7.07.00
The Heritage Foundation's Baker Spring

7.05.00
Harry Browne

6.30.00
Nebraska Attorney General Donald Stenberg

6.29.00
Grover Joseph Rees Says...

6.28.00
Pro-Life Activist Clark Forsythe

6.22.00
Condoleezza Rice

6.21.00
Rep. Richard Baker

6.20.00
Pat Choate on the Reform Party

6.20.00
Law Professor Richard Epstein

6.19.00
Sekulow on the Supremes & Prayer

6.19.00
Nicholas Eberstadt on Koreas Summit

7/07/00 11:20 p.m.
The Heritage Foundation's Baker Spring
“I think the importance [of this missile-defense test] is being overblown.”

By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NR associate editor--------------lopezk@ix.netcom.com

aker Spring is a missile-defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Lopez: How important is Friday night's missile-defense test?

Baker Spring: Overblown. I think the importance is being overblown. I think that the press is looking at this from two perspectives that I think are a little misleading to the public as a whole. One is that it is obviously a very interesting story to have this whole thing boil down to a make-or-break test. And, describing it that way makes it easier for the public to understand, even though it is not the way we conduct research-and-development programs for complex weapons systems. The second thing, of course, is that the press is generally hostile and many in the Clinton administration are hostile to the idea of missile defense. They're hoping that if this test is not successful, that it becomes an easy way for the president to defer a decision to select an architecture. That, in and of itself, is misleading because the public is being led to believe that the president's decision is not about selecting an architecture, but rather about making a decision about whether to deploy a missile-defense system. That basic decision to deploy, of course, was made the moment the president signed into law the Missile Defense Act of 1999, approximately a year ago. That law makes it the policy of the United States to deploy such a system as soon as is technologically feasible.

Lopez: Is it fair to say that this test hype is an antic of the Clinton administration's, or is it more the fault of the press?

Spring: I think both. The president contributed to the idea that this was about — not so much this test, but that his decision about selecting the architecture was in fact a decision about whether to deploy. He put out a message, shortly after signing the Missile Defense Act, that essentially denied the clear meaning of the act. The president, in my judgment, has been acting inconsistently with the requirements of the act, essentially from the moment he signed it. It raises very serious questions about whether the president is faithfully executing the law. But then I think the press has contributed to the problem by not calling the president on the carpet about that very fact.

Lopez: What are the long-term diplomatic consequences of all this, especially given recent statements by Russia, Germany, and others?

Spring: The long-term diplomatic consequences could be very important, indeed, fundamental, but I don't believe that they're negative. For example, people are talking about North Korea improving its ballistic-missile capabilities to overcome a U.S. missile-defense system by developing countermeasures to those missile.

My judgment is that if we deploy a layered missile-defense system that includes space-based elements that destroy ballistic missiles in the boost phase, the incentive for North Korea to pursue those kinds of improvements or indeed to continue to pursue aggressively ballistic-missile programs at all is likely to be diminished. In the case of Europe, the assumption is that you might split the allies on this because they might be concerned about a Fortress America that will decouple the U.S. from Europe, and for that matter, its Asian allies.

My judgment is that if we go with a sea-based defense, that will protect the U.S. and its allies in essentially equivalent terms, and you will actually probably wind up reinforcing the alliance commitments. But that is not to say that this wouldn't be a fundamentally different approach to defense than what we have today, which is essentially based on nuclear retaliation. That, in and of itself, of course, will be a transforming event in terms of U.S. strategic and military postures. But those aren't negative in the least.

Lopez: The wires are all reporting on the Nobel scientists who spent some time at the White House with the president on Thursday decrying missile defense. How much of a menace are they?

Spring: Obviously, you are going to have a whole host of people who are coming in on this on both sides with regard to moving forward or not moving forward. The decision is ultimately still in terms of selecting an architecture and is the president's and whenever the president chooses to be moved by one group of claimants with regard to a position or another is really up to him. At the risk of sounding cynical about it, I believe that his decision — on the basis of his track record not only generally but in regard to specifically the missile-defense issue — is to view this almost exclusively in the context of the campaign prospects for Vice President Gore.

Lopez: And how crucial a role does the missile-defense issue play in the presidential race?

Spring: Potentially, very. So far we have seen a dynamic on most issues where both Gore and Gov. Bush have been moving to the center in an attempt to try to persuade so-called moderate voters. One of few exceptions has been this issue. I think that Gov. Bush has recognized that this is a conservative issue that is actually fairly popular with the American people and there's no real reason for him to move to the center on this issue. Vice President Gore recognizes that and has been essentially try to have it both ways, as has President Clinton — that is, appear to be in favor of missile defense while actually doing nothing substantive to move forward with it. And his predilection, ideologically, of course, is to do nothing in this area, not to proceed forward with missile defenses in any way. So the question is: How far is he going to be pressed in order to put forward this appearance of wanting to move forward on missile defense, and will it actually result, by political necessity even though both Clinton's and Gore's predilections are otherwise, to actually have to do something substantive?

Lopez: Has Secretary Cohen aided and abetted in this strategy?

Spring: I think that he has actually been fairly helpful to the proponents of missile defense. I read that on the basis that the poor guy has been slapped down by the White House from time to time on the issue. So my judgment is that his sympathy to moving forward in this area clearly greater than those of President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home