The philosophy, the organic relationship between offensive and defense weapons worked very well up until now. That rationale is now a very difficult economic, social and political situation. The timing and the decision on Capitol Hill or in the Administration to start developing national missile defense is very bad for the process of reducing nuclear weapons. We didn't reach the point of confidence between our two countries where we can forget the balance of mutual assured destruction, and the philosophy behind that when we started to negotiate these reductions. Talking about national missile defense will strengthen the argument of those people who still sit in the trenches in the Cold War on both sides.
Suspicion is still there.
It is premature so far and even dangerous to move to a new strategic relationship at the expense of the ABM Treaty. It is disturbing to hear that some influential people and experts in the United States try to find sufficient justification for the immediate deployment of both regional and national ballistic missile defenses. The history of the arms race teaches us to think twice before starting new military programs, because as a result, we could find ourselves back on the road leading us to the arms race. Michael Shuster, National Public Radio R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Baker Spring, Heritage Foundation Jennifer Weeks, Union of Concerned Scientists Alexander Yereskovsky, Embassy of the Russian Federation House of Representatives. Intelligence Estimates National Intelligence Council.