MissileThreat.com

Although there have been many differences through the years and the various administrations with regard to the ABM Treaty, one also sees a greater consistency. The Reagan administration was quite vocal in protesting Soviet violations, but did not actually withdraw from the treaty. The Clinton administration, while taking great and somewhat sketchy lengths to perpetuate the treaty after the demise of the Soviet Union, and firming up opposition to national missile defense, nevertheless went ahead with accords that would at least clarify the few systems permissible as “theatre missile defense systems.” Moreover, the Clinton administration broached the subject of National Missile Defense in a way not so different from that the subsequent bush administration would do in 2001, namely a limited system which would preserve the reliance on purely offensive deterrence with Russia by posing no threat to the Russian offensive nuclear arsenal. The history of the ABM Treaty has been one of remarkable consistency in that the reliance mutually assured destruction with the former Soviet Union has remain unchanged. This is true even today, of the Bush administration’s plans for a limited system which would defend against rogue threats but cannot defend against an attack from Russia or China.

• Text of the ABM Treaty

  May 26, 1972

  Text of the 1972 treaty which prohibited national missile defense and enshrined the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

   

• Agreed Statements, Common Understandings, and Unilateral Statements Regarding the ABM Treaty

  May 26, 1972

   

• SALT I Treaty

  May 26, 1972

   

• Documents Accompanying the ABM Treaty and the SALT Treaty from President Nixon to Congress

  June 13, 1972

   

• Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Establishment of a Standing Consultative Commission

   

• Standing Consultative Commission Protocol

  May 30, 1973

   

• Standing Consultative Commission Regulations

  May 30, 1973

   

• 1974 Protocol to the ABM Treaty

  July 3, 1974

  Signed on July 3, 1974, this Protocol reduced the number of missile defense sites allowed by the 1972 ABM Treaty from two to one, and the number of interceptors from 200 to 100. This Protocol allowed the two signatories to choose either a site for defending the nation’s capitol or a site for defending ICBM fields. The Soviet Union chose the former, the United States the latter. The Soviet Union went on to deploy missile defense system around Moscow, which used nuclear tipped interceptors to protect 75% of the population. The Soviet system has since undergone multiple metamorphases and upgrades, but is still in place. The United States chose to deploy Sprint and Spartan missiles at the Grand Forks, North Dakota ICBM site. After Congress cut funding in 1976, however, the SAFEGUARD system was shut down, leaving the only operational missile defense system in the world around Moscow.

   

• Procedures Governing Dismantling or Destruction, and Notification Thereof, for ABM Systems and their Components

  July 3, 1974

   

• Protocol on Procedures Governing Replacement, Dismantling or Destruction, and Notification thereof, for ABM Systems and their Components

  July 3, 1974

   

• Supplementary Protocol to the 1976 Protocol for Dismantling and Destruction of ABM Systems

  October 28, 1976

   

• Agreed Statement Accompanying 1976 Protocol

  October 28, 1976

   

• Procedures Governing Replacement, Dismantling or Destruction, and Notification Thereof, for ABM Systems and Their Components

  October 28, 1976

   

• First Quadrennial Review

  November 21, 1977

  According to Article XIV of the ABM Treaty, a review of the Treaty would take place very five years, so as to assess whether the Treaty was consistent with the national interests of the United States and the Soviet Union. This is joint commnuique from the first such review, conducted by the Standing Consultative Commission, also established by the Treaty. The comminque states that both parties considered at that time that the treaty to be viable and pledged to continue under it.

   

• Standing Consultative Commission Agreed Statement

  November 1, 1978

   

• Statement by Commissioner Ustinov

  November 1, 1978

   

• Statement by Commissioner Buchheim

  November 1, 1978

   

• Second Quadrennial Review of the ABM Treaty

  December 15, 1982

  The second five-year review of the ABM Treaty also found that the parties should continue under the treaty. However, objections were presented by the United States party for continued violations by the Soviet Union, violations which would not be admitted until years later.

   

• Standing Consultative Commission Common Understanding Related to Agreed Statement of November 1, 1978, Regarding Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty

  June 6, 1985

   

• United States Unilateral Statement Following the Third Quadrennial Review of the ABM Treaty

  August 31, 1988

  August 31, 1988 Statement by the United States after the Third Quadrennial Review of the ABM Treaty, denouncing Soviet violations as a potential “material breach” of the ABM Treaty, and raising concerns about the future viability of the Treaty.

   

• Soviet Statement in Connection with the Third Quadrennial Review of the ABM Treaty

  September 1, 1988

  The Soviet response to the statement by the United States protesting the Soviet violations to the ABM Treaty.

   

• Joint U.S.-Russian Statement on a Global Protection System (GPS)

  June 17, 1992

  After the fall of the Soviet Union, Presidents George Bush and Boris Yeltsin issued this joint statement on the benefits of a shared missile defense system which would be aimed at defending each from limited ballistic missile strikes, whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate from either of the two countries, or from other parties. This is the sort of system mentioned by President Bush in his January ?? State of the Union Address, and which was the object of all legislation by Congress, the 1995, 1997, and 1999 Missile Defense Acts, following the fall of the Soviet Union.

   

• Fourth Quadrennial Review of the ABM Treaty

  October 1, 1993

  After the fall of the Soviet Union the validity of the Treaty was in serious question, given that one of its signatories had ceased to exist. Nevertheless, the Clinton Administration chose to conduct a sort of review of the Treaty, though not through the Standing Consultative Commission, which included only two parties which were signatories to the Treaty. A review was instead conducted by parties from the United States, and from the newly formed republics of Russia, Kazakstan, Ukraine, and Belarus. This communique makes reference to the problem of state succession, but reaffirms the Treaty’s validity.

   

• U.S.-Russian Framework Approach on Demarcation Between ABM and Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TMD) Systems

  November 8, 1995

   

• U.S.-Russia Joint Statement on Missile Defense

  September 24, 1996

   

• Senate. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. National Missile Defense and Prospects for U.S.-Russia ABM Treaty Accommodation.

  March 13, 1997

   

• Memorandum of Understanding

  September 26, 1997

   

• Sequence of Signing Ceremony for 1997 MOU

  September 26, 1997

   

• Regulations of the Standing Consultative Commission

  September 26, 1997

   

• Standing Consultative Commission Joint Statement on the Annual Exchange of Information on the Status of Plans and Programs with respect to Systems to Counter Ballistic Missiles other Strategic Ballistic Missiles

  September 26, 1997

   

• Statement by Belarus on Plans with Respect to Theatre Missile Defense Systems

  September 26, 1997

   

• Statement by Kazakhstan on Plans for Theatre Missile Defenses

  September 26, 1997

   

• Statement by the Russian Federation on Plans for Theatre Missile Defense Systems

  September 26, 1997

   

• Statement by Ukraine on Plans for Theatre Missile Defenses

  September 26, 1997

   

• Statement by the United States of America on Plans for Theatre Missile Defense Systems

  September 26, 1997

   

• Joint Communique on the Signing of the ABM Treaty Documents

  September 26, 1997

   

• Agreement on Confidence Building Measures Related to Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense

  September 26, 1997

   

• First Agreed Statement by SCC Concerning the 1997 Theatre Missile Defense Demarcation

  September 26, 1997

   

• Joint Statement by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin Concerning the ABM Treaty

  March 21, 1997

   

• NMD Protocol: Topics for Discussion

  January 19, 2000

  A document by the Clinton administration’s negotiator during the 2000 discussion for the prospect of a protocol to the ABM Treaty which woudl allow for a limited National Missile Defense. The document includes many assurances that such a system would in no way weaken Russia’s strategic deterrent, that is, pose a threat to the offensive capabilities of Russia against the United States.

   

• Proposed Annex to the Protocol to the ABM Treaty

  January 19, 2000

   

• Response to Russian Proposal on Development of a Global Monitoring System and Expansion of Cooperation in Other Areas to Track Missile and Missile Technology Proliferation

  January 19, 2000

   

• Unilateral Statement

  January 19, 2000

   

• Proposed Protocol to the Treaty Between The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the ABM Treaty

  January 19, 2000

   

• Congressional Research Service. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Demarcation and Succession Agreements: Background and Issues.

  April 27, 2000

   

• Announcement of Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty

  December 13, 2001

  ABM Fact Sheet by Press Secretary announcing the intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in six month’s time.