Ambassador lectures on missile defense

NICOLE MILLER/Daily Bruin Soviet ambassador Oleg
Grinevsky speaks on nuclear missile defense systems and
proposed alterations to the 1970s ABM treaties yesterday.

By Chris Young
Daily Bruin Reporter

Ambassador Oleg Grinevsky of Russia discussed implications of
the U.S. National Missile Defense program in Bunche Hall
Monday.

Grinevsky, the head of the Soviet delegation to the Conference
on Disarmament in Europe, spoke with authorities, including
Chancellor Albert Carnesale, on NMD and public policy.

The lecture, titled “Missile Defense: Realities and
Perspectives,” was sponsored by the Burkle Center for
International Relations and the UCLA Center for European and
Russian Studies.

“If the U.S. is concerned about rogue states and wants to
spend money to develop an NMD system, fine,” said Grinevsky,
who was also deputy head of the Soviet delegation to the
SALT”“1 Negotiations that resulted in the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty of 1972.

But, he said, the U.S. should share that program with other
countries in the anti-terrorism coalition, making a common missile
defense system.

Grinevsky proposed that each country could have its missiles,
but would need to submit a schedule for all launches. If a missile
was launched that violated the schedule, or deviated from its
scheduled path, that missile would be shot down.

If the U.S. keeps the NMD program exclusive, other countries
might become nervous about a “shield” around the U.S.
and stockpile more missiles to defeat it, Grinevsky said.

China might increase its stockpile of missiles in response to
the NMD program, which would cue India to increase its stockpile
and have Pakistan and Japan following suit, Grinevsky
speculated.

As a result, he said, the Pacific and Middle East would
drastically change, possibly leading to a nuclear standoff as in
the Cold War.

The NMD program was designed to protect the U.S. against
ballistic missile attacks by detecting them after launch and
destroying the missiles in flight.

Michael Intriligator, head of the Burkle Center for
International Relations, said two arguments over the NMD program
emerged after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon.

On the one hand, the hijackings demonstrated even more need for
the NMD shield. If terrorists can hijack planes in the U.S.,
proponents said, they could launch missiles too.

But the NMD program also faces criticism because it would not
protect against a chemical or biological attack ““ both
currently perceived threats.

“It didn’t make sense to deploy a ballistic missile
defense because there are other ways that are much easier to make
weapons of mass destruction,” Carnesale said.

But if the United States developed detection techniques against
chemical or biological attacks and terrorists were prevented from
using these, the NMD program becomes relevant again, he added.

“I would be in favor of spending money on testing for the
future, but I would be opposed to spending billions of dollars to
defend against something that, for now, is hard for (terrorists) to
do,” Carnesale said.

Grinevsky said that with more than 200 terrorist organizations
in 60 countries, terrorists represent an “amorphous
enemy.”

The solution, Grinevsky said, would be for the United States and
its allies to help developing nations economically rather than use
force against isolated terrorist groups.

“The world community is divided into two sides: one
billion people, the “˜gilded,’ who live in the U.S. and
Europe, and five billion people living in very poor
countries,” Grinevsky said. “When people have nothing
to lose, they are ready to be terrorists and sacrifice their
lives.”

“If we move, step by step, these five billion people to
the modern global economy, it wouldn’t be easy, but … this
is the only solution,” Grinevsky said.