WASHINGTON: It’s astonishing that there’s been so little commentary on the prospective end to the ABM Treaty, which until recently was heralded as “the cornerstone of strategic stability” and the indispensable barrier to a renewed arms race.

The eulogies have been surprisingly few — a few dissents. The dire predictions haven’t been forthcoming. The intriguing question, as Sherlock Holmes might say, is: Why didn’t the dog bark?

It’s really quite simple. Defenders of the ABM Treaty had earlier undermined their own position, and it was just a matter of time before the logical consequences followed.

What have been the reverberations? Scarcely any. Though many in Russia felt bruised by the decision, the Russians issued only the mildest of protests.

The mild Russian reaction deflated the sometimes hysterical protests from the treaty’s supporters abroad. European governments, which had denounced President Bush throughout the spring for undermining strategic stability, had the ground cut out from under them. They had been relying on a vehement Russian reaction and the prospect of a renewed arms race to buttress their position. The Chinese will continue in their methodical strategic buildup. Here at home there’s been this remarkable silence.

What, as they say, are the “lessons?” Arms control agreements aren’t forever. Strategic conditions change. The bipolar world of the ‘e ‘70s and ‘80s is gone — thus the feared two-sided competition to deploy additional offensive vehicles didn’t reappear.

Rather than being “the cornerstone of strategic stability,” the treaty turned out to be more like the cornerstone of arms control theology. As the treaty over time became less relevant, it was defended with increasing passion.

Where do we stand now? Striking down the treaty as a barrier to development of necessary technology represents an acknowledgment that the technology for missile defence isn’t now in hand. Thus, any deployment remains a considerable distance off. Only time will tell what’s feasible. The conviction on which this decision was based — that ballistic missile defences are within reach and that a system that is both effective and cost- effective will be deployed — still remains to be demonstrated.—Dawn/The Washington Post News Service