The United States Vs. The World Issues Concerning A National Missile

The United States Vs. The World : Issues Concerning A National Missile Defense System The debate over a National Missile Defense System first began in 1983 when President Ronald Reagan introduced his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). His ambitious plan to defend the nation directly impacts every citizen of the United States, as well as many countries across the globe. Any person interested in weapons technology, effects of the Cold War, national security, or foreign relations should become familiar with this issue. The foundation arguments of this issue are fairly easy to follow. The twilight years of the Cold War brought about the unification of Germany, the signing of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and more importantly the dismantling of the Soviet Union the central hub of communism. The late 1980s and early 1990s marked a time of change. Gorbachev resigned from office in 1991, and it seemed that a modern renaissance was taking place. But this rebirth and step towards global harmony resulted from almost 50 years of battle. During these landmark victories for democracy, mankind witnessed nuclear stockpiles, two wars in the name of communism (Vietnam and Korea), and an industrial and technological race to the moon. Though many policies were formed and treaties were signed, certain Cold War issues continue to shine. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), introduced by former president Ronald Reagan, truly exhibited the Cold War paranoia felt around the world. Armed with lasers and advanced tracking systems, the United States would be shielded f rom Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) launched by communist nations and their supporters. Until recently, Reagans SDI had become an idea of the past. It would seem that is no longer true. The United States has been trying to advance the National Missile Defense (NMD) system since Reagans proposal, and is hoping to deploy the system in the next ten years. With questions of cost, effectiveness, and the unfavorable reaction from old Cold War enemies, the United States is faced with a dilemma save national security or keep the delicate balance of power from exploding into an arms race and possible war. To begin analyzing and understanding this situation one must delve into the past and seek the motivation behind the project. Reagan proposed the SDI in 1983, which coincidentally was amid a massive Soviet Union stockpiling of nuclear warheads. According to the National Resources Defense Council and as reported by CNN, the U.S.S.R increased its nuclear warheads by approximately 20,000 in the span of ten years (1975-1985). During that same time, the United States decreased their stockpile by 4,000 nuclear warheads. By 1985, the Soviet Union had 17,000 more warheads than the U.S. Its no wonder why Reagan called for the SDI to begin. But Reagans plan for national defense was greeted by a contract of the past. On May 26, 1972, President Richard Nixon and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, L.I. Brezhnev, signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in Moscow. It is this treaty which expressly denies the right to an ABM system. Article I of the ABM Treaty states, each party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for a defense of the territory of its country and not to provide a base for such a defense, and not to deploy ABM systems for defense of an individual region except as provided This treaty was drafted to be of benefit to both countries, and as a security measure. By ensuring that neither country could construct an ABM system then neither country would have an unquestionable advantage in time of war or peace. With the Soviet Union dissolved, a question to the legality of the treaty has been exposed. The treaty between the Soviet and the U.S., can not become a treaty between Russia and the U.S. Because one party no longer exists, the treaty is void. Moreover, the President cannot, without Senate approval, bring a lapsed treaty back to life by declaring that a given foreign state is the successor or continuation of an extinct state (Spencer 4). President Clinton has been accused of just that attempting to reinstate the treaty without the Senate. In an attack on the Clinton Administration and their desire to amend and reinstate the ABM