Morning Bell: The New START Threat to Missile Defense

Conn Carroll / May 18, 2010

On March 26 the White House released a fact sheet on the New START Treaty. It claimed that the agreement signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev “does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs.”

But the Russians seem to have a different interpretation of the document they signed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow on April 6th that Russia would exit the treaty if “the U.S.’s build-up of its missile defense strategic potential in numbers and quality begins to considerably affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces. … Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding.”

So which is it? Does New START place limits on U.S. missile defense or not? While an April 8th State Department fact sheet on “Ballistic Missile Defense and New START Treaty” mirrored the March 26th language, an “updated” April 21st State Department fact sheet showed significant movement towards the Russian position. It says, “The New START Treaty does not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible.”

Notice the change? The Obama administration has backtracked from “does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs” to “does not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible.” So are only the “most effective missile defenses” allowed by New START? As determined by whom? By the Russians? By Obama’s nominee to be Associate Director for the National Security and International Affairs, Office of Science and Technology Policy Philip Coyle? Coyle, by the way, has made a name for himself by questioning whether missile defense is technically possible, despite a proven track record of repeated successes by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency. If a new U.S. President who actually believes in missile defense is elected, would that Commander in Chief be constrained by what President Obama and anti-missile defense advocates like Coyle thought qualified as “effective missile defense”? (more…)