Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
HAVE YOUR DONATION DOUBLED!

If you are able to donate $100 or more for our Annual Fund Drive, your donation will be matched by another generous CounterPuncher! These are tough times. Regardless of the political rhetoric bantered about the airwaves, the recession hasn’t ended for most of us. We know that money is tight for many of you. But we also know that tens of thousands of daily readers of CounterPunch depend on us to slice through the smokescreen and tell it like is. Please, donate if you can!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Reality of North Korean Missiles vs. the Mythology of Missile Defense

by

Photo by Stefan Krasowski | CC BY 2.0

Last month, the mainstream media endorsed the Pentagon’s description of a collision between an American interceptor rocket and a mock intercontinental ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean as the “first successful test of whether it could shoot down a North Korean warhead racing toward the United States.”  Nonsense!

The reality of anti-missile defense, whether called anti-ballistic missiles, “Star Wars,” or today’s National Missile Defense is—in Yogi Berra’s ironic words—a continuing story of “deja vu all over again.”  For the past sixty years, an alliance of weapons laboratories and defense contractors have exaggerated the military threat that these systems are supposed to meet as well as the potential for the success of these systems.

President Eisenhower began the search for a defense against ICBMs in the 1950s when he authorized the operational development of a nuclear-tipped interceptor missile.  President Nixon moved from protecting cities to protecting military sites, and the Senate approved the deployment of a SAFEGUARD anti-ballistic missile system to protect Minuteman missiles in North Dakota. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on these projects.

In 1981, President Reagan launched the biggest peacetime military buildup in history in order to close a non-existent gap in both nuclear and conventional arms with the Soviet Union.  CIA director William Casey and deputy director Robert Gates falsified intelligence to justify the buildup, but an economic downturn and a growing nuclear freeze movement led to pressures against increased defense spending.  President Reagan’s response was the Strategic Defense Initiative or “Star Wars” to change his image from a warmonger to a man of piece and to gain addition military appropriations.

Secretary of State George Shultz, unlike other members of Reagan’s national security team, was interested in a genuine detente with the Soviet Union and did his best to tone down the “Star Wars” campaign.  In private, he went even further, calling Reagan’s science adviser George Keyworth a “lunatic” for suggesting that the technology existed to create a genuine national missile defense (NMD).  The arguments against “Star Wars” that Shultz raised thirty years ago were spot on, and should remind us today that the idea of such a defense remains an illusion.

Thanks to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, we now have so-called NMD in California and Alaska, and key military advisers and their congressional allies are calling for an expanded system on the East Coast.  President Bush is particularly responsible because he abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the cornerstone of strategic deterrence, and began a campaign against multilateralism that the Trump administration is waging aggressively.  In his memoir, former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld fatuously argued that the ABM Treaty was of “dubious legality” because it was negotiated with a Soviet Union that no longer existed.

North Korea has been far more aggressive in testing its missile program in recent months, launching a dozen missiles since the first of the year compared with the 16 tests that took place during the 17-year reign of Kim Jong Un’s father.  Nevertheless, Pyongyang has not demonstrated a missile that could reach the continental United States or the ability to shrink a nuclear warhead to fit atop an ICBM and survive the stresses of re-entering the atmosphere. Since 1999, the CIA has regularly predicted that North Korea would have ICBMs to deploy against the United States.  Secretary of Defense William Cohen cited the 1999 assessment in calling for deployment of national missile defense.

At the same time, the United States has not demonstrated a defensive system that can deal with unsophisticated countermeasures, including the ability to distinguish between genuine and fake warheads.  U.S. defensive systems could be evaded with short-range ballistic and cruise missiles, and have no value against munitions designed to disperse chemical and biological agents.  Since a national missile defense could never be tested in battlefield conditions, any shortcomings would not be apparent until it was too late.  U.S. strategic defenses are already undercutting U.S. efforts to counter the proliferation of strategic offensive weaponry, thus jeopardizing strategic stability.

What the United States has failed to do is to test North Korea’s interest in actual negotiations to place limits on Pyongyang’s missile program.  The United States has genuine leverage in this regard because of Pyongyang’s interest in a peace treaty to end a Korean War that was waged 65 years ago, and to ensure that the United States doesn’t return nuclear weapons to South Korea.  Pyongyang would also like to see some limits on extensive U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which are responsible for increased tensions in the region.  Washington regularly ignores Beijing’s suggestion of a trade-off between limits on North Korean missile testing for greater restraint in U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises.

Unfortunately, the first five months of the Trump administration have clarified that Washington is far more interested in unilateralism than in multilateralism, and has not looked for ways to bargain with either Pyongyang or Moscow toward limiting missile testing or reducing strategic inventories, respectively.  In the past twenty years, we have witnessed the dissolution of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the abrogation of the ABM Treaty, and the nonsensical deployment of a national missile defense.  There is no reason to believe that the Trump administration, dominated by general officers and an incompetent secretary of state, has the sagacity to pursue statesmanship.  The myth of American exceptionalism will continue to dominate American strategy.

More articles by:

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. His latest book is A Whistleblower at the CIA. (City Lights Publishers, 2017).  Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

Weekend Edition
October 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Clinton, Assange and the War on Truth
Michael Hudson
Socialism, Land and Banking: 2017 compared to 1917
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in the Life of CounterPunch
Paul Street
The Not-So-Radical “Socialist” From Vermont
Jason Hirthler
Censorship in the Digital Age
Jonathan Cook
Harvey Weinstein and the Politics of Hollywood
Andrew Levine
Diagnosing the Donald
Michelle Renee Matisons
Relocated Puerto Rican Families are Florida’s Latest Class War Targets
Richard Moser
Goldman Sachs vs. Goldman Sachs?
David Rosen
Male Sexual Violence: As American as Cherry Pie
Mike Whitney
John Brennan’s Police State USA
Robert Hunziker
Mr. Toxicity Zaps America
Peter Gelderloos
Catalan Independence and the Crisis of Democracy
Robert Fantina
Fatah, Hamas, Israel and the United States
Edward Curtin
Organized Chaos and Confusion as Political Control
Patrick Cockburn
The Transformation of Iraq: Kurds Have Lost 40% of Their Territory
CJ Hopkins
Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy
Bill Quigley
The Blueprint for the Most Radical City on the Planet
Brian Cloughley
Chinese Dreams and American Deaths in Africa
John Hultgren
Immigration and the American Political Imagination
Thomas Klikauer
Torturing the Poor, German-Style
Gerry Brown
China’s Elderly Statesmen
Pepe Escobar
Kirkuk Redux Was a Bloodless Offensive, Here’s Why
Jill Richardson
The Mundaneness of Sexual Violence
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin
The Choreography of Human Dignity: Blade Runner 2049 and World War Z
Missy Comley Beattie
Bitch, Get Out!!
Andre Vltchek
The Greatest Indonesian Painter and “Praying to the Pig”
Ralph Nader
Why is Nobelist Economist Richard Thaler so Jovial?
Ricardo Vaz
Venezuela Regional Elections: Chavismo in Triumph, Opposition in Disarray and Media in Denial
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
NAFTA Talks Falter, Time To Increase Pressure
GD Dess
Why We Shouldn’t Let Hillary Haunt Us … And Why Having a Vision Matters
Ron Jacobs
Stop the Idiocy! Stop the Mattis-ness!
Russell Mokhiber
Talley Sergent Aaron Scheinberg Coca Cola Single Payer and the Failure of Democrats in West Virginia
Michael Barker
The Fiction of Kurt Andersen’s “Fantasyland”
Murray Dobbin
Yes, We Need to Tax the Rich
Dave Lindorff
Two Soviet Spies Who Deserve a Posthumous Nobel Peace Prize
Rafael Bernabe – Manuel Rodríguez Banchs
Open Letter to the People of the United States From Puerto Rico, a Month After Hurricane María
Oliver Tickell
#FreeJackLetts
Victor Grossman
From Jamaica to Knees
Michael Welton
Faith and the World: the Baha’i Vision
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Kirkuk the Consolation Prize?
Graham Peebles
Beyond Neo-Liberal Consumerism
Louis Proyect
On Gowans on Syria
Charles R. Larson
Review: Candida R. Moss and Joel S. Baden’s “Bible Nation: the United States of Hobby Lobby”
David Yearsley
Katy Perry’s Gastro-Pop, Gastro-Porn Orgy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail