Washington's planned system could violate the venerable 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the bedrock on which all subsequent arms-reduction treaties with Moscow rest. If Washington proceeds with this missile defense, says Moscow, it can say goodbye to any cutbacks in the bristling but rusting Russian arsenal. Some NMD proponents contend the ABM Treaty no longer exists because the Soviet Union no longer exists. Treaty proponents argue that the treaty remains binding because the Bush administration agreed with the the Yeltsin government that Russia would inherit all international treaties from the Soviet Union, including the U.N. Charter, under which Russia remains a member of the Security Council with veto power. National Missile Defense proponents consider the ABM Treaty a surmountable obstacle.
Some critics view the ABM Treaty with outright contempt.
We should give notice and withdraw from the treaty. Without a national and theater missile defense, we are without protection from weapons of mass destruction targeting our cities and blackmailing our policy makers and allies. No president has the right to ignore the common defense. Other NMD opponents are convinced that NMD technology simply won't work. We face the same hard realities in defending against weapons carried in Ryder rental trucks.