Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: Is it Still Relevant. A Primer on the Systems and Issues

摘要

The relevance of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is called increasingly into question as we transition to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) III and beyond. There is debate not only on the validity of the basic document, but whether or not the US should continue to be a party to it even if valid due to the extent that it prohibits national missile defense activities. The debate continued as the United States tested and successfully deployed theater ballistic missile defense measures. Many hawks sought to deny the ABM treaty and deploy a strategic anti-ballistic missile program due to a perceived increase in the threat from rogue ballistic missile threats. Such a defensive program is forbidden under the current ABM treaty. Review of the discussions, concerns, technologies, and increasing threats leads to the conclusion that, although at least one legal study dismissed the ABM treaty as a legal nullity, it is still in the United States' best interests to continue with compliance, which it can realistically do while considering the fuller problems of a workable strategic defense plan, the actual legal status of the treaty, and the nature of the threats in the new century.