Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions: A Review of the Historical Record

Congressional research reportMay 25, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms

Reductions: A Review of the Historical Record

/name redacted/

Specialist in Missile Defense

/name redacted/

Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy

May 25, 2010

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41251

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Summary

The United States and Russia signed the New START Treaty on April 8, 2010, and it awaits

Senate consideration. The preamble to the Treaty contains a “provision on the interrelationship of

strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms.” This statement does not contain any limits

on current or planned U.S. missile defense programs. However, some analysts have questioned

whether Russia’s threat to withdraw from New START if the United States expands its missile

defense capabilities might have a “chilling effect” on U.S. missile defense plans and programs.

Ballistic missile defenses have been an issue in U.S.-Soviet and U.S.-Russian arms control talks

since the 1970s. During the Cold War, the nations sought to balance limits on offensive weapons

and defensive weapons so that they could maintain “strategic stability,” which refers to the ability

of each side to launch a retaliatory strike after absorbing a first strike by the other side. Most

analysts argued that missile defenses would undermine stability by protecting the attacking nation

from the effects of a second strike; some argued that defenses could enhance stability by

undermining the effectiveness of the first strike. The former construct was evident in the Strategic

Arms Limitation talks (SALT), where the United States and Soviet Union agreed to limit both

offensive forces and ballistic missile defenses. The latter formula was evident in the Reagan

Administration’s advocacy of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

During the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) in the 1980s, the Soviet Union sought to

link limits on offensive weapons to limits on ballistic missile defenses and SDI. The United States

rejected this linkage, and the 1991 START Treaty did not contain any limits on missile defenses.

The Soviet Union issued a unilateral statement indicating that it would withdraw from START if

the United States violated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. However, when the

United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, Russia did not withdraw from START.

Moreover, during the 1990s, when the United States faced Russia’s threat to withdraw from

START, the U.S. commitment to missile defense strengthened. In the early part of the decade,

U.S. missile defense programs focused on the threat posed by shorter- and medium-range

missiles, like those the United States encountered during Desert Storm. However, growing

concerns in the latter half of the decade about long-range ballistic missiles fueled an increase in

emphasis and growing funding on national missile defenses. The Clinton Administration initiated

a program, known as 3+3, that explored the technical feasibility of deploying such defenses in the

early part of the 2000s. When the Bush Administration took office, it withdrew the United States

from the ABM Treaty and began to deploy long-range missile defense interceptors in Alaska and

California.

A review of the budget data on ballistic missile defenses shows that U.S. funding for these

programs grew steadily through the 1990s. Funding has leveled off in the past 10 years, but

support for missile defense has been strong across the political spectrum in the United States.

Congressional appropriations have nearly equaled the budget requests for these programs each

year. The Obama Administration has also emphasized its support for ballistic missile defenses, in

both its Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Review and its budget request for FY2011.

This report may be updated as needed.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Strategic Stability and the Relationship Between Offensive and Defensive Forces .......................3

Strategic Stability During the Cold War.................................................................................4

Strategic Stability and Arms Control .....................................................................................5

Missile Defense and the 1991 START Treaty...............................................................................6

The Offense/Defense Relationship ........................................................................................6

The Negotiating Framework..................................................................................................7

START Ratification...............................................................................................................9

Resolving Competing Priorities........................................................................................... 10

Missile Defense Programs and Budgets ..................................................................................... 11

BMD in the 1980s............................................................................................................... 11

BMD in the 1990s............................................................................................................... 12

Current BMD Plans and Programs....................................................................................... 15

Missile Defense Budgets Over Time.................................................................................... 17

The Past as Prologue? ............................................................................................................... 21

Figures

Figure 1. BMD Appropriations: NMD vs. TMD ........................................................................ 18

Figure 2. BMD: Percentage of PB vs. Appropriations ................................................................ 19

Figure 3. BMD: PB vs. Appropriations...................................................................................... 20

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Introduction

Russia has long been concerned with U.S. ballistic missile defense programs, arguing that the

increasing capabilities of U.S. missile defenses could undermine Russia’s strategic offensive

nuclear forces and undermine strategic stability. During the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

(SALT) in the 1970s, the United States and Soviet Union had addressed the link between

offensive and defensive systems in their arms control treaty negotiations. However, in recent

years, the United States has argued that the ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs it is

pursuing will be neither numerous enough nor capable enough to intercept Russia’s strategic

offensive ballistic missiles or undermine Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.

The United States and Russia signed the New START Treaty—the Treaty ... on Measures for the

Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms—on April 8, 2010,1 and it awaits

Senate consideration. New START is not of unlimited duration; it would expire 10 years after it

enters into force. When President Obama and President Medvedev launched the negotiations on

this treaty in April 2009, they agreed that the two nations would address Russia’s concerns with

U.S. missile defense programs in a separate forum from the negotiations on a New START

Treaty.2 However, during their meeting in Moscow in July 2009, they agreed that the new treaty

would contain a “provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive arms and strategic

defensive arms.”3 This statement, which appears in the preamble to New START, states that the

parties recognize

the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive

arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are

reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and

effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties.

Russia and the United States each issued unilateral statements when they signed New START that

clarified their positions on the relationship between New START and missile defenses. Russia

stated that

the Treaty can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from

developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively. Consequently, the

exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 14 of the Treaty include increasing the

capabilities of the United States of America’s missile defense system in such a way that

threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.4

See CRS Report R41219, The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, by (name redacted).

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Joint Statement by President Dmitriy Medvedev of the Russian

Federation and President Barack Obama of the United States of America, April 1, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the_press_office/Joint-Statement-by-President-Dmitriy-Medvedev-of-the-Russian-Federation-and-President-BarackObama-of-the-United-States-of-America/.

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Joint Understanding by Obama, Medvedev on Weapon Negotiations.

July 8, 2009. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/July/20090708154724xjsnommis0.7355005.html.

Article 14, following the form of most previous arms control treaties, indicates that each party shall have the right to

withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject of the Treaty have jeopardized its

supreme national interests. For the Russian statement, see http://eng.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2010/04/225214.shtml.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

In its statement, the United States stated that its

missile defense systems are not intended to affect the strategic balance with Russia. The

United States missile defense systems would be employed to defend the United States

against limited missile launches, and to defend its deployed forces, allies and partners against

regional threats. The United States intends to continue improving and deploying its missile

defense systems in order to defend itself against limited attack and as part of our

collaborative approach to strengthening stability in key regions.5

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, indicated, in a press conference after the negotiators

completed the treaty, that the language in the Treaty preamble was set down in a “legally binding”

form. He stated, further, that the sides had appropriate levels of strategic offensive arms at this

point, but “if there are changes to these levels, each side reserves the right to make a decision on

whether to continue to take part in the process of strategic offensive arms cuts.”6 Some in the

United States have questioned whether this statement means that the United States and Russia

agreed that increases in U.S. ballistic missile defenses would upset stability, and therefore that

they could serve as cause to terminate the New START Treaty. Moreover, they have expressed

concerns that, if the United States has not accepted this interpretation, the two parties hold

different interpretations of their obligations under the Treaty and that these differences could

disrupt the treaty’s implementation.

The Obama Administration has agreed that the language in the treaty preamble is “legally

binding,” in that it is a part of the formal text of the Treaty. But the Administration has insisted

that the preamble contains no legal or practical limits on missile defense and imposes no

obligations on the United States. Moreover, the Administration has insisted, as Under Secretary of

State Ellen Tauscher stated, “Russia’s unilateral statement on missile defenses is not an integral

part of the New START Treaty. It’s not legally binding. It won’t constrain U.S. missile defense

programs.”7

Nevertheless, some have questioned whether Russia’s threat to withdraw from New START

might have a “chilling effect” on U.S. missile defense plans and programs. They contend that the

United States might limit these programs itself to avoid a possible disruption of the arms control

process or the possible increase in tensions with Russia. As Senator Jeff Sessions noted in a

speech on May 13, 2010, “I can’t help but worry that these provisions will have a negative impact

on U.S. decision-making with respect to missile defense.”8 Members of the Senate are likely to

raise this question, and explore the potentially different U.S. and Russian views on the

relationship between New START and U.S. ballistic missile defense programs, during the debate

on the New START Treaty.

When the United States and Soviet Union negotiated the 1991 START Treaty, the Soviet Union

also sought to link limits on offensive nuclear weapons with limits on ballistic missile defenses.

The United States did not agree to the Soviet proposals, so the Soviet Union released a unilateral

statement when it signed START, noting that the Treaty would not remain in force if the United

See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140406.pdf.

“Russian Foreign Minister’s Briefing on Nuclear Arms Cuts Treaty,” Moscow, Rossiya 24, March 26, 2010.

Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher, The Case for New START Ratification, Atlantic Council Panel Discussion,

April 21, 2010. http://www.state.gov/t/us/140633.htm.

Comments at breakfast sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation, Washington, DC, May 13, 2010.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

States withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty.9 This statement did not serve to slow U.S. missile

defense programs after START entered into force. Moreover, the United States and Soviet Union

held discussions during the latter half of the 1990s on possible modifications to the ABM Treaty

so that the United States could deploy more extensive ballistic missile defenses without

withdrawing from the Treaty. These negotiations proved unsuccessful. Russia continued to object

to U.S. ballistic missile defense plans and to caution the United States not to withdraw from the

Treaty. Nevertheless, when the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, Russia did

not withdraw from START.

This report seeks to shed some light on the past relationship between ballistic missile defenses

and negotiations on offensive arms control treaties. It provides aN historical review of the way in

which the United States and Soviet Union addressed ballistic missile defense issues during their

negotiations on the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in the 1980s and early 1990s.

It also provides a review of U.S. missile defense policy and summarizes data on missile defense

spending during the 1980s, 1990s, and the past decade. The report then reviews the recent record

on the way the New START negotiations addressed ballistic missile defense issues and offers

some observations about whether this historical record may provide insights into how the United

States might proceed with its ballistic missile defense programs in the future.10

Strategic Stability and the Relationship Between

Offensive and Defensive Forces

Russia’s concerns about U.S. missile defense programs derive from its stated concern that missile

defenses could upset strategic stability by undermining the effectiveness of Russia’s offensive

nuclear weapons. Specifically, Russia appears to be concerned that, if the United States were to

increase the numbers and capabilities of its missile defense interceptors while Russia was

reducing its numbers of deployed offensive weapons, the time may come when the United States

believed it had the ability to launch a first strike against Russia’s strategic forces while protecting

itself from Russia’s retaliatory attack with its missile defenses. In this environment, Russia may

believe it had to increase its offensive forces so that it would have enough surviving weapons to

penetrate the U.S. missile defenses. Such a response could require a withdrawal from the New

START Treaty.

Many analysts argue that this “Cold War” view of the relationship between U.S. missile defenses

and Russian offensive weapons should not be relevant in the current strategic environment, in

which the United States and Russia are not poised on the brink of conflict. The Bush

Administration emphasized this point when it noted, in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, that the

United States would “no longer plan, size or sustain its nuclear forces as though Russia presented

merely a smaller version of the threat posed by the former Soviet Union.”11 This change in the

U.S.-Russian relationship was also evident in U.S. ballistic missile defense plans that were

Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher, The Case for New START Ratification, Atlantic Council Panel Discussion,

April 21, 2010. http://www.state.gov/t/us/140633.htm.

Because this report focuses on the historical record, it will not be updated to include information on the Senate

debate on the relationship between the New START Treaty and ballistic missile defenses. This information will be

available in CRS Report R41219, The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, by (name redacted).

U.S. Department of Defense, Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review, news transcript, January 9, 2002.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

intended to address concerns about emerging threats and adversaries. As a result, this Cold War

offense-defense scenario is not consistent with the capabilities planned for U.S. missile defenses

or the U.S. intent in deploying these systems. Specifically, the United States is pursuing missile

defenses to defend its allies and forces overseas against threats from shorter and medium-range

missiles that they might encounter in regional conflicts around the world, and to defend the

continental United States from threats that might emerge as nations deploy small numbers of

long-range ballistic missiles. Thus, although the United States may eventually be able to defend

against a force of dozens of long-range missiles from an emerging adversary, it would not have

the ability to defend against an attack with hundreds of Russian missiles.

This model of strategic stability was, however, relevant to assessments of the relationship

between offensive and defense weapons during the Cold War. It is seen to have had a significant

effect on the way that arms control agreements negotiated in the 1970s and 1980s addressed

missile defenses and offensive reductions.

Strategic Stability During the Cold War

In theory, strategic stability refers to the condition that exists when two potential adversaries

recognize that neither would gain an advantage if it were to begin a conflict with the other. Each

party would recognize not only that the costs of the conflict, even if it launched the first strike,

would outweigh the gains that might be realized, but also that the other side was likely to draw

the same conclusion. Each would know that, even if it were attacked, enough of its forces could

survive the first strike to retaliate against the other side with a devastating response. And each

would know that, even if it did attack first, the other side would have enough forces surviving the

strike to launch a devastating retaliatory attack. Hence, neither would feel compelled to shoot

first, because the costs of doing so would far outweigh the benefits. This situation, where each

side is equally vulnerable to retaliation from the other, is considered to be stable.12

This model of strategic stability postulates a strong relationship between offensive forces and

defensive forces. It assumes that each side has enough offensive forces to retaliate after a first

strike and it assumes that neither side has the defensive capability to impede the other sides’

ability to deliver its devastating retaliatory strike. If missile defense systems were built to defend

against an attack on strategic nuclear offensive forces, so that they protected those forces against

a first strike and ensured that each side had enough weapons to launch a devastating retaliatory

attack, then missile defenses could contribute to stability. Similarly, if the missile defenses were

limited in number and scope, so that a nation knew it could penetrate the defenses in a retaliatory

strike, then they would not upset strategic stability. If, however, one side were to deploy defenses

that could protect its territory, broad segments of its infrastructure, its leadership, or its

population, then the other may conclude that it needed to increase its offensive forces to make

sure they could penetrate those defenses and cause a sufficient level of destruction in a retaliatory

attack. Alternatively, if each side limited its defensive forces, both sides could reduce their

offensive forces because they would be certain that the surviving weapons could penetrate to their

targets in a retaliatory strike.

During the Cold War, this model, and its relationship between offensive and defensive forces, came to be known as

mutual assured destruction, or MAD.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Strategic Stability and Arms Control

The model of strategic stability that linked reductions in offensive weapons with limits on

ballistic missile defenses was enshrined in the arms control process of the 1970s. In the 1972

Treaty ... on The Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty), the United States

and Soviet Union agreed that they would not deploy defenses that could protect their entire

territories, and would, instead, deploy only a single limited system that could protect either the

nation’s capital or an ICBM deployment area.13 The companion Interim Agreement on Certain

Measures With Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms sought to freeze numbers

of missiles in each side’s offensive forces, while the 1979 SALT Treaty called for more detailed

limits and some reductions on strategic offensive forces. This Treaty never entered into force, and

the advent of ballistic missiles with multiple warheads (MIRVs) undermined efforts to limit

offensive forces by limiting the number of delivery vehicles.14 As a result, in subsequent years,

the United States and Soviet Union both increased the numbers of warheads on their offensive

forces, in spite of the agreed limits on ballistic missile defenses. Nevertheless, many analysts

continued to assert that reductions in offensive forces and limits on ballistic missile defenses

could work together to enhance strategic stability.

The offense/defense relationship enshrined in the ABM and SALT Treaties was not the only

model of strategic stability discussed during the START negotiations and the U.S. debates over

missile defense in the 1980s. Some analysts postulated that missile defense capabilities could

enhance stability and encourage further reductions in offensive weapons if the defenses were

robust enough to stop nearly all of an adversary’s missiles in a first strike. In this model, strategic

stability would exist if both potential adversaries knew that they were not at risk from a surprise

first strike because each knew that it could stop the attack with its missile defense systems. And

both knew that the other side would not be tempted to launch a first strike because it knew its

attack would be unsuccessful. In this environment, both sides should be willing to reduce their

strategic offensive forces because they would no longer need an assured retaliatory capability.

Further, reductions in the offensive forces on both sides would enhance the effectiveness of the

missile defenses.

President Ronald Reagan embraced this model of strategic stability and the offense/defense

relationship with his 1983 proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). He envisioned SDI

as a robust, global system that would protect the United States from a massive launch of Soviet

missiles. He also offered to share such a system with the Soviet Union, possibly recognizing that

unilateral defenses could be destabilizing because they would protect only one potential adversary

from a first strike. Missile defenses would only strengthen strategic stability if both sides were

protected from a first strike, so that they provided “mutual assured survivability” for both

potential adversaries.

This restriction was not just a response to concerns about strategic stability, it also recognized technological reality.

Neither side was likely to develop or deploy a system capable of defending its entire national territory against attacks

from large numbers of ballistic missiles.

The United States and Soviet Union had each begun their MIRV programs as a response to the other side’s potential

deployment of ballistic missile defenses. By the time they signed the SALT I agreements, the MIRV programs were

well underway. Neither side decided to stop them at that point.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Missile Defense and the 1991 START Treaty

On March 12, 1985, the United States and the Soviet Union began negotiations in Geneva,

referred to as the Nuclear and Space Talks (NST). These negotiations addressed defense and

space systems, intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF), and strategic nuclear weapons with three

separate negotiating teams. The competing views on strategic stability and the offense/defense

relationship were evident in these negotiations and affected both the substance of the proposals

presented by the United States and Soviet Union and the structure of the arms control

negotiations.

The Offense/Defense Relationship

The United States and Soviet Union both linked their proposals for reductions in strategic

offensive forces to the broader goal of the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. However, the

United States and the Soviet Union had different versions of a transition to a world without

nuclear weapons. Specifically, because of their different views on stability and the

offense/defense relationship, they differed on the role that missile defenses would play in the

arms reduction process.15

President Reagan based his position on a “New Strategic Concept,” which was first detailed by

Ambassador Paul Nitze, the senior arms control adviser to the Administration, on January

25,1985, just prior to the first round of the Geneva negotiations. The U.S. position outlined three

phases. First, the United States sought a radical reduction in the number and power of all nuclear

weapons. Second, there would be a transition period away from reliance on nuclear weapons after

a decision was made that effective and survivable strategic defenses against ballistic missiles

could and should be deployed. After the deployment of robust missile defenses, this transition

period could be followed by the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons.

President Gorbachev’s version of a nuclear-free world, which he unveiled in January 1986, also

foresaw three distinct phases. First, by the early 1990s, the superpowers would reduce by half the

number of their strategic nuclear weapons and dismantle all their INF weapons based in Europe.16

In the second phase, all nuclear weapons powers would begin to dismantle all their nuclear

weapons and join in a nuclear test ban. In the third phase all nuclear weapons would be

dismantled by the year 2000. For President Gorbachev, these three phases would only be possible

if the United States and Soviet Union remained committed to the ABM Treaty and the United

States abandoned its plans to deploy robust missile defenses.

Although both versions anticipated complete nuclear disarmament through a series of phases,

there were fundamental differences. The Reagan vision implied that each phase was dependent

upon developing SDI, and that deployment of strategic defenses was necessary as an “insurance

policy” in a world without nuclear weapons. In contrast, the Gorbachev vision argued that halting

SDI was a prerequisite to disarmament because the U.S. search for comprehensive strategic

For a summary of the Geneva Talks see CRS Issue Brief IB85157, Arms Control: Overview of the Geneva Talks, by

(name redacted), March 22, 1988 (out of print; available on request from the author).

Gorbachev also said that the British and the French would have to freeze their current nuclear modernization plans;

he backed away from this idea at summit in Reykjavík, Iceland.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

defenses was inherently destabilizing, threatening to give the United States a “first strike

potential” against the Soviet Union.

These differences were evident in the U.S. and Soviet negotiating positions in the Defense and

Space Talks. At the Reykjavík summit where President Reagan indicated that the United States

would agree to a 10-year commitment not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty if the Soviets agreed

to (l) to reduce strategic offensive weapons by 50% in five years (changed to seven years in April

1987); (2) eliminate all ballistic missiles in a second five-year period; and (3) allow deployment

of strategic defenses after a 10-year period (changed to seven years in April 1987). In other

words, the United States offered to delay the deployment of SDI for 10 years while the United

States and Soviet Union implemented deep reductions in their offensive forces.

President Gorbachev agreed, at the Reykjavík Summit, that the United States and Soviet Union

should reduce their offensive nuclear weapons by 50% within five years. He also agreed that both

sides should eliminate their offensive nuclear forces within 10 years, although there were

differences in the details of the U.S. and Soviet positions on this issue. However, President

Gorbachev insisted on linking this time line for offensive reductions to resolution of the

fundamental U.S. and Soviet differences over the SDI program. President Gorbachev agreed with

the U.S. proposal that the parties should remain committed to the ABM Treaty for a period of 10

years. But he sought to slow or stall research on SDI during that period, proposing that all

research and testing of strategic defense technologies would be restricted to the laboratory. He

also differed from President Reagan, who had proposed that the United States could make a

unilateral decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and deploy SDI at the end of the 10-year

period, and indicated that the parties would have to agree on a way forward for the ABM Treaty

and SDI at the end of the 10-year period.

In the end, the United States and Soviet Union left Reykjavík without reaching an agreement on

either offensive reductions or the way forward for missile defenses and the ABM Treaty. Press

reports indicate that Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev were in general agreement on the goals of

reducing, and eventually eliminating offensive forces, and on the goals of abiding by the ABM

Treaty for 10 years and restricting missile defense deployments during that time. However,

according to most reports, President Gorbachev insisted on linking these agreements to an

agreement that would restrict SDI to research in the laboratory, and President Reagan was

unwilling to accept such strict limits on missile defense research, even in pursuit of the

elimination of offensive nuclear weapons.17

The Negotiating Framework

The United States saw the three sets of discussions in the Nuclear and Space Talks as independent

of each other. In September 1984, President Reagan noted that “if progress is temporarily halted

at one set of talks, this newly established framework could help us take up the slack at other

negotiations.” In contrast, Soviet negotiators stressed that the interrelationship of the talks meant

that there had to be progress in all three areas at the same time.

For a description of the Reykjavík Summit, see Richard Rhodes, Arsenals of Folly: the Making of the Nuclear Arms

Race (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), pp. 236-270. See also, David Hoffman, The Dead Hand (New York,

NY: Doubleday; 2009), pp. 259-273.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

By 1987, the Soviet Union had agreed to pursue the negotiations on the INF Treaty separately, but

it continued to link progress on reductions in strategic offensive forces with progress in the

defense and space talks. In January 1988 the Soviet negotiators submitted a draft protocol on

Defense and Space to their draft START Treaty, linking agreement on strategic arms reductions to

resolution of the U.S.-Soviet differences over space and defensive systems. Not only did it

contain the Soviet proposal for a 10-year ban on SDI deployment and a mutual agreement on how

to proceed at the end of the 10-year period, it maintained that the START Treaty would cease to

be in force if either party violated or abrogated the ABM Treaty or the Protocol. Hence, in the

Soviet framework, a U.S. decision to deploy SDI without Soviet agreement would have breached

the Defense and Space Protocol and terminated Soviet compliance with START.

The United States, in contrast, submitted two completely separate documents for the

negotiations—a draft treaty on defense and space weapons and a draft treaty on strategic

offensive arms reductions. It rejected any link between the two and any suggestions that

compliance with the ABM Treaty would affect the status of the START Treaty. The Soviet Union

eventually agreed that the two documents could be separate, but continued to insist that progress

in offensive arms reductions had to be linked to progress on missile defenses. The Soviet Union

insisted it would only accept a 50% reduction in offensive forces if the two sides concluded a

Defense and Space agreement that would restrict research, development, and testing of missile

defense systems.

In September 1989, during a ministerial meeting between Secretary of State James Baker and

Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, the Soviet Union dropped its link between the conclusion

of START and the conclusion of an agreement on Defense and Space Weapons. It continued to

state that it would withdraw from START, however, if the United States violated the ABM Treaty,

and it sought to include an agreed statement in START that recognized this linkage. The United

States refused, and in February 1990, the Soviet Union withdrew its insistence on an agreed

statement outlining its right to withdraw from START.18

Instead, when the United States and Soviet Union signed START in July 1991, the Soviet Union

issued a unilateral statement that indicated that it would withdraw from START if the United

States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. Specifically, the Soviet letter stated:

This Treaty may be effective and viable only under conditions of compliance with the Treaty

between the U.S. and the USSR on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, as

signed on May 26, 1972. The extraordinary events referred to in Article XV of this Treaty

also include events related to withdrawal by one of the Parties from the Treaty on the

Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, or related to its material breach.19

Article XV states that “each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to

withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of

this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.”

CRS Report 92-535, START and Nuclear Arms Control: Chronology of Major Events 1982-1992, by (name redacted)

(out of print; available on request from the author).

See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/27390.pdf, p. 57.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

The United States did not agree with the Soviet view and noted, in its own unilateral statement:

the full exercise by the United States of its legal rights under the ABM Treaty, as we have

discussed with the Soviet Union in the past, would not constitute a basis for such withdrawal.

The United States will be signing the START Treaty and submitting it to the United States

Senate for advice and consent to ratification with this view. In addition, the provisions for

withdrawal from the START Treaty based on supreme national interests clearly envision that

such withdrawal could only be justified by extraordinary events that have jeopardized a

Party’s supreme interest. Soviet statements that a future, hypothetical U.S. withdrawal from

the ABM Treaty could create such conditions are without legal or military foundation. The

ABM Treaty, as signed on May 26, 1972, has already been substantially amended and

clarified by subsequent agreements between the Parties. Moreover, current and future

negotiations, to which the Soviet Union committed in the June 1990 Summit Joint Statement,

could lead to significant additional changes in the ABM Treaty, or its replacement. Changes

in the ABM Treaty agreed to by the Parties would not be a basis for questioning the

effectiveness or viability of the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic

Offensive Arms.20

The United States signed START even though the Soviet Union continued to assert that further

development of U.S. missile defenses would constitute a threat to its security and even though the

Soviet Union asserted a right to withdraw from START if the United States withdrew from the

ABM Treaty to deploy those defenses. The United States rejected this linkage, and, through its

own statement, noted that the two nations were still negotiating possible changes to or a

replacement for the ABM Treaty in the Defense and Space Talks.

START Ratification

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the START Treaty during the first half

of 1992. During these hearings, neither the witnesses from the George H.W. Bush Administration

nor the Senators on the committee mentioned the Soviet unilateral statement linking START and

the ABM Treaty or the U.S. response to that statement. The Senators were concerned, however,

about the possibility that a recent agreement between President George H.W. Bush and President

Yeltsin to pursue far deeper reductions in offensive weapons (an agreement that would become

START II) would be impossible if the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. James

Baker, who was Secretary of State, had indicated that he did believe that U.S. withdrawal from

the ABM Treaty would derail the negotiations on deeper reductions. Two START negotiators—

Linton Brooks and Ron Lehman—agreed with the Secretary’s views.21 Hence, even though the

administration witnesses acknowledged that Russia might link further negotiations on deeper

reductions to U.S. compliance with the ABM Treaty, no one questioned whether Russia might

withdraw from START under those circumstances. The Soviet effort to link START and the ABM

Treaty had escaped everyone’s notice. 22

Ibid.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The START Treaty, Part 2, Hearing, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess.,

June 1992, S.Hrg. 102-607, Pt. 2 (Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 82-84.

The absence of concern about Russia’s response to U.S. missile defenses also reflected the sense, at the time, that

Russia might be more amenable to cooperating with the United States on ballistic missile defenses. Russia had agreed

to hold discussions, in what became known as the Ross-Memedov talks, on a “global protection system” to defend

against emerging ballistic missile threats.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Resolving Competing Priorities

During the 1980s, the Soviet Union expressed strong and continuing objections to U.S. missile

defense goals, in general, and the SDI program, in particular, and placed a high priority on

limiting these programs through arms control. But, as the negotiations proceeded, the Soviet

Union backed away from these demands so that it could preserve progress in limits on offensive

weapons. It began by insisting that an agreement limiting missile defense research and

deployments be crafted as a Protocol to the treaty limiting offensive nuclear weapons. When the

United States refused to accept this formula, the Soviet Union agreed to address defensive forces

and offensive forces in two separate treaties, but continued to try to link the two with an agreed

statement in START. Again, the United States refused, and eventually the Soviet Union had to

settle for a unilateral statement expressing its own view of the relationship between START and

the ABM Treaty. In the end, in spite of its constant criticism of the SDI program, it placed a

higher priority on the completion of a treaty limiting strategic offensive arms than it did on

establishing legally binding limits on U.S. missile defenses and a legally binding link between

U.S. compliance with the ABM Treaty and START.

The United States, for its part, demonstrated throughout the START talks that it placed a higher

priority on protecting its missile defense programs than it did on completing a treaty limiting

offensive weapons by resisting all Soviet efforts to link the two in the negotiations. Moreover,

this ordering of priorities remained evident throughout the 1990s. U.S. missile defense programs

expanded and accelerated during the 1990s. Although the United States and Russia participated in

discussions on how to fit these programs into the ABM Treaty framework, the United States

would not accept any outcome in these talks that restricted its options on national missile

defenses.23

Russia continued to object to U.S. missile defense plans through the 1990s. It continued to insist

that the ABM Treaty was the cornerstone of strategic stability. Yet, when the United States

withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, Russia did not withdraw from START or even mention

that it had once linked the two treaties. Russia did withdraw from the START II Treaty, but this

was a symbolic gesture as START II had never entered into force and neither the United States

nor Russia were implementing its reductions. Moreover, Russia continued to participate in

negotiations with the United States on the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, and agreed,

through that treaty, to further reduce its strategic offensive weapons, even though it knew that the

United States would be deploying more extensive ballistic missile defenses.

The same pattern of priorities, for both the United States and Russia, is evident in the negotiations

on the New START Treaty. Throughout the negotiations, Russian officials asserted that Russia

would not accept further reductions on offensive forces unless the United States addressed

Russian concerns about its planned missile defense programs. For example, in December 2009,

Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, stated that the U.S. plan to build a missile defense

system threatened the Cold War-era balance of power. He stated that, if the United States had

Some analysts argued that these talks were unnecessary, as the ABM Treaty should have lapsed with the collapse of

the Soviet Union. The Clinton Administration believed the Treaty remained in force. The United States, Russia,

Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan had negotiated an agreement naming all four as successors to the Soviet Union for

the Treaty, but the U.S. Senate never consented to this modification to the Treaty. Hence, the United States and Russia

both acted, in accordance with international treaty law, as if Russia were the sole successor to the Soviet Union for the

ABM Treaty. For more information see CRS Report 98-496, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Demarcation and Succession

Agreements: Background and Issues, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

missile defenses and Russia did not, then “the balance will be disrupted and then they will do

whatever they want and aggressiveness will immediately arise both in real politics and

economics.” He noted that, to restore the balance, Russia would have to deploy greater numbers

of offensive weapons, so that it would have the means to overwhelm a U.S. missile defense

system. 24 Press reports indicate that missile defense remained an issue in the negotiations during

February 2010. Specifically, Russia continued to insist that U.S. missile defense interceptors

located near Russian territory could undermine its strategic nuclear deterrent, though the United

States insisted the interceptors would not have the capability to intercept long-range missiles.

The United States, in a statement released by the State Department in December 2009, repeated

that reductions in offensive weapons and missile defenses were two separate issues and that

discussions on the two would continue separately. And, during the final months of the

negotiations, the United States continued to resist Russian attempts to link the two. Press reports

indicate that, at one point, President Obama was so exasperated with the Russian position that he

was willing to walk away from the negotiations.25 The United States held to its original position

that the treaty would not include any limits on missile defenses. Russia, however, as it did in the

original START negotiations, backed away from its insistence on legally binding limits on missile

defenses and settled for a unilateral statement that outlined its concerns. According to press

reports, it did so when political leaders in Moscow refused to accept the Russian military’s

insistence on missile defense limits in the interest of concluding an agreement to limit U.S.

offensive forces. 26

As it had in the original START negotiations, the United States appears to have placed a higher

priority on protecting its BMD programs than on reaching an agreement on limits on offensive

nuclear weapons. And Russia, in spite of its ongoing concerns with U.S. missile defense

programs, appears to have placed a higher priority on completing the treaty limiting offensive

nuclear weapons than on imposing limits on U.S. BMD systems.

Missile Defense Programs and Budgets

BMD in the 1980s

On entering office, the Reagan Administration increased funding for ballistic missile defenses

(BMD) against long-range strategic ballistic missiles; this funding had been growing since the

Carter Administration. In March 1983, President Reagan announced an expansive, new effort to

develop non-nuclear BMD that would seek to protect the United States against a full-scale Soviet

nuclear strike as a means of moving toward the abolition of nuclear weapons altogether. Although

the SDI remained a research and development effort, with few plans for intercept tests or actual

deployment schedules, Reagan and his supporters envisioned a global BMD capability with

thousands of land-, sea-, air-, and space-based sensors and interceptors. The stated goal was to

replace nuclear deterrence with defenses.

Ellen Barry, “Putin Sounds Warning on Arms Talks,” New York Times, December 30, 2009.

Peter Baker, “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pacts With Russia,” New York Times, March 26, 2010.

Peter Baker and Ellen Barry, “Russia and U.S. Report Breakthrough on Arms,” New York Times, March 24, 2010.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

As cost estimates and technical challenges mounted, 27 the Reagan Administration scaled back its

objectives for SDI. In 1987, the Reagan Administration announced a “Phase 1” deployment of

land- and space-based sensors and interceptors that would not offer complete protection against a

full-scale Soviet nuclear attack, but would, instead, seek to disrupt such an attack so significantly

as to call into question the attack’s effectiveness. It was argued at the time by its supporters that

Phase 1 would enhance nuclear deterrence while the United States continued its efforts to replace

deterrence with ballistic missile defenses. Congress gave some support to conducting BMD

research and development, but was broadly opposed to any significant BMD deployments that

might increase risks to strategic stability between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Although the executive branch did not promote tactical or theater BMD efforts, Congress

advocated and provided funding for such programs.28

The Reagan Administration and its BMD supporters recognized that many of the technologies

being pursued in the SDI program would not be allowed by the ABM Treaty when they entered

the testing or deployment phases. Therefore, the Reagan Administration sought a new

interpretation of the ABM Treaty that it hoped would allow for the testing of space-based and

exotic BMD technologies, such as lasers. Many in Congress at the time objected to this

reinterpretation of the ABM Treaty, with Senator Nunn mounting a particularly comprehensive

defense of the traditional interpretation of the ABM Treaty, a view the Senate supported despite

strong objections by some. 29 In general, Congress tendered strong support for the ABM Treaty

during this era and was not supportive of BMD programs that might lead to violating the Treaty,

which was largely viewed as a vital component of U.S.-Soviet strategic stability. It was during

this time, as mentioned earlier, that the Reagan Administration opened new negotiations with the

Soviets to reach agreement on modifying or replacing the ABM Treaty through the Defense and

Space Talks.

BMD in the 1990s

President George H.W. Bush responded to the spiraling costs and technical challenges of Phase I

and the changed international political environment after the fall of the Soviet empire with a

further contraction of the goals for missile defense. Instead of seeking to protect the United States

against a large-scale attack, the United States would seek to deploy a defensive system that would

provide Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS), arguably a more modest version of

Phase 1. This new focus recognized that the demise of the Soviet Union had reduced the

Since the BMD program’s inception in FY1985, there have been ongoing, critical technical assessments as to

whether the various BMD systems deployed will work as intended and whether test results credibly reflect conditions

under which those BMD systems might actually be employed. Some would argue that technical limitations and

problems with BMD programs under development since the mid-1980s constrained the deployment of effective BMD

systems perhaps more than political or diplomatic differences over BMD or any limitations imposed by arms control.

The legislative history of Patriot antitactical missile (ATM) was linked to nearly decade-long congressional efforts to

get DOD to respond to the tactical ballistic missile threat, first from the Soviet threat to NATO forces and second to the

proliferating global threat from short-range ballistic missiles. The record reveals a congressional consensus for early

deployment of an effective tactical BMD in spite of a lack of executive branch interest and support. Because of this

early congressional consensus, Patriot ATM was available for use in Desert Storm. See CRS Report 91-546, The

Patriot Air Defense System and the Search for an Antitactical Ballistic Missile System, by (name redacted) and Paul

Zinsmeister, June 3, 1991 (out of print; available on request from the author).

See The ABM Treaty and the Constitution: Joint Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations and the

Committee on the Judiciary, 100th Congress, 1st session, March 11, 26 and April 29, 1987. S. Hrg. 100-110, and The

ABM Treaty Resolution, 100th Congress, 1st session, S. Report No. 164.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

likelihood of a large-scale nuclear strike, but also had increased the chance of a small accidental

or unauthorized attack. GPALS would also seek to protect the United States, friends and allies,

and troops deployed abroad against attacks from missiles fired from other nations.

The George H.W. Bush Administration envisioned a GPALS system that would have included up

to 1,000 land-based interceptors and perhaps another 1,000 space-based interceptors and spacebased sensors. The Administration recognized this system would not be permitted under the terms

of the ABM Treaty and later held negotiations with the Russian government to identify a more

cooperative and flexible regime to replace the ABM Treaty.

Again, although Congress was not supportive of BMD programs that would threaten the ABM

Treaty, which most believed inherently contributed to strategic stability, some in Congress, such

as Senator Nunn, continued to argue for the deployment of a much more modest ABM Treaty

compliant BMD to protect against limited or accidental attacks. In the aftermath of Desert

Storm, 30 Congress also approved the Missile Defense Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-190, National

Defense Authorization Act for FY1992-1993) and stated it is a goal of the United States to

•

deploy an anti-ballistic missile system, including one or an adequate additional

number of anti-ballistic missile sites and space-based sensors, capable of

providing a highly effective defense of the United States against limited attacks

of ballistic missiles;

•

maintain strategic stability; and

•

provide highly effective theater missile defenses (TMD) to United States

forward-deployed and expeditionary armed forces and to U.S. friends and allies.

The Clinton Administration suspended negotiations begun under the previous Bush

Administration to discuss possible changes to the ABM Treaty and scaled back significantly

efforts to develop and deploy a national BMD capability. The 1993 Bottom-up Review (BUR), a

major Department of Defense- (DOD-) wide review of U.S. military plans and programs,

concluded that the United States should not proceed with the deployment of a national missile

defense because there was no military requirement for such a system. Instead, the Clinton

Administration decided to emphasize, to an even greater extent, efforts begun after Desert Storm

to develop BMD capabilities against short-range ballistic missiles. Defense Secretary Aspin noted

at the time that these program changes reflected an assessment that the regional ballistic missile

threat to U.S. troops abroad, and to its friends and allies, already existed, and that a long-range

ballistic threat to the United States per se might emerge only in the future. DOD therefore cut

significantly its budget for national missile defense, increased significantly theater BMD

funding,31 and indicated that all BMD programs would be pursued in compliance with the ABM

Treaty.

The role of Patriot missile defenses against Iraqi ballistic missiles in Desert Storm was a milestone event for BMD.

Patriot offered considerable support to arguments that threats of military retaliation may not deter some nations from

attacking U.S. troops abroad or its friends and allies, that missile defenses can work (even though claims of specific

success with Patriot in Desert Storm remain controversial), and a military strategy cannot rely solely on being able to

destroy enemy missiles and launchers on the ground.

MDA provided the cost data used in this report for national and theater BMD from President Reagan’s SDI program

to President George W. Bush. Other analysts might consider the space-based interceptor effort of the George H.W.

Bush Administration as both national and theater BMD. Therefore the graphic in Figure 1 as well the point made here

about national missile defense (NMD) being cut and TMD being increased might be viewed differently.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Later, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 (in P.L. 104-106, National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1996) declared it the policy of the United States to

•

develop as soon as possible affordable and operationally effective theater missile

defenses;

•

develop for deployment a multiple-site national missile defense system that is

affordable and operationally effective against limited, accidental and

unauthorized ballistic missile attacks on the United States, and which can be

augmented over time as the threat changes to provide a layered defense against

limited, accidental or unauthorized ballistic missile threats;

•

initiate negotiations with Russia as necessary to provide for the national defense

systems envisioned by the act; and

•

consider, if those negotiations fail, the option of withdrawing from the ABM

Treaty.

At the time, the intelligence community estimated that there was not likely to be a long-range

ballistic threat to the United States for at least the next 10-15 years. In particular, the 1995

National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) supported this view. On that basis, in 1996, the Clinton

Administration adjusted its BMD efforts and adopted a new strategy for long-range or national

missile defense (NMD). This 3+3 strategy would guide NMD development and potential

deployment. Under this strategy, the United States would develop an NMD system to defend the

United States against attacks from small numbers of long-range ballistic missiles launched by

hostile nations, or, perhaps, from an accidental or unauthorized launch of Russian or Chinese

missiles. The strategy envisioned continued development of NMD technologies during the first

three years (1997-2000), followed by a deployment decision (in 2000), if the system was

technologically feasible and warranted by prospective threats. If a decision to deploy a NMD

system was made, the plan then was to deploy that system within the second three-year period

(2000-2003). Development and deployment was to be conducted within the limits of the ABM

Treaty. This approach was later modified to allow a longer lead time for possible deployment

(possibly by 2005), and according to the Pentagon at the time, to reduce the amount of program

risk.

Many in Congress, however, took issue with the 1995 NIE about long-range threats from rogue

states and determined that the proposed funding for TMD and especially NMD during this time

was not adequate and therefore increased it significantly in FY199732 and FY1998.33 Congress

also passed legislation (P.L. 104-201) establishing the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile

For example, the Senate Armed Services Committee criticized the Administration’s BMD budget, and that “this

continuing trend of sharply cutting funding for ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs has now jeopardized critical

theater missile defense (TMD) programs, just as national missile defense (NMD) and advanced technology programs

were previously undermined by the administration’s BMD funding cuts.” Senate Armed Services Committee, National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Report 104-267, May 13, 1996, pp. 196-197.

Language in the Senate Armed Services Committee Report (FY1998) illustrates the congressional criticism at the

time: “Although the committee is pleased that the Secretary of Defense has sought to clarify actual NMD funding

requirements, it is disappointed that it has taken so long. Even with significant congressional increases over the last two

years, the NMD program remains high risk, largely due to the Department’s failure to adequately fund robust testing

activities. Unfortunately, the addition of $474 million in FY1998 will do little in the near-term to compensate for this

neglect.” National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Senate Armed Services Committee, Report 105-29,

June 17, 1997, p. 191.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Threat to the United States (the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission Report),34 which concluded that the

threat to the United States posed by emerging rogue nation ballistic missile programs was

broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly than predicted by estimates from the

intelligence community. The subsequent 1998 flight test of a long-range North Korean ballistic

missile strengthened the view that a strong BMD effort was needed against countries such as

North Korea, Iraq, and Iran.

During this time, Congress passed the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-38), which

declared it U.S. policy to

•

deploy as soon as technologically possible a National Missile Defense (NMD)

system capable of defending U.S. territory against limited ballistic missile attack

(whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate), with funding subject to the

annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriations of funds for

NMD; and

•

seek continued reductions in Russian nuclear forces.

The Minority in the Senate Armed Services Committee took issue with this act on grounds that it

would “needlessly make a NMD decision now, before the Defense Department wants to, needs to,

or is prepared to make such a decision.” Furthermore, they argued, the act

would undermine the current effort of the Administration to reach a negotiated agreement on

any changes to the ABM Treaty that may be necessary to accommodate deployment of a

limited NMD system. We cannot and will not give Russia or any other nation a veto over our

NMD requirements or programs. But making a decision to deploy an NMD system before

we attempt to negotiate changes to the ABM Treaty—and before DoD says the nation can

responsibly make such a decision—could reduce Russia’s willingness to work with us on

reducing nuclear weapons under the START process, lead Russia to retain thousands of

nuclear warheads it would otherwise eliminate, and dramatically increase the threat of

nuclear proliferation.35

It should be noted, however, that the act did not adversely affect U.S. efforts to discuss possible

changes to the ABM Treaty, nor did the act appear to adversely affect U.S.-Russian relations on

START. Ultimately, however, in September 2000, President Clinton decided not to authorize

deployment of a national missile defense system at that time. He stated that he could not conclude

“that we have enough confidence in the technology, and the operational effectiveness of the entire

NMD system, to move forward to deployment.” Throughout the 1990s, questions again were

raised over the technical limitations of many BMD programs, especially against long-range

ballistic missiles.

Current BMD Plans and Programs

President George W. Bush entered office prepared to advance BMD deployment as a key national

security objective. The Bush Administration substantially increased funding for BMD programs

and laid the foundation for withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which formally occurred in June

See http://intellit.muskingum.edu/genpostcw_folder/genpostcw90s_folder/pcw98rumsfeld.html.

National Missile Defense Act of 1999, Report together with Minority Views, Senate Armed Services Committee,

Report 106.4, February 12, 1999, p. 7.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

2002. The Bush Administration’s argument for abrogating the ABM Treaty centered around a

different strategic environment from 1972 when the Treaty was signed: Soviet forces no longer

threatened the United States and the greater threat came from the proliferation of ballistic missiles

and weapons of mass destruction from other countries. Special concern was focused on rogue

states and terrorism in the wake of 9/11. The Russian government offered little opposition to the

Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Treaty, and potential allied criticism in Europe

was notably muted.

Also in 2002, President Bush announced his decision to deploy a limited NMD system against

long-range missiles by the fall of 2004. Although this goal was met with the initial deployment of

five ground-based interceptors in silos in Alaska by December 2004,36 criticism of the system’s

operational capability focused on testing and other technology problems. Some argued at the time

and those arguments continue through today that the test results of the system deployed in Alaska

and California do not support Pentagon assessments that the system is operationally effective.

The Bush Administration continued to emphasize land- and sea-based BMD against short-range

ballistic missile threats and also sought to deploy an additional long-range BMD capability in

Europe, which effort ultimately stalled largely because of delays in the ratification of agreements

between the United States and Poland and the Czech Republic.37

The practical effect of the decision to abrogate the ABM Treaty has been to allow the increasing

integration of multiple systems into a global U.S. BMD capability, restricted only by funding and

technology. During the 2000s, significant progress was made in terms of integrating all the

various land-, sea-, air-, and space-based BMD sensor capabilities, with the diverse assortment of

short-, medium- and long-range BMD interceptor systems deployed by the U.S. military around

the globe. The degree to which all these systems are now integrated has, in the views of many,

significantly increased the BMD potential of the U.S. military. That BMD capability is now also

widely viewed as a critical element of U.S. military strategy.

The Obama Administration is continuing to evolve an integrated, global U.S. BMD capability to

counter ballistic missile threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea. In September 2009,

the Obama Administration canceled the central element of the George W. Bush plan to deploy

long-range interceptors in Poland and a large radar facility in the Czech Republic. Instead, the

Obama Administration gave priority to expanding some BMD elements and accelerating others

that were already underway in response to new assessments of Iranian ballistic missile

capabilities. Defense Secretary Gates announced that this regional BMD capability, known as the

Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA), could be surged on relatively short notice during crises or as

the situation might demand. The PAA would be based primarily on existing BMD sensors and

Patriot, THAAD, and Aegis BMD interceptors. Secretary Gates argued the PAA would be more

responsive and adaptable to the direction and pace of Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic

missile proliferation. The Administration says that this capability will continue to evolve and

expand over the next decade to include BMD against intermediate- and long-range Iranian

missiles. Beyond 2020, it is envisioned that new BMD capabilities being considered against

Iranian ICBMs will be developed and deployed in Europe, which may well present problems for

This long-range BMD capability expanded to about two dozen ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California.

See CRS Report RL34051, Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Throughout, there was significant Russian opposition to the proposed George W. Bush BMD plan for Europe, based in

part on Russian concerns of a potential offensive capability from the proposed missiles deployed in Poland and because

some Russians believed the number of proposed interceptors could be increased significantly.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Russia and challenges for U.S.-Russian strategic relations if those planned BMD capabilities are

achieved.

In addition, the Pentagon’s BMD Review (February 2010) outlined a number of priorities

designed to shape BMD policy and programs.38 Many might argue these priorities have broad

political and military support today that demonstrate the nation’s strong commitment to BMD:

•

the United States will continue to defend the homeland against the threat of

limited ballistic missile attack;

•

the United States will defend against regional missile threats to U.S. forces, while

protecting allies and partners and enabling them to defend themselves;

•

before new capabilities are deployed, they must undergo testing that enables

assessment under realistic conditions;

•

the commitment to new capabilities must be fiscally sustainable over the long

term;

•

U.S. BMD capabilities must be flexible enough to adapt as threats change; and

•

the United States will seek to lead expanded international efforts for missile

defense.

Missile Defense Budgets Over Time

Looking back at the evolution of U.S. BMD efforts since President Reagan’s speech in March

1983, several key observations can be made. First, U.S. decision makers in the executive branch

and in Congress have sought to balance competing strategic priorities—developing and deploying

BMD capabilities while seeking to preserve a stable U.S.-Soviet/Russian strategic nuclear

relationship. In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration offered a vision of transitioning away from

reliance on strategic nuclear weapons by seeking to deploy widespread global BMD capabilities

that would then allow significant nuclear reductions or even abolition of nuclear weapons. The

Soviet vision was the reverse, suggesting significantly deep reductions of offensive nuclear

weapons was the prerequisite to global BMD. At the time, Congress played the role of dampening

efforts to expand BMD beyond that permitted by the ABM Treaty, which was widely viewed at

the time as representing the foundation of the U.S.-Soviet strategic nuclear relationship.

Figure 1 shows the evolution or funding of the U.S. BMD program during this time, from

President Reagan’s SDI program to when President George W. Bush announced U.S. withdrawal

from the ABM Treaty. Figure 1 shows a number of things. First, that after initial executive branch

reluctance to advance TMD, which was not ABM Treaty constrained, funding for some TMD was

provided by Congress and then increased significantly after Desert Storm with Pentagon and

congressional support. Although the initial focus was on Soviet short-range ballistic missiles that

might threaten NATO Europe, TMD became seen as a viable option for countering the growing

proliferation of short-range missiles around the world.

The BMD Review has come under criticism, however. Some have argued, for instance, that “a review of the actual

state of missile defense technologies reveals that this new vision put forth by the report is nothing more than a fiction

and that the policy strategy that follows from these technical myths could well lead to a foreign policy disaster.” See “A

Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan,” by George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol, Arms Control Today,

May 2010, pp. 24-32.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

Figure 1 also reflects the fact that funding support for NMD efforts was then bound by what most

believed the ABM Treaty permitted; the policy and funding debates were heavily influenced by

efforts to pursue BMD programs in compliance with the ABM Treaty. Although the Reagan,

George H.W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations each had plans for NMD that at some point

would not have been permitted under the ABM Treaty, Congress in general held BMD programs

accountable to the Treaty as each of those administrations at the same time sought in various

ways to negotiate different changes to the ABM Treaty or seek its replacement. Some might argue

that funding support for NMD fell after START was signed, but the initial program reductions

were due to two major factors: (1) there was a predisposition on the part of incoming Defense

Secretary Les Aspin to find a “peace dividend” in the DOD budget after the fall of the Soviet

Empire, and (2) the Bottom-up Review concluded that long-range missile threat assessments

allowed for a much reduced NMD effort. Secretary Aspin made no reference to START or

offensive arms control issues when proposing these changes. Congress, however, disagreed with

the long-range ballistic missile threat assessment from rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, and North

Korea and then significantly increased NMD budgets not long after START I entered into force.

In fact, BMD and NMD budgets, more specifically, rose steadily throughout most of the START 1

era.

Figure 1. BMD Appropriations: NMD vs.TMD

FY1985-FY2001

Source: CRS.

Notes: Ballistic Missile Defense Organizations’s (BMDO’s) FY2002 budget justification materials ended the

distinction between national and theater missile defense by ending funding for Program Elements bearing those

distinctions while mixing “national” and “theater” assets in the Midcourse BMD PE. In FY2002, BMDO became

MDA.

FY2000-FY2001, BMDO used “National Missile Defense” to describe what would eventually become GMD and

“Navy Theater Wide Missile Defense System” to describe what would eventually become Aegis BMD. These

budgets also included the Theater (as opposed to Terminal) High Altitude Area Defense system.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

President’s Budget (PB) 2002 reorganized BMDO’s PE structure to discontinue the National Missile Defense and

Navy Theater Wide distinctions in favor of PEs organized by phase of flight (Terminal, Midcourse, Boost, etc.).

The Midcourse PE mixed both what would become GMD and Aegis BMD (using SM-3), thus ending the National

vs. Theater BMD distinction. PB2002 justification materials included language in the Navy Theater Wide PE as a

placeholder for SM-2 development that was being transferred to the Navy budget in FY2002.

Figure 2 shows the evolution of DOD-wide BMD funding support since President Reagan to

date. After initial growth under Reagan, top-line BMD budgets stabilized under George H.W.

Bush, and declined under Clinton before rising steadily since the mid-1990s. Some would argue

that cuts to the President’s Budget (PB) for BMD in the 1980s and early 1990s were due, in no

small part, to Congress placing some bounds on programs that might destabilize the U.S.-Soviet

strategic nuclear relationship and undermine the ABM Treaty. BMD funding requests in the early

1990s under Clinton may have reflected an interest in pursuing BMD programs in compliance

with the ABM Treaty. Some would argue that reductions in funding and changes in program goals

were due to other factors, notably U.S. adjustments to the end of the Cold War. A focus on

ballistic missile proliferation outside Russia may have played an important role in the direction of

BMD from the mid-1990s on. After significant congressional BMD funding increases for NMD

in the mid-to-late 1990s, an argument can be made that differences between executive branch and

congressional interests in BMD began to narrow, and more so significantly after 9/11 and

withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

Figure 2. BMD: Percentage of PB vs. Appropriations

FY1985-FY2010

Source: CRS.

Note: Includes all DOD BMD programs.

Figure 3 illustrates this last point more sharply—that BMD funding for some time now has had

broad support, seemingly regardless of which political party controls the White House, Senate, or

House of Representatives. The notable exception was in the mid-1990s when Congress increased

BMD budgets significantly over Clinton Administration requests. Broad support for BMD seems

more pronounced since the decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, which has allowed BMD

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

to proceed bounded now only by technology and funding availability. 39 As a practical matter, over

the past decade, all U.S. BMD sensor and interceptor capabilities have become increasingly

integrated as part of an overall global BMD system, which the U.S. military argues is essential to

U.S. national security interests.

The Obama Administration’s long-range plan to counter Iranian ICBMs later in the decade may

present national security challenges at that time. Currently, the Obama plan is to deploy regional

ICBM capable interceptors in Europe beginning after 2020, if an Iranian ICBM threat develops.

Such a regional ICBM deployment might not be well received by Russia, which has demonstrated

a history of critical opposition to U.S. plans that could affect its own strategic nuclear retaliatory

forces. But, by the time U.S. missile defense capabilities reach this juncture, the New START

Treaty would be close to the end of its 10-year term.

Figure 3. BMD: PB vs. Appropriations

FY1985-FY2010

Sources: CRS; Congressional Directory, 2009, pp. 563-564.

Note: At the beginning of the 107th Congress (2001-2003), Republicans controlled the Senate with 50

Republican Senators and VP Cheney casting the tie-breaker. Shortly, however, one Republican Senator changed

his affiliation to Independent and caucused with the Democrats, giving them majority status. In the 110th

Congress, there were 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents who caucused with the Democrats,

giving them majority status.

Perhaps the one exception to this remains placing BMD weapon systems in space. It is noteworthy that although

there is some political support for developing and deploying BMD weapons in space, there was no serious interest in

doing this from the George W. Bush Administration or when there was Republican control of the Congress for much of

this past decade.

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

The Past as Prologue?

The historical review presented in this report suggests that the United States did not restrain its

ballistic missile defense programs or reduce its expenditures on ballistic missile defenses in an

effort to ensure that Russia remained committed to the original START Treaty. To the contrary,

U.S. spending on ballistic missile defense programs increased during the 1990s; the U.S. political

commitment to missile defenses began to strengthen during the 1990s; and the United States

withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002. Moreover, in spite of its threat to withdraw from START

if the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia remained a party to START and

continued to negotiate further reductions on strategic offensive weapons.

An argument can be made that the same pattern may not hold true in the coming decade if the

United States and Russia ratify the New START Treaty with Russia’s unilateral statement on

missile defenses attached. The United States may be so committed to the New START Treaty and

further reductions in U.S. and Russian offensive weapons, both as a way to reset the U.S-Russian

relationship and as a step on the path to a world free of nuclear weapons, that it would not be

willing to upset the process by pursuing expansive ballistic missile defense programs. Some who

have criticized START have also noted that because the Treaty’s 10-year life span would outlast

the Obama Administration, a future Administration could be faced with the choice between arms

control and ballistic missile defense regardless of its own preferred approach in either policy area.

On the other hand, the pattern exhibited during the original START negotiations and the 1990s

could repeat itself in the coming decade. During the 1990s, the U.S. commitment to missile

defense was less solid and secure than it is today. Although President Reagan and President

George H.W. Bush were strong supporters of missile defenses, Congress was less enthusiastic.

The Clinton Administration initially shifted focus from the George H.W. Bush Administration’s

GPALs to theater missile defenses because of Desert Storm and threat assessments of short-range

ballistic missile proliferation. By the latter half of the decade, the Clinton Administration

promoted an NMD research and development program that could lead to deployment within a

few years and would have required modification of the ABM Treaty or its replacement. Yet, even

during this time, the United States did not hold back funding for ballistic missile defenses out of

concern for any Russian reaction. Moreover, the analysis presented in this report suggest that the

U.S. commitment to missile defense is now politically broader and deeper than it was during the

1990s.

The Obama Administration has displayed a commitment to continue expanding ballistic missile

defenses through its Ballistic Missile Defense Review and with its proposed budget for ballistic

missile defense programs. Congress has also grown more supportive of ballistic missile defenses,

appropriating most of the funds requested by the executive branch without challenging the

underlying rationale for missile defense programs. Moreover, as was noted above, the Obama

Administration refused, throughout the New START negotiations, to accept Russian proposals for

limits on missile defense programs, and even seemed willing to walk away from the negotiations

to protect U.S. ballistic missile defense programs. Even though the next Administration may not

share the priorities of preceding Administrations, few would project a waning of the U.S.

commitment to ballistic missile defenses, particularly as nations who could threaten the United

States continue to acquire more capable ballistic missiles.

At the same time, although Russia may continue to try to link U.S. ballistic missile defense

programs to negotiations on offensive reductions, few would project Russia abandoning New

Congressional Research Service

Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions

START in the coming decade. Its Soviet-era missile forces are continuing to age, and it cannot

produce new systems quickly enough to replace these older systems or even to retain the numbers

of missiles permitted by the New START Treaty.40 This would not likely change even if it were to

abandon the treaty. A treaty that imposes equal limits on U.S. and Russian offensive forces may

be the only way that Russia can maintain a measure of parity with the United States on strategic

offensive forces.

Under these circumstances, the priorities displayed by the United States and Soviet Union during

the original START talks and by the United States and Russia during the New START talks may

continue into the coming decade. The United States may continue to place a higher priority on its

ballistic missile defense programs than on offensive reductions and Russia may continue to place

a higher priority on securing equal limits on U.S. and Russian offensive forces than on restraining

or reducing U.S. ballistic missile defense programs.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Missile Defense

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

See a discussion of future Russian strategic forces by Pavel Podvig at http://russianforces.org/blog/2009/01/longterm_force_projections.shtml.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.