	Introduction

During the latter years of the Clinton presidency, the United States began to focus on the possible deploymentof defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. The Administration, and many missile defense supporters, claimed that the United States needed to pursue NationalMissile Defenses (NMD) because "rogue"nations such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq might soon acquire longer range missiles that could strike U.S. territory,and the United States could not be certain thatthe threat of offensive retaliation would deter these unpredictable actors. They arguedthat any changes to the Treaty that permitted the deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missiles wouldundermine international strategic stability,upset the nuclear balance established by the Treaty, and interfere with Russia's nuclear deterrent capabilities. Bush Administration. The Administration participated in consultations with Russia on a new strategic framework, but, whenit was unable to convince Russia to withdrawfrom the Treaty with the United States, it announced that the United States would withdraw itself. The Russian Response

		Concerns about Strategic Stability and Arms Control

The dominant theme in Russia's response to the U.S. approach to missile defenses and the ABM Treaty is the idea that the ABM Treaty is the "cornerstone ofstrategic stability" and that the U.S. deployment of missile defenses would undermine stability and upset armscontrol. NMD system cannot really be directed against those threats. One Russian analyst, Alexander Pikayev, has stated that China has already adopted a $10 billion packagefor a new nuclear buildup in reaction to U.S.plans to deploy an NMD system together with a TMD system in the Western Pacific, and that China would haveto significantly increase the size of its missileforce to maintain the credibility of its deterrent in the face of a U.S. NMD. Possible Military Responses

Hence, in spite of U.S. claims to the contrary, many Russian officials and analysts appear to believe that U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and deployment ofa nationwide missile defense system would undermine the existing framework of arms control agreements, upsetinternational strategic stability, incite new armsraces, and threaten the credibility of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent. Several Russian officials have declaredthat, if the United States were to follow this path,Russia would feel compelled to withdraw from a range of arms control agreements so that it could deploy themilitary forces that it would need to offset the U.S.threat to its nuclear deterrent. Deploy Multiple Warheads on New ICBMs. Deploy new intermediate range missiles. Most experts agree that Russia will not win the support of U.S. allies in Europe, even if it threatens to redeploy shorter-range or intermediate-range nuclear forcesnear its western borders. Russia advocated this regime as "component part of the global regime of the non-proliferation of missiles andmissile technologies." The systemaccomplished some successful intercepts of theater-range ballistic missiles in the mid-1990s. When Russia first offered its proposal for a European missile defensesystem, the Clinton Administration said the idea could not serve as a substitute for a U.S. NMD. Response to the Russian Reaction

		Clinton Administration

The Clinton Administration sought to address Russian concerns about the U.S. plans for missile defense by convincing Russia that the ABM Treaty would remainlargely in place, that missile defenses would remain relatively limited, and that they would be directed againstpossible small-scale attacks from "rogue" nations. This view may have contributed to Russia's reluctance to accept or evendiscuss the U.S. proposals. Will Russia continue to cooperate on offensive arms reductions?
In the late 1990s, the United States began to focus on the possible deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. The planned National MissileDefense (NMD) system would have exceeded the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Recognizing this,the Clinton Administration sought toconvince Russia to modify the terms of the Treaty. But Russia was unwilling to accept any changes to the Treaty. It also decried the U.S plan to deploy NMD,insisting that it would upset strategic stability and start a new arms race.
Russia claimed that the ABM Treaty is the "cornerstone of strategic stability" and that, without its limits on missile defense, the entire framework of offensivearms control agreements could collapse. Furthermore, Russia argued that a U.S. NMD system would undermineRussia's nuclear deterrent and upset stability byallowing the United States to initiate an attack and protect itself from retaliatory strike. The Clinton Administrationclaimed that the U.S. NMD system would bedirected against rogue nations and would be too limited to intercept a Russian attack. But Russian officialsquestioned this argument. They doubted that roguenations would have the capability to attack U.S. territory for some time, and they believed that the United Statescould expand its NMD system easily. Furthermore, they argued that, when combined with the entirety of U.S. conventional and nuclear weapons, an NMDsystem would place the United States in aposition of strategic superiority.
During the Clinton Administration and first year of the Bush Administration, Russian officials stated that, if the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty anddeployed an NMD, Russia would withdraw from a range of offensive arms control agreements. Furthermore, Russiacould deploy multiple warheads on itsICBMs to overcome a U.S. NMD, or deploy new intermediate-range missiles or shorter-range nuclear systems toenhance its military capabilities.
Russia has also outlined diplomatic and cooperative military initiatives as alternatives to the deployment of a U.S. NMD. Russia has proposed that theinternational community negotiate a Global Missile and Missile Technology Non-Proliferation regime as a meansto discourage nations from acquiring ballisticmissiles. It has also suggested that it would cooperate with nations in Europe to develop and deploy defensesagainst theater-range ballistic missiles. Manyanalysts believe this proposal was designed to win support among U.S. allies for Russia's opposition to the U.S.NMD program. U.S. officials expressed aninterest in the idea but said it could not substitute for defenses against longer-range missiles.
The Clinton Administration sought to address Russia's concerns by offering continued support to the fundamental principles of the ABM Treaty and by seeking toconvince Russia that the U.S. NMD system would remain too limited to threaten Russia's nuclear deterrent. TheBush Administration, in contrast, has supportedmore robust missile defenses, but it also has stated that they will not be directed against Russia's offensive forces. The President has indicated that the UnitedStates will need to move beyond the limits in the ABM Treaty, but he suggested that Russia join the United Statesin developing a new strategic framework.