National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress

Publication Date: July 2001

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Military and defense

Type:

Abstract:

Many in Congress and outside the government have shown strong interest in deploying a ballistic missile defense to protect the United States from attack. The ABM Treaty prohibits nationwide defense but permits the United States to deploy up to 100 interceptors for long-range ballistic missiles at a single site. Many supporters of National Missile Defense (NMD) argue that the United States must amend or abrogate this treaty so that it can pursue a more robust defense.

The United States has pursued the development and deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missiles since the early 1950s. It deployed a treaty-compliant site in North Dakota in the mid-1970s, but shut it down after only a few months of operation. President Reagan launched a research and development effort into more extensive defenses in the early 1980s, but these plans were scaled back several times during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. The Clinton Administration initially focused NMD efforts on technology development, but, in 1996, outlined a strategy to pursue the development and deployment of an NMD system by 2003 if the threat warranted and the technology was ready. In January 1999, the Administration announced that it had adjusted this program to permit deployment in 2005, and would decide in Summer 2000 whether to proceed with deployment of up to 20 at a single site. This was modified in February 2000 to allow for 100 interceptors. The Bush Administration favors a more robust NMD program, that is likely to include land, sea and space-based assets. The President emphasized his Administration’s commitment to missile defenses in a speech on May 1, 2001. Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, and the President have all highlighted this commitment during meetings with allies in Europe.

Many in Congress disagreed with the Clinton Administration’s approach arguing that the threat justified the more rapid deployment of an NMD system. Other analysts argued that the United States should modify a Navy theater missile defense system so that it would have the capability to defend against long-range ballistic missiles. Still others maintain that the United States should focus on arms control and nonproliferation strategies, rather than missile defenses, to counter the threats from missile proliferation. The Clinton Administration identified several factors regarding deployment of an NMD system. Technically, these still guide the program. These included an assessment of the threat to the United States from long-range ballistic missiles, an assessment of the maturity of the technology and the feasibility of deploying an effective system, consideration of the implications for the ABM Treaty and the possibility of gaining Russian agreement on amendments, the potential costs of the prospective system, and the environmental implications of deployment. The Bush Administration has emphasized its support for a more robust missile defense research and development program, and for the possible deployment of land, sea, and space-based missile defense components. The Administration requested $8.3 billion for missile defense in FY2002, an increase of $3 billion over FY2001. It also noted that it planned to move beyond the constraints in the ABM Treaty. With the Democrats in control in the Senate, and strongly opposed to the Administration’s plan, it is unclear how Congress will react and what direction missile defense will take in the future.