DATE=03/27/99
TYPE=ON THE LINE
NUMBER=1-00725
TITLE=THE MOVE TOWARD MISSILE DEFENSE
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
ANNCR: ON THE LINE -- A DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES
POLICIES AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES.
THIS WEEK, "THE MOVE TOWARD MISSILE DEFENSE."
HERE IS YOUR HOST, ROBERT REILLY.
HOST: HELLO AND WELCOME TO ON THE LINE.
THIS MONTH, THE U.S. CONGRESS VOTED TO DEPLOY A
MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM AS SOON AS IT IS
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE TO DO SO. THE VOTE CAME
SIXTEEN YEARS AFTER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN
FIRST ANNOUNCED THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE
INITIATIVE, OR S-D-I. S-D-I WAS A CONTROVERSIAL
EFFORT TO DEFEND THE U.S. AGAINST POSSIBLE
SOVIET MISSILE ATTACK. THE NEW PROGRAM IS MORE
MODEST IN ITS AIMS. AS PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
EXPLAINED, "WE ARE COMMITTED TO MEETING THE
GROWING DANGER THAT OUTLAW NATIONS WILL DEVELOP
AND DEPLOY LONG-RANGE MISSILES THAT COULD
DELIVER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AGAINST US."
JOINING ME TODAY TO DISCUSS THE U.S. MOVE TOWARD
MISSILE DEFENSE ARE THREE EXPERTS. GARY
MILHOLLIN IS DIRECTOR OF THE WISCONSIN PROJECT
ON NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL. HANK COOPER IS
CHAIRMAN OF HIGH FRONTIER, AN EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION PROMOTING MISSILE DEFENSE. HE IS
FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE
INITIATIVE ORGANIZATION AT THE U.S. DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT. AND SPURGEON KEENY IS PRESIDENT OF
THE ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION AND FORMER DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND
DISARMAMENT AGENCY.
GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
HOST: GARY MILHOLLIN, WHY IT SEEMS ALL OF A SUDDEN,
AFTER SIXTEEN YEARS AND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
CONTROVERSY OVER MISSILE DEFENSE, DO BOTH HOUSES
OF THE U-S CONGRESS OVERWHELMINGLY VOTE TO
DEPLOY A MISSILE DEFENSE? WHY HAS THAT
HAPPENED?
MILHOLLIN: FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. FIRST, NORTH KOREA IS
CLEARLY ON ITS WAY. IT FIRED A THREE-STAGE
MISSILE OVER JAPAN THAT REALLY GOT EVERYBODY'S
ATTENTION. SECOND, I THINK THERE'S A FEELING
THAT OUR RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA ARE UNCERTAIN AND
THAT THE RUSSIAN INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH CONTROLS
ITS MISSILES IS DETERIORATING. AND SO THE
THREAT OF AN ACCIDENTAL LAUNCH FROM RUSSIA IS
GOING UP. AND SO THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY
MOTIVATING FACTORS. AS FAR AS ROGUE NATIONS ARE
CONCERNED, IT IS HARD TO SEE ANOTHER CASE, OTHER
THAN NORTH KOREA, WHERE A SO-CALLED ROGUE NATION
COULD POSSIBLY DEPLOY A LONG-RANGE BALLISTIC
MISSILE THAT WOULD HIT THE UNITED STATES.
HOST: IRAN?
MILHOLLIN: IRAN COULD, BUT NOT ANY TIME SOON. AND I THINK
ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE BALLISTIC MISSILE
DEFENSE THEORY IS THAT IT DOESN'T PROTECT
AGAINST CRUISE MISSILES, WHICH I THINK IS THE
MOST LIKELY AVENUE THAT A LOT OF COUNTRIES ARE
GOING TO TAKE.
HOST: LET ME ASK HANK COOPER, WITH ALL THE WORK OVER
THE YEARS YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS, WHY NOW IS
THERE, AS GARY MILHOLLIN SAID, A GROWING
AWARENESS OF A NEW THREAT?
COOPER: I AGREE WITH MOST OF GARY'S ASSESSMENT. I WOULD
POINT OUT THAT [FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY] DON
RUMSFELD LED A COMMISSION THAT WENT SO FAR AS TO
SAY THERE WERE A NUMBER OF NATIONS THAT WITHIN
FIVE YEARS COULD THREATEN THE UNITED STATES.
AND THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE CLOCK
STARTS. I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH HELD A CLOSED SESSION THE
SAME DAY AS THE VOTE TO HEAR THE RUMSFELD
COMMISSIONERS REPORT IN CLASSIFIED FORM ON ALL
THE WORK THAT THEY HAD DONE. I THINK THEY WOULD
INCLUDE IRAN AMONG THE NUMBERS. THEY WOULD ALSO
INCLUDE EVEN IRAQ SINCE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE
CONTINUING INSPECTIONS GOING ON THERE. AND I
AGREE WITH GARY THAT WE NEED DEFENSES AGAINST
CRUISE MISSILES. THERE'S JUST NO INHIBITIONS
ABOUT BUILDING DEFENSES AGAINST CRUISE MISSILES
AND WE SPEND A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THAT
AREA, IN THE AREA OF AIR DEFENSE. BUT THERE ARE
POLITICAL BLOCKS TO DEFENDING THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILES, THE A-B-M TREATY.
HOST: SPURGEON KEENY, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
KEENY: WELL, I THINK I DIFFER WITH BOTH OF THE PREVIOUS
STATEMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE THREAT
FROM SO-CALLED ROGUE STATES IS VASTLY
EXAGGERATED. THE RUMSFELD REPORT WAS A WORST,
WORST CASE ASSESSMENT AND MAKES THE IMPLIED
ASSUMPTION THAT, WHEN SOME COUNTRY POSSIBLY GETS
A WEAPON THAT COULD REACH THE UNITED STATES,
THERE WAS ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANCE IT COULD BE
USED OR EVEN THREATENED TO BE USED, BECAUSE THEY
WOULD CERTAINLY BE DETERRED BY THE CONSEQUENCES
TO THAT COUNTRY. NOW, AS TO THE CURRENT
LEGISLATION, I THINK, AS SENATOR [JOSEPH] BIDEN
SAID, IT IS SOMETHING OF POLITICAL THEATER. AND
ESSENTIALLY THE LEGISLATION KICKS THE PROBLEM
DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE THE SENATE LEGISLATION
SAID, YES, IT'S THE POLICY TO DEPLOY AN
EFFECTIVE DEFENSE OF THE FIFTY STATES AS SOON AS
IT IS TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE. BUT IT ALSO SAID
THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO
CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE REDUCTIONS IN THE RUSSIAN
NUCLEAR ARSENAL. AND THESE ARE PROBABLY
INCOMPATIBLE PROPOSITIONS. SO IT WILL BE UP TO
THIS PRESIDENT OR FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO SORT THIS
OUT INTO AN ACTUAL DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
DEPLOY.
HOST: THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT AND I THINK WE SHOULD
ADDRESS IT. RUSSIA, THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN
MINISTRY, REACTED TO THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL
MISSILE DEFENSE ACT BY SAYING THEY THINK IT
POSES, AND I'M QUOTING THEM, A SERIOUS THREAT TO
THE WHOLE PROCESS OF ARMS CONTROL AS WELL AS
STRATEGIC STABILITY, UNQUOTE. AND OF COURSE
CHINA HAS ALSO OBJECTED TO THE POTENTIAL OF THE
U.S. DEPLOYING MISSILE DEFENSE. HOW DOES THIS
ACT AFFECT ARMS CONTROL AND THE STATUS OF THE
A-B-M TREATY?
MILHOLLIN: WELL, I THINK IN THE CASE OF RUSSIA IT'S PRETTY
CLEAR THE KIND OF SYSTEM THAT WE COULD
CONCEIVABLY BUILD WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE IN
PREVENTING RUSSIA FROM DETERRING US FROM AN
ATTACK ON RUSSIA. RUSSIA'S MISSILES ARE
NUMEROUS ENOUGH TO GET THROUGH ANY DEFENSE WE
COULD CONCEIVABLY BUILD. SO I DON'T THINK THE
RUSSIANS COULD CREDIBLY CLAIM TO BE THREATENED.
THE CHINESE HAVE A MUCH SMALLER FORCE, AND THE
CHINESE MAY AT SOME POINT DECIDE TO USE MISSILE
THREATS AGAINST JAPAN AND AGAINST TAIWAN, AS
THEY'VE ALREADY DONE. IN THAT CASE, IF WE
PERFECT A MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE
EXPORTED TO THOSE COUNTRIES, THEN THE CHINESE
MAY FACE A DIMINUTION IN THEIR ABILITY TO
PROTECT THEIR FORCES. AND SO I THINK CHINA HAS
MORE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT THAN RUSSIA.
HOST: ALL RIGHT, HANK COOPER?
COOPER: I THINK THIS IS A B-RATED RE-RUN. AS YOU MAY
REMEMBER, I SPENT FIVE YEARS IN GENEVA
NEGOTIATING WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND THE LINE
WAS PRECISELY THIS: AFTER THE S-D-I WAS
INTRODUCED, THAT IT WOULD DESTROY ARMS CONTROL,
THAT IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE TO NEGOTIATE
REDUCTIONS AS LONG AS THERE WAS A SERIOUS S-D-I
PROGRAM, ETC, ETC. AND AS YOU KNOW, DURING THAT
PERIOD WE NEGOTIATED THE I-N-F
[INTERMEDIATE-RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES] TREATY. AND
WE NEGOTIATED START-1 WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL
RESTRAINTS ON OUR ABILITY TO CONDUCT RESEARCH,
EVEN MORE DRAMATIC RESEARCH THAN, I MIGHT SAY,
WHAT IS GOING ON TODAY, INCLUDING ON THE WIDE
VARIETY OF SPACE SYSTEMS. MOST NOTABLY, I WOULD
NOTE THAT BORIS YELTSIN IN JANUARY OF 1992 MADE
THE PROPOSAL THAT BECAME START-2 AND IN THE
SAME SPEECH MADE AT THE UNITED NATIONS, HE
PROPOSED THAT WE WORK TOGETHER ON A GLOBAL
DEFENSE TO PROTECT THE WORLD COMMUNITY. SO THE
LEADER OF RUSSIA, AT THAT TIME AT LEAST, SAID
THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY WITH NEGOTIATIONS ON
FURTHER REDUCTIONS AND ALSO ON BUILDING
DEFENSES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS
PROPOSAL. I THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE GREAT
STRATEGIC FAILINGS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
THAT WE DIDN'T LOCK THAT INTO A FORMAL
AGREEMENT.
HOST: SPURGEON KEENY, YOU RAISED THE PROBLEM. . . .
KEENY: WELL, THE RUSSIANS CERTAINLY PERCEIVE IT AS A
PROBLEM. AND IN FACT THEIR LEGISLATION TO GO
AHEAD WITH RATIFICATION OF START-2 HAS A
SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT THE U-S REJECTION,
REPUDIATION OF THE A-B-M TREATY OR CIRCUMVENTION
OF IT, WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR THEIR WITHDRAWING
FROM THE TREATY AND THEY HAVE REITERATED THIS AT
ALL LEVELS. SO I THINK THEY SEE THIS AS THE
BASE FOR MOVING TOWARDS A DEFENSE THAT WOULD
THREATEN THEM, PARTICULARLY IF YOU NEGOTIATE
SUBSTANTIAL FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN THEIR NUCLEAR
ARSENAL.
HOST: BUT, AS GARY MILHOLLIN SAYS, THIS SYSTEM
COULDN'T POSSIBLY POTENTIALLY THREATEN THE
RUSSIANS, SO WHY WOULD THEY REACT THIS WAY?
KEENY: WELL, THEY CAN SEE THE SYSTEM, IF IT REALLY WAS
WORKABLE, AND DEPLOYED, YOU WOULD SIMPLY ADD
MORE MISSILES, MORE SITES. IF YOU ADD TO THAT
THE NAVY'S WIDE-AREA THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE --
WHERE NAVY ADVOCATES ARE ADVERTISING THAT IT
WOULD MAKE AN EXCELLENT NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
AND COULD BE DEPLOYED FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE
EAST AND WEST COAST -- YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE
EYES OF PARANOID COUNTRIES, THAT ARE SUFFERING
CONSIDERABLE ECONOMIC DISTRESS, THIS WOULD LOOK
LIKE AN OPENING GUN IN AN EFFORT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO HAVE A TRUE DEFENSE AT THEIR EXPENSE,
AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE'S. SO THEY SEE IT AS
BEING FUNDAMENTAL IN THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT ONLY
THE IMMEDIATE START PROPOSALS, BUT THE LONGER
RANGE FURTHER REDUCTIONS.
HOST: ANY REACTIONS, HANK COOPER?
COOPER: I THINK THAT'S REALLY MUCH OVERSTATED. AND I
WOULD SAY IT'S NOT JUST THE NAVY THAT'S A
PROPONENT OF THE SEA-BASED OPTION. THAT WAS ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON MY
WATCH AT S-D-I -- THAT THE NAVY BECAME
INTERESTED IN THIS SUBJECT AFTER I DID A REVIEW
IN 1990 THAT SAID, LOOK AT THE GLOBE, AND YOU
SEE THAT MOST OF IT IS WATER AND THAT SHIPS CAN
BE BETWEEN ANY THREATENING PARTY, THIRD WORLD,
WHEREEVER ELSE, AND THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL
AS MANY OF OUR ALLIES AND FRIENDS AROUND THE
WORLD. AND IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO BE SURE THAT
THE SHIPS WE ALREADY HAVE DEPLOYED, SOME
FIFTY-FIVE CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS, WITH THE
SAME LAUNCH TUBES THAT ARE USED TO LAUNCH A
TOMAHAWK MISSILE, COULD ALSO USE THOSE LAUNCH
TUBES TO LAUNCH DEFENSIVE INTERCEPTORS AGAINST
BALLISTIC MISSILES TO DEFEND THE FLEET AGAINST
BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK, TO DEFEND FRIENDS AND
ALLIES, AND ALSO TO DEFEND AMERICANS. THE
FRIENDS AND ALLIES PART IS OKAY. AND THAT'S
WHAT NAVY THEATER-WIDE IS ALL ABOUT. THOSE OF
US WHO WANT TO FULLY ENABLE THE SYSTEM WOULD
ALSO PERMIT FORWARD-BASED SENSORS AS A PART OF
THE ARCHITECTURE. AND THAT WOULD ENABLE THE
SAME DEFENSE TO DEFEND AMERICA. THE SHIPS IN
THE MEDITERRANEAN COULD INTERCEPT MISSILES OUT
OF NORTH AFRICA, LIBYA, FOR EXAMPLE, GOING OVER
THE POLE. AND THE SEA OF JAPAN COULD INTERCEPT
MISSILES OUT OF NORTH KOREA, WHETHER THEY WERE
GOING TO TOKYO OR THE UNITED STATES. BUT IF WE
DO NOT PERMIT IT FULLY TO BE ENABLED, THEN IT
WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE FAR ENOUGH TO INTERCEPT THE
MISSILES HEADED TO THE UNITED STATES. AND SO,
IN EFFECT, WE ARE DUMBING-DOWN THOSE VERY
DEFENSES THAT WE WOULD USE TO DEFEND JAPAN IN
ORDER TO NOT LET THEM DEFEND THE UNITED STATES.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT'S WRONG.
HOST: YOU MEAN IF IT'S BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
A-B-M TREATY, IT WILL BE. BUT WILL IT BE BUILT
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE A-B-M TREATY? GARY
MILHOLLIN?
MILHOLLIN: I THINK ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS YOU NEED TO
KEEP IN MIND IS, JUDGING FROM EVERYTHING WE'VE
SEEN SO FAR, IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THIS
SYSTEM WILL NEVER WORK, THAT IS, IT WILL NEVER
WORK TO DEFEND AMERICAN CITIES AGAINST ANY KIND
OF A STRONG MISSILE THREAT, WHETHER IT BE
BALLISTIC OR CRUISE MISSILE THREAT. IT MAY BE
ABLE TO KNOCK DOWN A FEW ACCIDENTALLY LAUNCHED
MISSILES, BUT I CAN'T SEE A TIME WHEN AMERICANS
COULD SAY WE ARE NOW PROTECTED AGAINST A NUCLEAR
ATTACK BY MISSILE BY THIS SYSTEM.
HOST: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT ISN'T THE POINT,
EVEN WITH A PARTIAL DEFENSE, THAT YOU INTRODUCE
AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY ON THE PART OF YOUR
POTENTIAL ENEMY WHO CAN NO LONGER COUNT ON THAT
MISSILE HITTING ITS TARGET. AND THEREFORE THEIR
THREAT, WHICH THEY WOULD TRY TO TRANSLATE INTO
SOME POLITICAL POWER, HAS LESS CREDIBILITY.
MILHOLLIN: THAT'S RIGHT. THE MEANS EXIST NOW ALREADY TO
BUILD EITHER BALLISTIC OR CRUISE MISSILE SYSTEMS
THAT WILL COMPLETELY DEFEAT THIS DEFENSE. AND
IF THE DEFENSE GOES INTO EFFECT, IT IS QUITE
PROBABLE THAT THOSE SYSTEMS WILL BE BUILT. AND
SO WE ARE, IN FACT, STARTING A NEW ARMS RACE.
WE'RE SORT OF PUSHING THE ARMS RACE IN A
DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
HOST: ALL RIGHT, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION AND THEN
WE'LL GET REACTIONS. WOULDN'T ONE EFFECT OF A
MISSILE DEFENSE, EVEN A PARTIAL MISSILE DEFENSE,
BE TO REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR ROGUE REGIMES TO
SPEND WHAT FEW RESOURCES THEY HAVE ON
CONSTRUCTING INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC
MISSILES, OR BUYING THEM, BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T
BE EFFECTIVE.
MILHOLLIN: I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL REASON WHY
REGIMES WON'T DO THAT.
HOST: SO, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD EFFECT OF BUILDING A
MISSILE DEFENSE.
MILHOLLIN: IT WOULD BE IF THOSE REGIMES PLAN TO DO THAT
ANYWAY. I THINK IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THOSE
REGIMES WILL GO THE CRUISE MISSILE ROUTE,
BECAUSE TO BUILD AN I-C-B-M [INTERCONTINENTAL
BALLISTIC MISSILE] THAT HITS THE UNITED STATES,
YOU HAVE TO TEST IT ACROSS THE WORLD. YOU HAVE
TO FIRE IT ACROSS OCEANS AT REMOTE TARGETS AND
EVERYBODY WATCHES YOU DO THAT. AND AS SOON AS
THAT HAPPENS, EVERYBODY IS DOWN YOUR NECK. YOU
CAN DEVELOP A SEA-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE SYSTEM
WITHOUT THAT DISADVANTAGE.
HOST: OR A SUITCASE BOMB. THIS IS THE ARGUMENT THAT
IT WON'T WORK. BUT PLEASE, MR. KEENY?
KEENY: WITH REGARD TO THE TREATY, YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY
BUILD A SYSTEM WITHIN THE EXISTING A-B-M TREATY,
BUT I DON'T THINK ITS GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO
HAVE ONE THAT WILL DEFEND ALL FIFTY STATES AND
EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF AMERICAN TERRITORY. I
THINK THAT'S A RIDICULOUS REQUIREMENT, BUT
THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT. AND SO TO TRY TO MEET
THAT OBJECTIVE AND THE LEGISLATION SAYS IT'S TO
BE AN EFFECTIVE SYSTEM, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS. IT'S HARD
TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE
ARCHITECTURE DOESN'T EXIST. YOU DON'T REALLY
KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. BUT GOING BY THE
WHOLE THRUST OF THE PROGRAM, I THINK YOU WOULD
HAVE TO MODIFY EVERY OPERATIONAL ARTICLE IN THE
A-B-M TREATY. THIS YOU CAN SAY, SO YOU DO IT.
BUT THE POINT IS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY
MAJOR UNDERTAKING AND IT'S GOING TO RESISTED
STRONGLY BY THE RUSSIANS. AND I DON'T THINK
ANYBODY, CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK ITS CREDIBLE TO
TALK ABOUT A JOINT OR AN INTERNATIONAL A-B-M
SYSTEM AT THIS STATE IN THE WORLD. IT'S JUST
NOT A PRACTICAL PROBLEM.
HOST: OF COURSE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FOREIGN
RELATIONS COMMITTEE, SENATOR [JESSE] HELMS, HAS
ALREADY STATED THAT, AS FAR AS HE CAN TELL, AND
HE'S OPERATING UNDER THIS UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE
OF THE DEMISE OF THE SOVIET UNION IN 1991, THERE
IS NO A-B-M TREATY.
KEENY: WELL, THAT'S AN ABSURD PROPOSITION. IT'S THE
EXECUTIVES THAT DECIDE ON THE CONTINUITY OF A
TREATY; IT'S NOT THE CONGRESS. AND TREATIES
ALWAYS OVERLAP DIFFERENT REGIMES. IT'S
SUGGESTING THAT RUSSIA IS NO LONGER A MEMBER OF
THE UNITED NATIONS AND A LONG LIST OF OTHER
OBLIGATIONS. THERE'S NO WAY THE CONGRESS CAN
ENFORCE THAT. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE
SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL RULE, AS THEY HAVE
IN THE PAST, THAT IT'S A POLITICAL ISSUE THAT
THEY CANNOT RESOLVE.
HOST: OKAY, HANK COOPER?
COOPER: WE'LL SEE ABOUT THAT, HOW THE SUPREME COURT
RULES OR WHATEVER. I WOULD JUST NOTE THE ISSUE
IS NOT WHETHER RUSSIA IS PART OF THE U-N, OR
LATVIA OR LITHUANIA OR A HOST OF OTHER NATIONS
ARE PART OF THE U-N. IT'S AN ISSUE OF WHETHER
THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS BECAUSE THE A-B-M TREATY
DEALT WITH THE ENTIRE COMPLEMENT OF THOSE
FIFTEEN NATIONS AND THE NAME OF THE GAME IN THE
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS BASICALLY TO REWRITE A
TREATY LEAVING A BUNCH OF THEM OUT AND
SPECIFYING IN EFFECT ONLY FOUR AS THE PARTNERS,
OUR PARTNERS IN THE TREATY. AND THEY ARE
SEEKING TO DO THIS UNILATERALLY, WITHOUT THE
INVOLVEMENT OF THE U-S SENATE. AND THAT'S THE
BASIS OF SENATOR HELMS' OBJECTION. I DON'T
THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION BUT WHAT IF THE
AGREEMENTS THAT, IF THERE WERE A TREATY, WOULD
BE AMENDMENTS TO THE TREATY, WERE SENT TO THE
SENATE -- THESE WERE NEGOTIATED NOW A YEAR AND A
HALF AGO -- THAT THE SENATE WOULD NOT SUPPORT
RATIFICATION OF THOSE AGREEMENTS. AND AT THAT
POINT SURELY THE A-B-M TREATY WOULD BE NULL AND
VOID.
KEENY: IF THE SENATE IN THEIR WISDOM REJECTS THOSE
AMENDMENTS, AND THEY MAY, THEN YOU REVERT TO THE
ORIGINAL TREATY. IT JUST MEANS THOSE AMENDMENTS
ARE NOT PART OF IT. AND THIS IS NOT A CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION ARRANGEMENT. THIS WAS UNDERTAKEN
BY [FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE] BUSH AND [FORMER
SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES] BAKER WITH THE
COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION INTO RUSSIA. AND
IT WAS THE ENGAGEMENT OF UKRAINE, KAZAKHSTAN AND
BELARUS WAS PUSHED BY THEM. AND THEY WANTED TO
MAKE CLEAR THAT RUSSIA HAD THE OBLIGATIONS IT
HAD PREVIOUSLY SIGNED AND THEY WERE ENGAGED IN
IT. ONE, BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE RECOGNIZED
AS GENUINE STATES. TWO, IT WAS PART OF THE DEAL
WHEREBY THEY GAVE UP THEIR NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.
HOST: IN OUR LAST MOMENT HERE, HANK COOPER, MAYBE THE
WHOLE QUESTION IS OBVIATED BY THE FACT THAT GARY
MILHOLLIN IS RIGHT. IT WON'T WORK.
COOPER: WELL, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. THIS IS A POINT WE
DISAGREE ON. WELL, THE PROOF OF PRINCIPLE IS
NOW SOME FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, AND IT'S BEEN
DEMONSTRATED MULTIPLE TIMES. THE ISSUE IS ONE
OF ENGINEERING, DISCIPLINE AND MANAGEMENT TO
BUILD SYSTEMS THAT IN FACT CAN DEFEAT THE
BALLISTIC MISSILE.
HOST: AN UPGRADED PATRIOT RECENTLY KNOCKED OUT A DUMMY
WARHEAD.
COOPER: I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE WHAT THAT MEANS.
THAT'S A FAIRLY SHORT-RANGE DEFENSE THAT WOULD
BE USEFUL -- CERTAINLY FAR BETTER THAN THE
PATRIOT IN THE GULF WAR -- BUT WOULD NOT NOT BE
VERY EFFECTIVE AGAINST LONG-RANGE MISSILES
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
MILLHOLLIN: AND THE THEATER DEFENSES HAVE NOT WORKED, YOU
WOULD CONCEDE THAT?
COOPER: NO, I WOULDN'T CONCEDE THAT. I THINK
LOCKHEED-MARTIN AND A LOT OF OUR INDUSTRY HAS
LET US DOWN. AND I MEANT WHAT I SAID A MOMENT
AGO ABOUT A LACK OF ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE AND
MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE. IF YOU GO AND YOU CHECK
WHAT FAILED, IN MOST CASES IT WAS TWENTY-FIVE TO
THIRTY-YEAR-OLD TECHNOLOGY THAT FAILED IN THE
VARIOUS EXPERIMENTS -- HAD BEEN DONE PRIOR TO
THE TIME THAT THE INTERCEPTOR GOT CLOSE ENOUGH
TO COMPLETE THE HIT TO KILL, YOU KNOW, IN THE
BASKET.
HOST: WE'RE OUT OF TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR JUST
VERY BRIEFLY FROM EACH ONE OF YOU, WITH THIS BIG
POLITICAL CHANGE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES,
OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE, WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN? WILL THE UNITED STATES DEPLOY A MISSILE
DEFENSE ? GARY MILHOLLIN?
MILHOLLIN: NOT UNLESS WE CAN BUILD ONE THAT WORKS.
HOST: OKAY, HANK COOPER?
COOPER: BECAUSE WE CAN BUILD ONE THAT WORKS, IT WILL
HAPPEN.
HOST: PLEASE, MR. KEENY?
KEENY NOT IN THIS ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE CLINTON WILL
BE IN NO POSITION TO MAKE A RATIONAL JUDGMENT
BECAUSE NONE OF THE COMPONENTS NOR THE SYSTEM
WILL BE ABLE TO BE TESTED BEFORE MID-YEAR 2000.
HOST: I'M AFRAID THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE THIS
WEEK. I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR GUESTS -- GARY
MILHOLLIN FROM THE WISCONSIN PROJECT ON NUCLEAR
ARMS CONTROL; HANK COOPER FROM HIGH FRONTIER;
AND SPURGEON KEENY FROM THE ARMS CONTROL
ASSOCIATION -- FOR JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THE
U.S. MOVE TOWARD MISSILE DEFENSE. THIS IS
ROBERT REILLY FOR ON THE LINE.
26-Mar-99 11:37 AM EST (1637 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
