As the war on terrorism continues, the major issue in the Global Security arena will be "homeland defense." Both parties agree on the need for greater attention and spending on security but disagree on the means to achieve that security. Each party will be attempting to convince the voters in this high stakes election year that they know how best to ensure the security of the United States. While Republicans will argue that the best path to security is placing a special emphasis on National Missile Defense, Democrats will emphasize that protecting what exists now - borders, infrastructure, etc - is crucial. Democrats will also counter Bush's proposal to increase spending on the National Missile Defense system with a renewed emphasis on what they believe are more valuable programs to secure Russia's Cold War stockpile of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons.

The Debate on National Missile Defense

With the Bush Administration's withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the debate over National Missile Defense will now become one of nuts and bolts rather than ideological vision. The argument against the NMD will now be less over the treaty and more over cost, performance, and the development schedule. And, these arguments will largely be viewed through the lens of the terrorist attacks.

For proponents of NMD, Bush's decision allows the government to accelerate testing and eventual deployment of sea- and land-based defenses against ballistic missiles, and later space-based defenses. Those opposed to the NMD will argue that unproven ability of the system and the unlikely chance of a ballistic missile attack do not justify the amount of money the administration would like to allocate toward the missile defense system.

The fiscal 2002 defense appropriations bill which was signed on January 10 provides for a $19 billion dollar increase in defense spending from the 2001 level but $1.9 billion less than the administration requested. Conferees on the defense appropriations bill agreed to privide $7.8 billion for national missile defense, $500 million less than the what was sought but $2.5 billion more than what is currently allocated. The determination of the Bush administration to push ahead with National Missile defense is reflected in this nearly 50 percent increase.

The combination of a looming budget deficit and an election year will likely pit missile defense against homeland defense, and Republicans against Democrats. The Democrats will likely draw a distinction between spending on measures to safeguard the country against a terrorist attack and spending on a missile defense system. The latest US intelligence assessment report was released January 10. The report represents the current assessment of the CIA and 10 other agencies which make up the US intelligence community of the latest intelligence on ballistic missile developments and threats against the United States. It stated that the United States is more likely to suffer a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack from terrorists using ships trucks or airplanes than one by a foreign country using long- range missiles. Democrats will argue that NMD is designed to protect the Untied States from such enemies as Iraq or North Korea and will offer little protection against terrorist who are likely to employ less sophisticated weapons. Democrats will likely target the billion-dollar program as they look for more money for homeland security. They will likely press for major increases in spending on customs inspectors and border guards, and efforts to monitor, contain and treat bio-terrorism attacks.

It is not clear how successful these arguments will be. With the success of the war in Afghanistan the Bush administration is riding high in the opinion poles. Many lawmakers will not want to launch a full-scale offensive against national security policies. The effectiveness of the arguments against the NMD program will ultimately depend on Pentagon's technological success in developing the sytems.

The people to watch on this are:

• Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. He is a key member of the authorizing panel and will try to steer money from missile defense to other programs.
• Senate Intelligence Committee Member Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. He is a champion of missile defense and will work to make sure the Bush administration gets the funding for all types of missile defenses.
• Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden, D-Del. He is skeptical of missile defense and would prefer to see Russia's arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons secure.

The battle lines on this issue will be drawn early in the year when Bush sends his fiscal 2003 request to Congress in February.

Arms Reductions

During negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin last year, President Bush announced that the United States would reduce its nuclear arsenal from around 6,000 to between 1,700 to 2,250 warheads in next decade. This decision was a major breakthrough in arms control process. But the reductions are actually less extensive than they appear. The levels of nuclear weapons envisioned for the end of the decade are the same as the levels which were agreed to in 1997 by Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin.

In addition, the Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration, has no plans to destroy the warheads. The Bush plan is not to dismantle warheads taken out of service but rather to keep then in reserve in a "responsive force". In effect, this is de-alerting rather than disarmament. While this is a step forward, it is no where near the amount of reductions that are needed. Holding on to the option of reconstructing the nuclear weapons force goes directly against the need to de-emphasize nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War environment.

This move toward preserving rather than destroying the dismantled warheads may prove to be a serious stumbling block to the Bush administrations relations with the Russians who believe that the reductions in nuclear warheads should be accompanied by the destruction of warheads that are no longer on missiles. The Russians would also like to see new treaties put in place, something the Bush administration is less than enthusiastic about. The Russians want the verbal deal between Putin and Bush on cutting nuclear missile forces codified as a set of mutual legal obligations, complete with a mechanism for verification. They would also like to see a document regulating the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons, to replace the ABM treaty, possibly by the time of Bush's planned visit to Russia in mid-2002.

The Nuclear Posture Review

In early January, the Bush administration released its Nuclear Posture Review, which frames the direction for US nuclear forces over the next five years to 10 years. (Online PDF Version) Among the conclusions of this review were that the United States should shift from a threat based approach of the Cold War to an approach based more on capabilities. The report stated that the "Cold War approach to deterrence no longer appropriate" and there is a need to "end relationship with Russia based on MAD" (mutually assured destruction). However, the 1,700 to 2,200 deployed strategic weapons that will still be in place in 2012 can be justified only by retaining targets in Russia that in effect continues the MAD doctrine.

The Nuclear Posture Review also contains hints that the administration is moving toward the resumption of nuclear testing. While the US has rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in late 1999, it has had a self imposed moratorium on nuclear testing. The Nuclear Posture Review, while not calling for a change in current policy banning testing, calls for plans to be made to resume testing quickly, within as little as 18 months, if the president decides such tests are needed. Many members of congress and members of the arms control community see this as a major step in the wrong direction. Rather than encouraging non-proliferation, this will have the opposite effect and alienate US supporters.

Another frightening development is the call from some within the administration to begin the development of mini-nuclear weapons, which would be more "usable". However, many in the military do not want to allocate money towards the development of weapons that they feel would never be allowed to be used. Instead, the military is arguing for more high-tech conventional weapons.

Non-Proliferation Programs

In December, the administration reviewed the non-proliferation programs currently active in Russia and concluded that most of them "work well, are focused on priority goals and are well-managed." There are indications that the administration will seek increases of $159 million for three critical non-proliferation programs run by the Department of Energy. This would be part of a $1.04 billion request for non-proliferation programs in fiscal 2003.

Many in Congress will be pressing the administration to expand the scope of non-proliferation assistance. Because of increased concerns about terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons, non-proliferation programs currently make a lot of sense.

Written by Catherine Gordon, the associate for international issues in the Washington Office.