NASHVILLE - August 31 - I agree with the President's decision to defer the
decision to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) for the next
administration. Now that he has made his decision, I feel free to express
myself on the subject.
The United States faces the real possibility that countries such as North
Korea or Iran will succeed in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles able to deliver these weapons at intercontinental range.
Of course it is possible that North Korea or Iran might at some point
change their intentions and remove this threat. We should be alert to such
possibilities, but they are not in our grasp at this moment.
The NMD system which the Clinton-Gore Administration has under development
is meant to be deployed in a timely way, and is explicitly designed to
handle the type of threat that we could expect if our estimates are
realized and we have to face a small number of deployed Inter-Continental
Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) warheads.
The President's decision allows time for additional testing of our NMD
system. I welcome the opportunity to be more certain that these
technologies actually work together properly. As the President said, there
are 16 additional intercept tests already scheduled. One could decide to
proceed with deployment at any point along that process, once fully
convinced that the technologies are ready.
Passage of more time also allows for more clarity about the costs of the system.
The President's decision also allows the next President time to conduct
updated discussions with other countries.
As regards the Russian Federation, I think it important to state what my
approach would be if I am the next President. I respect the Russians,
concerns and would want the opportunity to persuade them that the NMD
system would never become a threat to them.
I would be prepared to work hard to persuade the Government of the Russian
Federation to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. And, I would
also look for very creative approaches for joint U.S. -Russian responses to
a threat that can be aimed at either one or both of us.
But, at the end of the day, I would not be prepared to let Russian
opposition to this system stand in the way of its deployment, if I should
conclude that the technologies are mature enough to deploy and are both
affordable and needed. I would also work to persuade the Chinese that a
U.S. NMD system is not intended to threaten them, and to allay the concerns
of our allies.
However, as President, I would oppose the kinds of missile defense systems
that would unnecessarily upset strategic stability and threaten to open the
gates for a renewed arms race with Russia and a new arms race with China
including both offensive and defensive weapons.
It would be my objective as President to avoid such an outcome. Instead, I
would aim for another round of deep negotiated reductions to levels agreed
between the United States and Russia at the Helsinki summit. If the
Russians wish to reduce unilaterally below that level for economic reasons
they certainly can and should. But for the United States to go lower
requires a thorough reexamination of the official nuclear doctrine which to
this point guides our military in its planning. As President, I would
initiate such a review and engage deeply in the process.
I have said before that the Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty was an act of massive irresponsibility damaging to the security
interests of the United States, and I repeat that if elected President I
will immediately revive the ratification process and seek to rally the full
force of American public opinion behind it.
If I am elected President, I would also plan to use the extra time created
by President Clinton's decision for a serious bipartisan dialogue about
defensive systems aimed at establishing a consensus that clearly does not
exist at the present time. Of course, if I became convinced of a need to
act I would propose moving forward whether or not it has been possible to
establish this consensus, but it would clearly be in the nation,s best
interest if we could do so.
Statement By Governor George W. Bush Regarding President Clinton's Announcement On
A National Missile Defense System
"As President, I intend to develop and deploy an effective missile defense
system at the earliest possible date to protect American citizens from
accidental launches or blackmail by rogue nations. Today's announcement
that President Clinton will leave this unfinished business for the next
President underscores the fact that for seven years, the Clinton-Gore
administration has failed to strengthen America's defenses.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore first denied the need for missile
defenses, then delayed. Now they are leaving this important unfinished
business for the next President, and I welcome the opportunity to act where
they have failed to lead by developing and deploying effective missile
defenses to protect all 50 states and our friends and allies."
Statement by Al Gore On National Missile Defense
CONTACT: Douglas Hattaway, Chris Lehane 615-340 3251
Home Page