Bush's missile defense plans may be indistinct from Clinton-Gore's
June 1, 2000
Web posted at: 6:23 PM EDT (2223 GMT)
By Jamie McIntyre/CNN Military Affairs Correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) --
Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush portrays himself as a bold advocate of cutting the nation's nuclear arsenal while building a bigger, better defense against enemy missiles than the anti-missile system the Pentagon is currently developing.
But are his positions really all that different from the policies of the Clinton-Gore Administration?
Bush says he's ready to cast off outdated Cold War strategies, and have the United States lead by example in cutting its nuclear arsenal.
"I will pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national security," Bush said late last month.
But in fact, Bush's unspecified minimum number of nuclear warheads could end up
being the same as the START-III goal of 2,500 agreed to by President Bill Clinton and former Russian President Boris Yeltsin three years ago in Helsinki.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the U.S. Strategic Commander, are already on record as saying the 2,500 level is as low as they would want to go.
"I am quite uncomfortable going outside the Helsinki framework without the
requisite analysis on a subject of such major strategic importance," said Admiral Jay Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations, at a May 23 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Pentagon sources say it is unlikely any new analysis would recommend deeper cuts, because of the desire of the military commanders to keep enough nukes to fully arm the so-called nuclear "triad" of missiles, bombers, and submarines.
It's equally unlikely that a pro-defense candidate such as Bush would overrule the military chiefs.
So while Bush sounds like he's proposing substantial cuts in nuclear force levels, it could be a difference without much distinction.
It's a similar story on national missile defense.
Bush insists he would build a bigger anti-missile system than the one under development by the Clinton-Gore Administration.
"Now the approach it proposes is flawed, a system initially based on a single site when experts say that more is needed," Bush said recently.
In fact, more is already planned.
Besides 100 interceptor missiles at a single site in Alaska, the Clinton
Administration plan calls for a potential second site in North Dakota, with up to 150 more interceptors, as well as the option of supplementing both sites with ship-based defenses that could also provide some measure of defense for U.S. allies.
That, essentially, is the same program advocated by Bush -- at least so far as can be determined from his public statements and statements by his campaign advisors.
So while candidate Bush gives the impression he's more willing to cut nuclear weapons and supports a better missile defense than Al Gore, he won't provide the details that would tell voters whether his policy on those two issues is really much different from the vice president's.
|