Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsAntiballistic Missile Treaty
IN THE NEWS

Antiballistic Missile Treaty

FEATURED ARTICLES
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 23, 2001
Your editorial page again takes the president to task for two issues: His failure to support the Kyoto Protocol and the proposed abandonment of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty signed in 1972 with the Soviet Union ("Be a Friend, Mr. Bush," editorial, Aug. 21). About two years ago the U.S. Senate voted against the proposed treaty, roughly 98 to 0, because it was unworkable. Also, it is generally accepted that several of the large industrial nations are not in position to meet the conditions of the Kyoto "treaty."
ARTICLES BY DATE
OPINION
December 23, 2001
Re "Bush Was Right to Abandon Treaty," Commentary, Dec. 17, by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.): I wholeheartedly disagree with his radical right-wing rhetoric, especially his nonsense that the U.S. has proven our ability to "hit a bullet with a bullet." In fact, a computer programmed the exact location of the "bullet" to be hit. In reality, will a missile defense shield have that luxury to predetermine exact location? No. And how does Helms know for certain that Russia's President Vladimir Putin will support Bush's decision to abandon the ABM treaty?
Advertisement
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 22, 2001
Re "Does President Bush Have the Guts to Abandon a Bad Idea?" Commentary, June 19: Wake up, Robert Scheer! Dumping the Antiballistic Missile Treaty has nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with expanding corporate welfare. Your piece on the value and historic importance of the ABM treaty is off point. The Republican National Committee just ran the best stealth campaign in the history of American politics. It's time to reward the contributors. Energy and Enron are just the first.
OPINION
December 16, 2001
Re "Plan to Quit ABM Treaty Called Timely," Dec. 13: If George W. Bush thinks that his questionable election gave him a mandate to end the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and begin the testing and buildup of nuclear arms all over again, he's crazier than I thought. There has been no debate about this issue in our society, and if Bush thinks there was, he lost it by 200,000 votes. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz--these people are all in the war business, not the peace business.
NEWS
December 19, 2000 | From Times Wire Services
Canada and Russia on Monday reaffirmed their commitment to the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and said they want further assessment of U.S. proposals for a national missile defense system. A statement signed by Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President Vladimir V. Putin during a three-day visit to Canada by the Russian leader called for efforts to strengthen the ABM treaty and press forward with other disarmament pacts. Russia has denounced the U.S.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
September 11, 2001
The Sept. 7 commentaries by Arianna Huffington and Cal Thomas were right on target. Building up Chinese nuclear missile capabilities in order to justify a U.S. "Star Wars" program is the height of idiocy. Instead of assisting China to build up its nuclear missile manufacturing capability, why not just give the Chinese some of our nuclear missiles out of the several thousand we have in our nuclear missile stockpile? This avoids our having to de-alert or dismantle them. No sense forcing China to divert some of its industrial capacity to building missiles when it can more easily increase its manufacturing of commercial merchandise for the U.S. market.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 12, 2001
Re "Missiles, Missteps Take Spin," May 7: Why are other countries so worried about the U.S. creating missile defense systems? We are just protecting ourselves from potential danger. Other countries such as Russia or China should not feel threatened if they are not planning to launch a nuclear attack any time soon. And what is all this talk about the Antiballistic Missile Treaty created decades ago? That treaty was signed during a period of slow advancement in technology. What are we supposed to do with all this technology just lying around waiting to be used?
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 4, 2001
Our national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, opposes anything that might hold up missile shield plans (July 27). Once again, the administration is trying to railroad something through before there is adequate time to discuss and debate it. A national missile defense will be astronomically expensive, with no end in sight. Two out of four tests, under tightly controlled circumstances, were total failures, the other two only partially successful. And NMD will do nothing to prevent terrorists from bringing nuclear bombs into our country in trucks or suitcases.
OPINION
December 16, 2001
Re "Plan to Quit ABM Treaty Called Timely," Dec. 13: If George W. Bush thinks that his questionable election gave him a mandate to end the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and begin the testing and buildup of nuclear arms all over again, he's crazier than I thought. There has been no debate about this issue in our society, and if Bush thinks there was, he lost it by 200,000 votes. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz--these people are all in the war business, not the peace business.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 18, 2001 | BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN, Bruce Herschensohn is a fellow at the Claremont Institute
French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and a number of other European leaders have made it clear that they want the Antiballistic Missile Treaty to remain in force. President Bush has made it clear that the treaty is a relic of the Cold War and that "it's necessary to set aside the ABM treaty." During the height of the Cold War, on May 29, 1972, President Nixon and Soviet Gen. Sec. Leonid I.
NEWS
December 14, 2001 | JAMES GERSTENZANG and ROBIN WRIGHT, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
President Bush formally announced Thursday that the United States will withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, a Cold War cornerstone of nuclear stability, and he predicted that the United States' relations with Russia would not suffer as a result. It is the first time since the beginning of the Nuclear Age that a major arms control agreement is being scrapped.
NEWS
December 14, 2001 | ROBYN DIXON, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Russian President Vladimir V. Putin described the U.S. government's decision to pull out of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty as a mistake and said it underscored the need for the two nations to sharply reduce their nuclear arsenals. However, Putin said the Bush administration's plans to withdraw from the treaty, which he called a cornerstone of global stability, would not affect Russian security or undermine bilateral relations. Putin said the U.S.
NEWS
October 22, 2001 | EDWIN CHEN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
President Bush won a strong condemnation of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. from Pacific Rim leaders meeting here Sunday, but he and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin continued their vocal disagreement over the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which Bush is threatening to abandon. Bush called the treaty "dangerous," while Putin said it is "an important element of stability" in the post-Cold War era.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
September 11, 2001
The Sept. 7 commentaries by Arianna Huffington and Cal Thomas were right on target. Building up Chinese nuclear missile capabilities in order to justify a U.S. "Star Wars" program is the height of idiocy. Instead of assisting China to build up its nuclear missile manufacturing capability, why not just give the Chinese some of our nuclear missiles out of the several thousand we have in our nuclear missile stockpile? This avoids our having to de-alert or dismantle them. No sense forcing China to divert some of its industrial capacity to building missiles when it can more easily increase its manufacturing of commercial merchandise for the U.S. market.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 23, 2001
Your editorial page again takes the president to task for two issues: His failure to support the Kyoto Protocol and the proposed abandonment of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty signed in 1972 with the Soviet Union ("Be a Friend, Mr. Bush," editorial, Aug. 21). About two years ago the U.S. Senate voted against the proposed treaty, roughly 98 to 0, because it was unworkable. Also, it is generally accepted that several of the large industrial nations are not in position to meet the conditions of the Kyoto "treaty."
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 16, 2001
Re "Russia Resists Rumsfeld on Scrapping '72 Arms Pact," Aug. 14: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that he is conducting a complete review of U.S. nuclear policies. Hopefully, the government will choose to honor existing treaties instead of unilaterally breaking them.
NEWS
July 17, 2001
The Pentagon is being properly cautious about the successful weekend test of its nascent antimissile weapon. Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of missile defense programs, was careful to describe it as "just one stop on a journey" that has a long way to go before a credible system to protect against an intercontinental missile attack becomes a reality. The Bush administration should be no less modest in its assessment and no less prudent in considering the technological obstacles the weapon builders would have to overcome.
NEWS
December 14, 2001 | ROBYN DIXON, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Russian President Vladimir V. Putin described the U.S. government's decision to pull out of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty as a mistake and said it underscored the need for the two nations to sharply reduce their nuclear arsenals. However, Putin said the Bush administration's plans to withdraw from the treaty, which he called a cornerstone of global stability, would not affect Russian security or undermine bilateral relations. Putin said the U.S.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 4, 2001
Our national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, opposes anything that might hold up missile shield plans (July 27). Once again, the administration is trying to railroad something through before there is adequate time to discuss and debate it. A national missile defense will be astronomically expensive, with no end in sight. Two out of four tests, under tightly controlled circumstances, were total failures, the other two only partially successful. And NMD will do nothing to prevent terrorists from bringing nuclear bombs into our country in trucks or suitcases.
NEWS
July 17, 2001
The Pentagon is being properly cautious about the successful weekend test of its nascent antimissile weapon. Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of missile defense programs, was careful to describe it as "just one stop on a journey" that has a long way to go before a credible system to protect against an intercontinental missile attack becomes a reality. The Bush administration should be no less modest in its assessment and no less prudent in considering the technological obstacles the weapon builders would have to overcome.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|