(4 of 5)
Not surprisingly, China reacted most vehemently to the Bush-Rumsfeld speech, saying the U.S. "has violated the ABM Treaty, will destroy the balance of international security forces and could cause a new arms race." Beijing knows even the initially modest system proposed by Clinton--a fleet of 100 missiles designed to knock out as many as 25 warheads from the heavens--could render obsolete their 20 single-warhead, long-range missiles, which can reach the West Coast of America. Once that system is in place, Beijing's leverage with the U.S.--especially on the touchy topic of Taiwan--could be crippled.
U.S. officials suggest that the only logical way around China's opposition is for Washington and Beijing to agree, at least tacitly, to allow China to have enough nukes to trump whatever missile shield the U.S. deploys. That won't endear Bush and Rumsfeld to G.O.P. conservatives, but Washington insists the shield is not aimed at China anyway. "They may even double the number" of their missiles aimed at the U.S., Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other government arms experts believe a U.S. missile shield could trigger a tenfold increase in Chinese missiles aimed at the U.S. China's push for more weapons would act only as a spur to India, which might feel compelled to increase its arsenal to keep pace with its historical nemesis. And that could then push Pakistan, India's avowed foe, to build more nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, Moscow's reaction was surprisingly mild. "It is hard not to agree with the President of the United States that the world is changing rapidly and new threats are appearing," President Vladimir Putin said. "We must counter these threats with well-thought actions." The calm demeanor is in keeping with his attempt to project Russia, impoverished as it is, as America's strategic peer. Russian officials also acknowledge they won't mind if the U.S. pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into a scheme they think will never work.
The Bush Administration coddled the European allies in the days leading up to last week's speech, sharing its content and having Bush phone leaders with sneak previews. The allies appreciated the vagueness of the speech because it hinted that they may be able to influence the shield's final shape. The key to Europe's opposition is the lack of an ABM Treaty successor. If the ABM pact collapses, it must be replaced "only by better ones or more effective ones," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said after Bush's speech. "We don't want there to be a new arms race." Playing their traditional roles, the British gave the strongest support to the Bush plan, and the French were the most opposed. "The Americans seem to think that if they just pound us over the head with their position enough times, we'll finally see the light," a French Defense Ministry official said.
Overseas concerns may influence just what layers Bush decides to deploy. The land-based plan is the selfish option. Even when expanded to two sites--Alaska and North Dakota, under current plans--the shield would protect only the U.S. and Canada. That would be particularly grating to nations like Britain and Denmark. After all, Washington wants them to permit the U.S. to make modifications to radar on their territory that is required to protect the U.S.--but not them--from missile attack.