Conclusions

• The growing ballistic missile threat, especially when coupled with the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, presents a fundamental challenge to U.S. national security interests. A consensus exists on the need to develop and deploy theater ballistic missile defenses (TMD) to protect U.S. forces and allies. No consensus exists on national missile defense (NMD).

• Opponents of NMD argue that no proliferant state currently has the ability to strike the United States with ballistic missiles. If threats do emerge, U.S. conventional superiority or, if necessary, offensive nuclear forces will deter attacks on the United States. NMD would undermine strategic deterrence and lead to a resumption of the offensive nuclear arms race with Russia.

• Proponents of NMD point to the emerging long-range missile threat from countries such as North Korea. Unless the United States responds now, the threat will outpace the nation's ability to deploy effective defenses. Advocates reject the view that NMD would undermine deterrence, arguing that it would instead contribute to deterrence and provide an essential hedge if deterrence fails.

• One central question is the future of the ABM Treaty. While the Bush Administration pushed to amend the Treaty to permit defenses against limited ballistic missile attack, the Clinton Administration has hailed the Treaty as the "bedrock of strategic stability" and as the "cornerstone" of U.S.- Russian relations. In response to moves to strengthen the Treaty, including limitations on TMD, Congressional critics have questioned the Treaty's relevance in the post- Cold War environment in which the United States requires effective national missile defenses.