In the face of skeptics who question the viability of missile defense technology, Rumsfeld's argument may have some political appeal. That will make it a much easier sell on Capitol Hill, especially at a time when Bush is pushing for tax cuts. If Bush can persuade at least some of the skeptics that even a flawed missile defense will increase U.S. security by making enemies uncertain about the effectiveness of their own weapons, he may be able to bypass the considerable concerns about the as-yet unproven missile defense technology. Short of a major technological breakthrough and a enormous infusion of funds, the missile defense programs in the works would likely not be ready until late in a second Bush term, if then. By that time, Isaacs hopes, a thawing of relations with North Korea and possibly Iran would reduce the urgency of going forward with a full-blown missile defense system.
Opponents acknowledge they have major challenges of their own.
Opposition from Kerry and others stems from concern that Russia and China will react to missile defense by expanding their nuclear arsenals, reigniting the old Cold War arms race and reducing rather than enhancing U.S. security. They also oppose Bush's plan to radically alter or even discard the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, considered a pillar of nuclear stability and arms reduction. The problem, say the scientists, is whatever technology the U.S. fields could relatively easily be defeated with countermeasures, requiring still newer and more expensive technology, leading to yet another arms race. It must undergo rigorous, realistic and peer-reviewed testing. One of the attendees at Durbin's news conference, mathematician Roy Danchick, was an employee of TRW, one of the contractors working on the national missile defense, or NMD, program.