 |
US Not to Rule out Mutual Assured Destruction: Powell
Mutual assured destruction, the basis of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War, would be indispensable even if the United States builds a missile defense, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.
"You can't entirely do away with what has been known as mutual assured destruction," Powell said during a hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"It means, in my judgment anyway, that you keep enough weapons so that you will always be able to deter anyone else who is planning to strike you," he said.
However, President George W. Bush argued during his first visit to Europe last week that opposition to a missile defense system was based on Cold War thinking, including the concept of mutual assured destruction.
The Bush administration has threatened to scrap the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, signed by the United States and the former Soviet Union in 1972, so that the United States can develop a system to defend itself and allies from missile attacks from so-called "rogue states."
Washington is determined to "move forward unilaterally" away from the treaty if Moscow refuses to cooperate, Powell said, but he asked Russia to be open to a revision of the treaty.
Moreover, Powell insisted that the missile defense system would remain limited no matter what technologies the Defense Department chooses to implement.
Arms control experts said that the US missile defense plan, opposed by the international community, will not only spark a new arms race, but also threaten world peace and security, and stimulate nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, the US has been lobbying around the world, including its European allies, and has been talking about the issue with Russia.
Reports said that Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed recent comments by Powell that the US is not meant to destroy the ABM treaty but is to develop an effective defense against possible attack from hostile states. On the other hand, Putin also reportedly stressed that Powell has said the new system should be limited in scale and scope.
In This Section
|