Unlike Antarctica, which has a treaty that prohibits territorial claims, there is no agreement for the vast expanse of the Arctic.
The Nunn-Warner approach envisions continued adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits territorial defenses of the United States, together with some deployment of ground-based interceptors to the extent permitted by the present or a modified version of the Treaty.
The countries who now adhere to the treaty undertake not to pursue territorial claims in Antarctica and to protect the continent's flora and fauna.
His book, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion, distilled from these materials a stunning conclusion: As a matter of state policy, the USSR never complied with the requirements of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and built and deployed a territorial ABM system explicitly prohibited by that accord.
CENTERFORSECURITYPOLICY: In Memoriam an unsung hero of the Cold War: William T. Lee
Of course, the Russians and the Soviets before them have been adept at ignoring provisions of treaties that prove inconvenient. (In fact, such a practice has allowed the former USSR to deploy a full-up territorial anti-missile defense prohibited by the ABM Treaty).
Instead, the impetus seems to stem from a theological attachment to the ABM Treaty, which precludes the United States from obtaining effective territorial defenses.
CENTERFORSECURITYPOLICY: Hapless SDI damsel in distress: Awaiting a hero
Another analysis by retired intelligence officer William Lee makes clear moreover, that -- even if the Treaty were still in effect -- the fact that first the USSR and subsequently Russia deployed and maintained a prohibited territorial defense against ballistic missile attack would offer grounds to declare the Treaty null and void.
For starters, the Treaty's Article I flatly prohibited the deployment of any territorial defense against "strategic" ballistic missiles.
Mr. Clinton may believe he has prevailed, therefore, in his assertion that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty -- which effectively precludes the United States from deploying effective territorial defenses -- is more important than the protection such defenses could afford.
Seven countries - the UK, Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand and Norway - have made territorial claims in the Antarctic, which have been put on hold by the Antarctic Treaty.
By design, the Treaty is from its first article to its last a show-stopper for U.S. territorial defenses against ballistic missile attack.
CENTERFORSECURITYPOLICY: Don��t Breathe New Life into the A.B.M. Treaty
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed with great fanfare by the two leaders in Moscow prohibited the deployment by either nation of territorial defenses against ballistic missile attack.
When asked by fellow Conservative Christoper Chope why the bill did not mention Argentina and what he alleged were its territorial claims in Antarctica, Mr Carmichael argued that "we are strengthening our own British presence" through the treaty and the bill.
应用推荐