Advertisement
 
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsAnti Ballistic Missile Treaty
IN THE NEWS

Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty

FEATURED ARTICLES
NEWS
January 23, 1999 | RICHARD C. PADDOCK, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Russia sought to downplay its foreign policy differences with the United States on Friday but warned that it will firmly oppose any effort by the U.S. to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Preparing for U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visit to Moscow on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov struck a conciliatory tone despite recent differences over Iraq, Kosovo and other parts of the world.
ARTICLES BY DATE
OPINION
January 15, 2003
Why are we dancing to North Korea's tune ("There's a Method to Pyongyang's Madness," Jan. 11)? We should adapt a modification of the mutually assured destruction policy of the Cold War (with its proven effectiveness) into an "assured destruction" policy toward North Korea (and Iraq), meaning that any use of weapons of mass destruction will immediately result in our offshore submarines launching total destruction on their capitals. No need for huge, expensive military buildups and no need to maintain bases in hostile or potentially hostile countries.
Advertisement
NEWS
February 26, 1987
U.S. intelligence agencies have uncovered evidence that the Soviets are dismantling missile-defense radar systems at Sary Shagan, one of their missile test centers, in Kazakhstan. Informed sources said some State Department officials view the dismantling as a bid to address U.S. claims of Soviet violations of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which limits defenses against nuclear missiles.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 4, 2001
Re "Bush Makes His Case for a U.S. Missile Defense," May 2: By moving the arms race into space, the Bush administration is making sure that its friends in the aerospace industry will make hundreds of billions of dollars at the expense of further militarizing our fragile planet while dumping the bill on unknowing taxpayers. How can you "maintain peace" through domination? Haven't we learned yet from our sordid military past that more nuclear weapons only mean more instability and a greater chance for nuclear annihilation?
NEWS
August 11, 1986
The "Star Wars" missile-defense program should be part of arms-reduction talks with the Soviets but the U.S. bargaining stance should remain secret, the Air Force general who runs the program said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program in Washington. "I do not believe it's 'Star Wars' or arms control. I believe it's 'Star Wars' plus arms reduction," said Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, who heads the Strategic Defense Initiative program.
OPINION
June 8, 1986
My worst fears that the Reagan Administration was never really interested in concrete arms agreements with the Soviet Union were confirmed by statements made by Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Defense Secretary Weinberger that the United States is no longer abiding by the 1979 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) and has rejected Soviet efforts to win a long-term commitment to the existing 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In my opinion the real reasons behind this negative and dangerous attitude is that the right-wing elements in the Reagan Administration are more interested in securing profits for the missile manufacturers than acting for the security of the American people, who are being pushed to the bring of a nuclear holocaust by this acceleration of the arms race.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 23, 1987
Pike's article takes note of what may be an interesting turning point: Richard Perle's resignation seems to mark the end of an era in Soviet-American relations. Perle's public service reflected the public consensus of the 1970s and early 1980s. As Pike points out, the European allies no longer follow his hard line against the Soviet Union, and Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) of the Senate Armed Services Committee announced that he could no longer support Perle's position concerning the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
September 24, 1986
Gray's article on SDI is so full of airy generalities it's difficult to come to grips with it. But he tips his hand when he says that "The all-purpose claim that strategic defense would be destabilizing is increasingly acknowledged by the critics to be improbable, unless the Soviet Union unilaterally deploys new defenses in addition to its huge strategic offensive arsenal." What does he mean "unilaterally" if we're the ones who start the new cycle? Does he really think they would not develop their own SDI if we do?
NEWS
September 24, 1996 | From Associated Press
U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and his Russian counterpart announced a "milestone" agreement Monday clarifying the legality of certain U.S. weapons used to defend against slower-flying ballistic missiles. "This important progress assures that we can effectively defend against theater ballistic missiles while ensuring the integrity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," Christopher said after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny M. Primakov. "We reached a milestone," he said.
OPINION
January 15, 2003
Why are we dancing to North Korea's tune ("There's a Method to Pyongyang's Madness," Jan. 11)? We should adapt a modification of the mutually assured destruction policy of the Cold War (with its proven effectiveness) into an "assured destruction" policy toward North Korea (and Iraq), meaning that any use of weapons of mass destruction will immediately result in our offshore submarines launching total destruction on their capitals. No need for huge, expensive military buildups and no need to maintain bases in hostile or potentially hostile countries.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 1, 2000
In "Albright Defends U.S. Disarmament Record" (April 25), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright justifies U.S. plans to develop a limited system of ground-based interceptors directed against potential missile programs of states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Not only are these states incapable of launching any real attack on the U.S., but they would have to be suicidal to launch a few missiles at U.S. targets, knowing that our nuclear arsenal would decimate their nations in minutes.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 13, 2000
Warfare state paranoia oozes from the April 9 editorial, "Russia a Key in Missile Plan." It makes the case for the plan of Congress and the president to expand our missile defenses, which requires amending or abrogating the successful 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and sabotaging any effort of Russian President-elect Vladimir V. Putin to get the Russian Duma to finally ratify the START II treaty. The justification offered is the threat of a small number of missiles by rogue states, such as North Korea.
NEWS
October 21, 1999 | From Associated Press
The Russian government said Wednesday that it has turned down Washington's proposal to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in exchange for U.S. help in completing a major radar site. The U.S. has offered to help finish a radar installation near Irkutsk, Siberia, in exchange for renegotiating the ABM pact to allow both nations to deploy limited national missile defense systems. Vladimir O. Rakhmanin, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Moscow was against "bargaining" on the pact.
NEWS
January 23, 1999 | RICHARD C. PADDOCK, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Russia sought to downplay its foreign policy differences with the United States on Friday but warned that it will firmly oppose any effort by the U.S. to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Preparing for U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visit to Moscow on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov struck a conciliatory tone despite recent differences over Iraq, Kosovo and other parts of the world.
NEWS
September 24, 1996 | From Associated Press
U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and his Russian counterpart announced a "milestone" agreement Monday clarifying the legality of certain U.S. weapons used to defend against slower-flying ballistic missiles. "This important progress assures that we can effectively defend against theater ballistic missiles while ensuring the integrity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," Christopher said after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny M. Primakov. "We reached a milestone," he said.
NEWS
June 26, 1989 | From Associated Press
Five former secretaries of state and defense urged the Bush Administration today to push hard for a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with the Soviet Union and to show restraint in developing space-based defenses. A report signed by 11 ex-officials, including the five secretaries, concluded Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev is more inclined than any of his predecessors to reach accords with the United States that further Western interests. But James Schlesinger, who was secretary of defense in the Richard M. Nixon Administration, criticized the Soviet leader for agreeing last week to resume arms aid to Iran.
NEWS
June 21, 1989 | WILLIAM TUOHY, Times Staff Writer
Chief U.S. arms negotiator Richard R. Burt declared Tuesday that the Bush Administration's proposals to seek ways of verifying any reduction in strategic arms should accelerate steps toward such an agreement in the talks here. He denied that the Administration, after a long review of the START negotiations, had decided to slow progress toward a treaty in favor of pushing the conventional arms talks in Vienna. "There is no higher priority" than the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, Burt said, echoing the statement President Bush made in Washington on Monday as the new round of talks began here.
NEWS
November 17, 1987 | From Times Wire Services
The United States has accepted a Soviet invitation to inspect two Soviet radars that U.S. officials suspect may be in violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the State Department said Monday. The two radars, known by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization code names of Pawn Shop and Flat Twin, are situated north of Kiev. The Soviets have denied that the radars are in violation of the treaty and invited U.S. inspectors to look them over.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|