When President George W. Bush made his remark about the “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address, he publicly exposed the ballistic missile threat Iran, Iraq, and North Korea pose to the United States and its allies. So far, media concern has concentrated only on his name-calling. Rockets’ Red Glare explores the missile defenses designed to counteract the threat from these countries

Schloemann, Carl

English

U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons

Naval War College ReviewVolume 55Number 3 Summer Article 102002Rockets’ RedGlare: Missile Defenses and theFuture of World PoliticsCarl SchloemannFollow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-reviewThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contactrepository.inquiries@usnwc.edu.Recommended CitationSchloemann, Carl (2002) "Rockets’ RedGlare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World Politics," Naval War College Review: Vol. 55 :No. 3 , Article 10.Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol55/iss3/10aid as a diplomatic tool to coax concessionsfrom Pyongyang. He maintains that sucha position is ethically indefensible, sinceit punishes innocent populations, peoplewho are unable to affect their govern-ment’s policies.The book does have a few weaknesses.First, its organization may prove frustrat-ing. Different chapters focus on variousperspectives of the famine, but this ap-proach leads to some confusion aboutthe overall chronology of events, which,given the complexity of the subject, isquite difficult to grasp. A second flaw isthe lack of photographs. This in itselfwould not be a problem if no such pho-tos existed, but Natsios makes a point ofemphasizing the importance of photo-graphs in conveying the reality of a fam-ine. He also discusses the works ofspecific photographers but then fails toexplain their absence. Finally, the overallanalysis of the United States and NorthKorean interaction might have beenstronger if greater attention had beenpaid to the nuclear proliferation issue.Certainly this was the most importantconcern in conditioning relations be-tween the two countries, but Natsioshardly broaches the subject.Overall, this study is an essential additionto recent scholarship on North Korea,which has not paid adequate attention tothe human tragedy as it unfolded duringthe last decade. While Natsios makes astrong case for breaking the link betweenfood aid and U.S. strategic interests, onewonders if relief efforts are aiding theNorth Korean regime and thus prolong-ing the catastrophe that Natsios has so el-oquently described.LYLE J. GOLDSTEINNaval War CollegeWirtz, James J., and Jeffrey A. Larsen, eds. Rockets’ RedGlare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World Politics.Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 2001. 352pp. $28.50When President George W. Bush madehis remark about the “axis of evil” in his2002 State of the Union address, hepublicly exposed the ballistic missilethreat Iran, Iraq, and North Korea poseto the United States and its allies. Sofar, media concern has concentratedonly on his name-calling. Rockets’ RedGlare explores the missile defensesdesigned to counteract the threat fromthese countries.James J. Wirtz, a national security affairsprofessor at the U.S. Naval PostgraduateSchool, and Jeffrey A. Larsen, a seniorpolicy analyst of the Science ApplicationsInternational Corporation, edited thisbook, which is an anthology of paperswritten to explore the implications of na-tional missile defense (NMD). Contribu-tors had a common assumption— thatNMD will be deployed in a national secu-rity environment with either a modifiedantiballistic missile (ABM) treaty or noantiballistic missile treaty at all. This as-sumption allowed them to focus on thestrategic level consequences of an NMDdeployment; the editors then asked themto examine three levels of NMD deploy-ment. These are “Limited Defense in aCooperative Setting, “Enhanced De-fenses and the Limits of Cooperation,”and “Unlimited Defenses Unconstrainedby Treaty.”Wirtz and Larsen organized their anthol-ogy in these three major parts. The “ABMRegime” provides historical back-ground. Kerry Kartchner, the State De-partment’s senior representative to theStanding Consultative Commission inGeneva, Switzerland, researched the1 5 8 N A V A L W A R C O L L E G E R E V I E W1Schloemann: Rockets’ RedGlare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World PolitPublished by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2002origins of the ABM Treaty. Robert Jo-seph (special assistant to the presidentand senior director for proliferationstrategy, counterproliferation, and home-land defense) reviewed the changes in thepolitical-military landscape. DennisWard, a professional staff member of theSenate Governmental Affairs Subcom-mittee on International Security, Prolif-eration, and Federal Services, examinedchanges in technology since the inceptionof the ABM Treaty and their impact onboth offensive and defensive systems.Part 2 is entitled “Defense, Arms Con-trol, and Crisis Stability.” MichaelO’Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign pol-icy at the Brookings Institution, takes thelead by looking at the ramifications ofNMD deployment on U.S. politics. Rich-ard Harknett, associate professor of po-litical science at the University ofCincinnati, focuses on how the strategiclandscape will change with NMD deploy-ment. Julian Schofield, an assistant pro-fessor at Concordia University, Montreal,analyzes NMD deployment in a multilat-eral arms control environment.Part 3, “Regional Responses to NationalMissile Defense,” divides the world out-side the United States into regions, andin some instances specific countries, ex-amining the effect NMD deploymentmay have. Bradley Roberts, a member ofthe research staff at the Institute for De-fense Analyses, reviews the impact NMDdeployment may have on China andwhat its responses will likely be. Ivo H.Daalder, a senior fellow in foreign policystudies at the Brookings Institution, andJames Goldgeier, acting director of theInstitute for European, Russian, and Eur-asian Studies at George Washington Uni-versity, look at NMD deployment from aRussian perspective. Timothy D. Hoyt,director of special programs and adjunctprofessor in the national security studiesprogram at Georgetown University,analyzes the effects of NMD deploymenton the states of South Asia, an areaprominent in the current environment.Charles Ball, a senior scientist at Law-rence Livermore National Laboratory,studies the wide variety of views held byU.S. global allies.The book’s appendices provide sourcedocuments, including the ABM Treaty it-self and related documents that furtherrefine the initial treaty. Presidentialspeeches on NMD conclude the appendi-ces: President Bill Clinton’s speech of 1September 2000 deferring a decision onNMD; George W. Bush’s speech as a pres-idential candidate delivered on 23 May2000; and his presidential speech at theNational Defense University on 1 May2001.As one who has a limited role in the op-erational aspects of NMD, I found in thisbook the historical context and strategicimplications of its deployment, at leastprior to the events of 11 September 2001.Obviously, those events could not havebeen foreseen, but we may suspect thatthe September tragedy would signifi-cantly reinforce the conclusions reachedby the editors and contributors.President Bush’s 2002 State of the Unionaddress showed a new willingness on thepart of the United States to confront ag-gressively and directly the threats posedby Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. NMDprovides defense against these specificballistic missile threats. But if U.S. politi-cal determination removes the ballisticmissile threat from these states, whatthen for NMD? If NMD deployment con-tinues, absent a threat from Iran, Iraq,and North Korea, what effect will thathave on the global landscape? Will acapabilities-based argument against anB O O K R E V I E W S 1 5 92Naval War College Review, Vol. 55 [2002], No. 3, Art. 10https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol55/iss3/10undefined and unknown emerging threatbe acceptable to the rest of the world?Rockets’ Red Glare has my wholeheartedrecommendation. However, it must nowbe read with an active consideration of,and sober reflection on, the impact of theattacks of 11 September 2001 and theiraftermath, the war on terrorism.CARL SCHLOEMANNCommander, U.S. NavyNaval War CollegeMiller, Judith, Stephen Engelberg, and WilliamBroad. Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Se-cret War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.382pp. $27In 1988, only two years before the Sovietempire fell, secret scientific efforts werestill turning germs into weapons and cre-ating entirely new germs. In Koltsovo, ahidden Siberian city, scientist NikolaiUstinov died from an accident whileworking with the Marburg virus, de-signed to bleed victims to death. Withclinical detachment, he documented hisown decline in a journal with blood-spotted pages. His colleagues found thatthe virus had mutated while killing him.Their response was consistent with theircareers—they buried the scientist in azinc-lined coffin and turned the “new”virus into a weapon, naming it “VariantU,” in tribute to Ustinov.That story, with its multiple layers ofhorror, shows why reality is often moreremarkable than the best novel. It alsohas important parallels to current con-cerns over states that manufacture andprepare living weapons for deployment.Iraq again made the news when in March2002 Iraqi civil engineer Adnan Sayeed,along with another defector, smuggledout evidence of Iraq’s ongoing germ weap-ons program. Then there is Iran. Thisbook reprises the authors’ earlier report-ing on wide-ranging, well-funded Iranianefforts to buy up talent from destituteSoviet weapons labs.This is an important book on current af-fairs, crafted in an accessible style bythree professionals of the New YorkTimes who have excellent contacts in thefederal government. William Broad is ascience writer who has shared two Pulit-zer Prizes. Stephen Engelberg has longreported on national security issues. Ju-dith Miller has done groundbreaking in-vestigations on anti-American terrorists.Although their report is not what mighthave been done by a blue-ribbon scien-tific panel, it is reaching a much largeraudience. Moreover, it deserves favorablenotice as an original work created wellbefore the 2001 anthrax attacks.Germs is not specifically about biologicalthreats posed by small terrorist groups; itfocuses on state producers of “supergerms”—disease-generating organisms tobe used in military weapons systems. Itdiscusses the tension between developingbiological weapons and devising pro-grams to counter them. Any argument asto whether a weapons program is for of-fense or defense (as Winston Churchillshowed in a humorous “disarmament fa-ble” in October 1928) is more about in-tentions and regimes and fears thanabout actual weapons. That leaves chal-lenging ambiguities. Parts of this bookappear to be directed against any U.S.government germ work that goes beyondresearch and into development. Its widerappeal is that all countries be kept withinbounds by treaty law.Several small flaws are apparent. Oneparagraph flatly dismisses the value of allU.S. Senate hearings as mere stage1 6 0 N A V A L W A R C O L L E G E R E V I E W3Schloemann: Rockets’ RedGlare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World PolitPublished by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2002

Rockets’ RedGlare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World Politics

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2374&context=nwc-review

Rockets’ RedGlare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World Politics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons