The U.S. response to your recent proposal that the number of ICBMs on either side be reduced to 1,500 was that their deterrent needs to remain at a level of 2,000 to 2,500. Deterrence has not vanished from the thinking of either party. And so it has. As presently configured, with 100 land-based interceptors in the United States, National Missile Defence should not affect the balance of terror. But this is only a part of the story.
Arms control has a symbolic importance that goes beyond the systems it limits.
The regime that began in the 1960s, curtails, for the first time in history, the freedom of sovereign states to arm themselves, replacing to some extent the rule of war by the rule of law. This is not to suggest that international law is static. Since National Missile Defence, being a purely national initiative, fails to meet that test, it is out of step with the times. A proposal which does meet the test is the Putin-Clinton accord, signed on June 4 of this year, which should become more widely known through your visit. It is a watershed agreement in that it commits the United States and Russia, for the first time, to a permanent military collaboration.