<br>> Morscheck at FCNL, via email at peter@fcnl.org or via telephone at
(202)
<br>> 547-6000 x 115.
<br>>
<br>> USE FCNL'S WEB SITE TO MAKE LETTER-WRITING EASIER: Start with
the sample
<br>> letter posted in our Legislative Action Center, personalize the language,
<br>> then send your message as an email directly from our site or print
it out
<br>> and mail it. To view a sample letter, click on the link below.
Then enter
<br>> your zip code and click <Go> in the <Take Action Now> box.
Here is the
<br>> link <<a href="http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=44679&type=CO&azip=">http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=44679&type=CO&azip=</a>>.
<br>>
<br>> BACKGROUND: Last week, the Bush Administration announced that
U.S.
<br>missile
<br>> defense research and development (R&D) activities over the next
several
<br>> months will likely bring the U.S. out of compliance with the ABM
treaty.
<br>> This week, the Administration indicated that it hopes the Russians
will
<br>> agree to abandon the treaty with the U.S., but that the Administration
<br>plans
<br>> to move ahead aggressively with its missile defense program whether
the
<br>> Russians agree or not. The Administration wants to complete
construction
<br>> of a missile defense interceptor site at Fort Greeley, Alaska by
2004. It
<br>> plans to begin clearing trees at the site this fall (which would
not
<br>violate
<br>> the ABM treaty), and it would begin pouring concrete next spring
(which
<br>> would violate the treaty). The treaty requires that the U.S.
or Russia
<br>give
<br>> 6 months formal notice to the other party before withdrawing from
the
<br>> treaty. However, the Bush Administration has not yet
given this notice
<br>to
<br>> the Russians.
<br>>
<br>> It is uncertain how the Russians will respond. Last week, following
the
<br>> meeting between Presidents Bush and Putin, the Russians indicated
they
<br>would
<br>> be willing to negotiate a new agreement on missile defenses.
However, the
<br>> Bush Administration indicated that it had no interest in revising
the
<br>treaty
<br>> or negotiating a new formal agreement. Instead, the Administration
is
<br>> seeking to continue high level consultations with Russia through
which
<br>they
<br>> hope to achieve informal agreement that both countries will simply
<br>withdraw
<br>> from the treaty.
<br>>
<br>> The Administration is proposing to expedite deployment of a missile
<br>defense
<br>> system and expand R&D despite serious questions about the justification,
<br>> efficacy, cost, and reliability of such a system. For
example:
<br>>
<br>> * There is little credible threat of a ballistic missile attack from
<br>> countries such as North Korea, Iraq, or Iran, and these improbable
threats
<br>> can be reduced further and at much less cost through bilateral and
<br>> multilateral diplomatic initiatives and verifiable arms control
<br>agreements.
<br>>
<br>> * Governments around the world, especially in Europe and East Asia
are
<br>> concerned that U.S. missile defense plans will undermine global arms
<br>control
<br>> and disarmament efforts.
<br>>
<br>> * An accelerated missile defense program is virtually certain to
lead
<br>China
<br>> to increase the number of nuclear weapons pointed at U.S. cities
and may
<br>> discourage Russia from making deep cuts in its arsenal.
<br>>
<br>> * After over thirty years and over $100 billion of research and
<br>development,
<br>> engineers have yet to design a missile defense system that will work
under
<br>> realistic conditions.
<br>>
<br>> * Finally, the Bush administration has yet to provide full details
to
<br>> Congress or the American people about what it is they plan to build,
how
<br>> much it will cost, or how they will pay for it.
<br>>
<br>> Expensive, high-tech weapons are no substitute for effective diplomacy,
<br>arms
<br>> control, disarmament, and international cooperation. Cooperative
<br>> international arms control and disarmament agreements will be far
more
<br>> effective in advancing peace and security in the years ahead and
will cost
<br>> far less than a missile shield.
<br>>
<br>> The Bush Administration has tried to present missile defense as a
moral
<br>> imperative for the country. However, we at FCNL believe that
the true
<br>moral
<br>> imperative is not to build yet another expensive, provocative, new
weapon
<br>> system, but to reduce the threat of nuclear war and accidental catastrophe
<br>> through arms control, disarmament, and international cooperation.
U.S.
<br>> leadership is needed now to stop another arms race before it begins.
<br>>
<br>> Toward that end, the U.S. should:
<br>> * immediately de-alert U.S. nuclear weapons and encourage Russia
to do the
<br>> same;
<br>> * sharply reduce the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile;
<br>> * provide assistance and incentives to Russia and others to safely
dispose
<br>> of weapons of mass destruction, to halt the export of related technologies
<br>> and weapons, and to redirect weapons industries to peaceful purposes;
<br>> * provide positive incentives to North Korea to permanently halt
its
<br>> ballistic missile program; and
<br>> * vigorously pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures
to
<br>> rapidly reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons stockpiles and other
weapons
<br>of
<br>> mass destruction.
<br>>
<br>> For more background information on missile defense, please see FCNL's
web
<br>> site <<a href="http://www.fcnl.org/issues/nuc/nmdindx.htm">http://www.fcnl.org/issues/nuc/nmdindx.htm</a>>.
<br>>
<br>> CONTACTING LEGISLATORS
<br>>
<br>> Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
<br>>
<br>> Sen. ________
<br>> U.S. Senate
<br>> Washington, DC 20510
<br>>
<br>> Rep. ________
<br>> U.S. House of Representatives
<br>> Washington, DC 20515
<br>>
<br>> Information on your members is available on FCNL's web site:
