| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Press Briefing by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, The Pentagon, October 25, 2001.
Statement
"On September 11, the terrorists struck this building and the World Trade Centers, murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children. We all know that terrorist networks are operating in dozens of countries around the world, with the tacit or direct support, in some cases, of the governments. We know that a number of countries supporting terrorists and terrorist networks are the same countries that have weaponized chemical and biological...agents, some of which are working to acquire nuclear weapons and to develop ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States, its friends and allies. Last month, terrorists took civilian airliners and turned them into missiles, killing thousands. If they had ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction capable of killing hundreds of thousands, I don't think anyone can doubt but that they would have willingly used them. We've been awakened in recent weeks to new and previously unimaginable dangers. That is why as we prosecute today's war on terrorism, the President has made clear that we also need to be prepared to defend against other emerging asymmetric threats, including the threat of ballistic missile attack against our cities and people.
As you know, we've redesigned the US ballistic missile defense research, development and testing program...to be unconstrained by the ABM Treaty, a treaty that, of course, was left over from the Cold War, and after September 11 is even less relevant today. We have said we will not violate the treaty while it remains in force. In recent days, to keep from having it suggested that we might not be keeping that commitment, we have voluntarily restrained our ballistic missile defense test program. Specifically, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has refrained from conducting several test activities, each of which some lawyers could debate might have been a violation of the treaty, were we to have proceeded. As we all know, treaties and most legal documents have vagueness to them. We've said we won't violate it; therefore, we do not want to be in a position of having a small minority of people suggesting that we in fact are violating it. So we have, on the following instances, decided not to go forward.
On October 24, an Aegis radar on a surface ship was scheduled to track a strategic ballistic missile test target, which it did not do. In a separate operation, the Aegis radar was to have tracked a Titan II space-launch vehicle scheduled for launch November 14. During the October 24 test, the Aegis radar was scheduled to have tracked the defensive interceptor; and during the same test, the multiple object tracking radar at Vandenberg was to have tracked the strategic ballistic missile target. On test activities such as these, as I indicated, it is possible that someone could raise an issue because of ambiguities in the treaty, and we do not want to get into that debate. For some time now, we've advised the Congress and the government of the Russian Federation that the planned missile defense testing program that we have was going to bump up against the ABM Treaty. That has now happened. This fact, this reality, it seems to me, provides an impetus for the discussions that President Bush has been having with President Putin, and which will continue here in Washington early next month."
Questions and Answers
" Question: 'Mr. Secretary, you have said repeatedly that...the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is outdated...and should no longer be in effect, and you've said you would not allow it to keep you from going ahead with a robust R&D and testing program for ballistic missile defense. Why, then, have you decided not to go ahead with these tests rather than tell the Russians simply that you intend to no longer be a part of the treaty, to withdraw from the treaty?'
Secretary Rumsfeld: '... What we have said is that...the treaty needs to be set aside, and that the United States needs to go forward with a test program so that at some point in the period ahead we'll have determined what's the best way to deploy ballistic missile defenses. We are continuing with many aspects of the very robust test development program. But as I've indicated, there are some things that some people could raise, and...I do not want to put the United States in a position of having someone raise a question about whether or not something is a violation of a treaty. I don't think that's the position the United States wants to be in. So what we're doing is we are continuing with our program. To the extent some things are not going to be able to go forward until we have set that treaty aside and have arrangements whereby we can go forward without people making that allegation...we'll just have to do that. And it seemed to me it was appropriate to acknowledge the fact that we have now arrived at that point.'
Question: 'Are you still maintaining that the treaty must be set aside or withdrawn from, or do you think some kind of accommodation could be made with the Russians in conjunction with deep cuts in nuclear arsenals?'
Secretary Rumsfeld: 'I think that those positions are not inconsistent. I don't think it's either-or. ... [T]he one thing that's clear is that the United States cannot stay bound to the constraints of that treaty and still do what we've indicated we believe very sincerely we must do, and that is to develop effective ballistic missile defenses.' ...
Question: '... [W]hat would you say to those people who say that [this announcement]...may seem to be a quid pro quo to reward the Russians for allowing...'
Secretary Rumsfeld: 'That's not true, is what I would say. We are not rewarding or penalizing anybody. We are voluntarily taking some steps to avoid having people who might do so contend that something we might do could be characterized as not consistent with the treaty. We don't want to put our country in that position. And it is not a bone to anybody. It is simply the fact that the President and the administration are engaged in discussions with the Russians. We believe they are proceeding in a satisfactory way. And we believe that, in fact, at some point going forward we'll have a way to permit our country to go forward with the kinds of testing and development of ballistic missile defenses that we believe is in the best interests of our nation.'"
Source: Transcript - Defense Department Briefing October 25, 2001, US State Department (Washington File), October 25.
© 2001 The Acronym Institute.