During START negotiations, missile defense experts were concerned about a rumored link between offensive and defensive missile strategy. As it turns out, those concerns were warranted. The preamble to the new START includes language that reads as experts suspected.
The Heritage Foundation‘s Kim Holmes discusses this issue in a Washington Times op-ed. An excerpt:
“Treaty supporters in the U.S. say this language is merely rhetorical; it won’t restrict our ability to defend against missiles from Iran, North Korea or elsewhere. It’s stunning how easily they dismiss Russia’s interpretation. They should review a little history. The Russians may know something they don’t.
“For example, under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union, the U.S. consistently placed limitations on ‘theater’ (shorter-range) air and missile defense systems the treaty did not officially cover. Why? Because Pentagon attorneys feared controversy with the Soviets. Their guidance led the U.S. to ‘dumb down’ the Patriot missile so that it could intercept only ‘slow and low’ missiles, though nothing in the ABM Treaty required such design and testing limits. As a result, former Strategic Defense Initiative Director Henry F. Cooper confirmed later, ‘In the 1970s, no ballistic missile defense capability was given to [the developmental] SAM-D, now called Patriot.’
“So what’s wrong with shaving a little capability? … It ultimately costs lives.”
Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of appeasing Russia when it comes to missile defense. Holmes provides several examples of our country intentionally downscaling missile defense capacity. The new START is a repeat of earlier restrictions on U.S. missile defense. While Russia is being honest about those restrictions, President Barack Obama and his administration deny them.