Star Wars Redux? Ashton Carter on Missile Defense

Press Release

May 8, 2000

Author: Ashton B. Carter, Former Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard & Stanford Universities

Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security; Preventive Defense Project

May 8 -- President Clinton will soon decide whether to go forward with the building of a National Defense Missile (NMD) system. And now a new debate is raging. Proponents argue that it could protect the US from missile attacks by Iran or North Korea or other rogue states.

Detractors say it could dramatically alter the US strategic relationship with the rest of the world and possibly trigger a new arms race, is too expensive or won’t work.

Kennedy School Professor Ashton Carter, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy now focusing on nuclear and security issues at the School's Belfer Center, is looking at the issue.

What are the reasons for going forward with NMD? How serious is the rogue threat?

Carter: The threat of ballistic missile attacks from North Korea and Iran cannot be wished away. North Korea has already tested a missile that verges on intercontinental capability, but has agreed temporarily not to conduct further tests. Iran has not tested such long-range missiles, but has tested short-range missiles and certainly has the technological capability over time to make such missiles. There is a larger question, of course, about how long these countries will remain "rogues." But for now, the possibility cannot be dismissed.

Even a limited system violates the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty with the Soviet Union. What effect will NMD have on US-Russia nuclear reductions?

Carter: A limited ABM system of the kind envisioned by the Clinton administration would violate the letter of the ABM Treaty, but it is arguable whether it would violate the spirit of the treaty. The spirit of the treaty was that attempting to defend the United States from Russia or vice versa would only lead to more offense, nullifying the defense and fueling the arms race. But the limited ABM system foreseen by the Clinton administration would not have the capability to shoot down any but a few Russian missiles. Thus logic would indicate the Russians should not object to it. Russia fears that a limited system will be replaced over time by a much larger system.

NMD is complex and expensive. Has the Pentagon done adequate testing and will NMD work?

Carter: Missile defense is one of the most difficult technical missions in the entire realm of military technology. Ballistic missiles are small and fast and therefore difficult to shoot down. In my judgment, the system foreseen by the Clinton administration would benefit from more thorough testing before it can be deployed, and this will take some time.

How has NMD evolved from President Reagan's star wars proposals?

Carter: The limited system foreseen by the Clinton administration bears little resemblance to Reagan’s Star Wars. First, it has the job of shooting down a few Iranian or North Korean missiles, not thousands of Russian missiles. Second, it involves the more traditional technology of land-based defensive interceptor missiles guided by land-based radars rather than the fanciful space-based laser systems that came to be associated with President Reagan’s Star Wars ideas.

For more information about this publication please contact the PDP Associate Director at 617-495-1412.

For Academic Citation: