**[The ABM Treaty is History]{.underline}**

**By U.S. Rep. John Hostettler** **March 8, 2002**

It's unusual to be able to predict a truly historical occurrence in
advance. History books are full of events that could not have been
foreseen the day before. The circumstances that alter world affairs are
rarely scheduled.

There are exceptions, however. One of them will take place on June 13,
2002, when the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, a central and
defining document of Cold War relations, will mercifully be added to the
dustbin of history.

I say mercifully because the ABM Treaty has long outlived its
usefulness. In fact, in recent years the treaty has served as nothing
more that an obstacle to the United States' pursuit of a national
missile defense (NMD) system.

President Bush announced his decision last December. \"I have concluded
the ABM Treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to
protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile
attacks,\" the President said on Dec. 13. In accordance with the treaty
language he set the date of withdrawal six months from that day and
notified Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He was right to do so, for two main reasons. First, international
relations have changed dramatically since 1972 when the treaty was
signed by President Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. At that
time the world theater was dominated by two nuclear superpowers
determined to check the influence and spread of the other. In an
atmosphere where two hostile nations had thousands of warheads pointed
at each other, the ABM treaty was born.

It was an arms control treaty built on the premise that the best way to
avoid nuclear conflict was to make sure both nations would be destroyed
if one launched an attack. The prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction,
appropriately shortened to MAD, was supposed to keep either nation from
doing something reckless. Since joint annihilation had to be assured,
the ABM Treaty prohibited both nations from testing or deploying an NMD.

If that scenario ever made sense, it certainly does not today. The
Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. None of the nations born from that
dissolution represent a superpower intent on our destruction. The world
is a very different place.

The second reason for withdrawing from the treaty was made crystal clear
in a report issued in 1998 by a bipartisan panel of national security
experts tasked with evaluating the emerging ballistic missile threat.
The Rumsfeld Commission -- named for its chairman, Donald Rumsfeld --
concluded that the United States may have \"little or no warning\" that
rogue nations such as Iran or North Korea have obtained missile
technology capable of striking the U.S. mainland. The commission added
that the missile threat to our population is \"broader, more mature, and
evolving more rapidly than has been reported.\"

A report released this year by a council of representatives from the
intelligence community reaffirmed the Rumsfeld Commission findings.

Some have argued that it wasn't even necessary for the United States to
withdraw from the ABM Treaty since the other signatory ceased to exist
more than 10 years ago. Two separate legal memoranda -- one commissioned
by the Heritage Foundation and another by The Center for Security Policy
-- found that, \"the ABM Treaty . . . lapsed when the U.S.S.R. ceased to
exist,\" because none of the resulting independent states are capable of
full compliance with the treaty.

In short, the treaty is obsolete. The threats facing the United States
today are posed by a diverse, menacing and unpredictable collection of
nations and groups. Nothing demonstrates the changing nature of 21^st^
century warfare like the events of September 11, when a loose-knit but
organized band of radicals killed thousands of Americans without regard
for the consequences. Had Al-Queda attained missile technology, no one
doubts they would have used it. And we would have been powerless to
prevent it.

The ABM Treaty obviously did not dissuade Osama bin Laden from carrying
out his murderous plans. Nor is it likely to deter nations -- some
hostile to the United States, some sponsors of terrorism, some both --
that are secretly developing short-, medium- and long-range ballistic
missiles. The ABM Treaty does not shield us from this threat. Instead it
makes us an easy target.

That is about to change. By September 2004, the United States will
likely have prototype rockets capable of destroying an enemy's
long-range missile, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a
Senate Appropriations subcommittee last week.

Extensive testing has already demonstrated that \"hit-to-kill\"
technology -- where one missile destroys another -- works. Several tests
on the Advanced Patriot missile defense system, the Theater
High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and even on the NMD
ground-based system have demonstrated shoot-down capabilities. The NMD
ground- and sea-based interceptors have hit three of three targets in
flight tests since last July, the most recent occurring January 25.

The Department of Defense plans to expand testing as well. The fiscal
year 2003 budget request for missile defense activities is \$7.7 billion
and includes money for all the various missile defense elements, such as
area-, theater- and ground-based systems.

On June 13 the ABM Treaty will become a relic of the Cold War. A
national missile defense system will move forward with due haste. The
technology exists. The threat is real. The final obstacle has been
removed. It's time to write a new chapter for the history books.