm the system Bush would build.

Other critics have said that a terrorist secreting a bomb, or perhaps carrying chemical or biological agents, poses a more likely threat.

*

Times staff writers Edwin Chen, Doyle McManus and Paul Richter in Washington and John Daniszewski in Moscow contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Nuclear Weapon Strengths

Deployed strategic nuclear weapon strengths of the United States and Russia, compiled by the State Department:

ICBM warheads

Russia: 3,444

United States: 2,151

SLBM warheads

Russia: 2,024

United States: 3,616

Bomber warheads

Russia: 626

United States: 1,528

Totals

Russia: 6,094

United States: 7,295

*

Note: ICBMs are intercontinental ballistic missiles and SLBMs are submarine-launched ballistic missiles. When stored and tactical warheads are included, Russia has about 20,000 and the United States about 10,000.