David Smith of Global Horizons, Inc. spoke in favor of US proposals to develop a national missile defense system. But our view of the ballistic missile threat to our country, our role in the world, and our consequent defensive response are not matters for debate . . . It is time to move from a strategy based on nuclear destruction to a more balanced strategy that includes defenses, which, after all, harm only attacking missiles. Guillaume Parmentier of the French Center on the United States countered, calling for a more balanced approach to deterring and responding to aggression. The illusion of vulnerability could create much misperception and be the cause for disastrous decisions. . . .
Defense is seen in Europe as a supplement to offense and diplomacy.
It is not and cannot be a substitute. Any national ballistic missile defense system that threatens the ability to retaliate will, in turn, stimulate a response to ensure that offensive forces retain the capability to deter. In a keynote address, Amb. Wolfgang Hoffman, Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, discussed ongoing measures to support the treaty. More than 250 people from 70 countries are working to develop an international monitoring system capable of detecting clandestine nuclear tests forbidden under the treaty, he said.