BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (Senate - October 03, 1996)
[Page: S12263]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if I can address one other subject very briefly since we are coming to the end of this session. I noticed an article in the current Reader's Digest. I happen to be one who has such respect for the Reader's Digest.
I was involved with a story 2 years ago with them. It took them 9 months to write the story. Everything is authenticated and documented in a way I don't know any other publication would equal. They were talking about ballistic missiles that increasingly will be used by hostile states and is a real serious problem.
We have stood on the floor of this Senate over and over and over again to try to address this problem, to make the people of America aware that we are probably in a more threatened position today than we have been in this country's history. They point out some things I had not thought about, putting it in proper context.
They said there are five reasons why the Nation must take steps to defend itself:
First, the ballistic missiles are proliferating. More than 20 nations are in the ballistic missile club, as they call it. Others are knocking on the door. This is something we have been saying over and over again. In fact, it has been 2 years since the former CIA Director, the first one under President Clinton, said that we know of somewhere between 25 and 30 nations that currently either have developed, or are in the final stages of developing, weapons of mass destruction, either biological, chemical, or nuclear.
This former CIA Director identifies five nations--Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea--whose aggressive programs to arm missiles with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons could threaten the United States.
The second thing they talk about is that missile range and accuracy are increasing rapidly. I suggest, Mr. President, that the reason for this is partly our fault because of what we have done in satellite technology.
I had occasion to become the first Member of Congress to fly a small airplane around the world a couple of years ago. I used that satellite technology. I never lost the satellite all the way around the world. Because of that, there is no way of guarding against other uses, and that means, through our global positioning system, other nations have incredible accuracy, and this is something that has to be taken into consideration.
The third point is warheads of mass destruction are within reach of many new missile powers.
We were shocked when we found out and discovered at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein had a huge biochemical arsenal. Hundreds of tons were destroyed by the U.N. observers. We have no way of knowing where else in the world this could be happening.
The fourth point is, defense against ballistic missile attack is a practical reality. It is for political, not technological, reasons that the U.S. Government has chosen not to build a missile defense . I think that is very significant.
We not long ago debated the START II Treaty and we did, in fact, approve that from this body. I think I was the first one, the only one, who voted against it until later in the vote when three others joined. My argument was we were going back to accepting the confinements and restrictions that were imposed upon us in the 1972 ABM Treaty, which at that time didn't make sense to me, but it made more sense than it does today, because that was a bilateral treaty with a country that no longer exists, which says, `If you don't defend yourself, we will agree not to defend ourselves,' therefore, that is a policy that offers some security.
I never really believed it did. However, it is now pointed out by more and more people that that policy was flawed initially and certainly is not one that today makes any sense. In fact, it was Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was the architect of the ABM Treaty in 1972, who said, `It is nuts to make a virtue out of your vulnerability.'
So that is our posture today, where we are. The last thing they said is the longer we wait, the less time we may have.
We had an NIA estimate not too long ago, a national intelligence estimate, that many of us felt was flawed in many ways. I think it told the President what the President wanted to hear. It came to the conclusion that there is no threat out there for the next 15 years. I think there are many problems with this. First of all, they talk about the continental United States. I agreed with James Woolsey the other day when he said the last time he checked, Hawaii and Alaska were part of the United States.
The article also points out that it fails to mention that both Russia and China have ICBM's right now that have the capability of reaching the United States, along with the weapons of mass destruction.
I remember President Clinton saying in the House Chamber during his State of the Union Message that there is not a single Russian missile pointed at America's children. The head of the Russian strategic missile forces told CBS news on `60 Minutes' that his ICBM's could be retargeted in a matter of minutes. I think it is a great disservice to the American people for the President to try to imply that the threat is not out there.
Mr. President, many of the people in the intelligence community throughout the world have said that the United States of America is facing a greater threat today than we have faced since the Revolutionary War. I am deeply distressed that the President has been able to convince many of the American people that the threat is not out there, and I intend, certainly during this recess, to do all I can to be, if nothing more than a one-man truth squad, to get the American people to understand the real threat that is facing us today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the missile defense article entitled `Defenseless Against Missile Terror' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: "Defenseless Against Missile Terror"
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
