Single-site missile defense would expose Alaska, Hawaii to attack
Bill Gertz WASHINGTON TIMES 09 May 1997
A national missile defense built at a single site as required
by an international arms treaty will not totally protect
Hawaii and Alaska from long-range missile attack, according
to Pentagon documents.
According to documents from the Pentagon's Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization, a single missile defense system
based at Grand Forks, N.D., will meet "most threats" but is
"not optimal against threats to Alaska and Hawaii."
Currently, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty limits
deployment of strategic missile defenses to one site, either to
protect a strategic missile field or the nation's capital. Russia
has deployed its ABM system around Moscow; the United
States has no system.
The treaty also bars missile defenses designed to defend
entire countries.
The BMDO documents used to brief Defense Secretary
William S. Cohen last month as part of a major strategy review
indicate a second deployment site would add about $4.5 billion
to the life-cycle cost of a national missile-defense system. The
life cycle is normally estimated to be about 20 years.
A second site, however, "allows for complete coverage of
U.S. territory against more threats," the documents state.
Additionally, the BMDO stated that a second site "may
be required to meet user requirements" of protecting all 50
states.
Costs and capabilities of the system to knock out a small
number of long-range missiles have yet to be determined in
detail because the actual system must still be defined, according
to the documents.
A second deployment site would require amending the
ABM treaty, expected to be a difficult process as a result of
Clinton administration efforts to expand signatories of the pact
to include the former nuclear states of the Soviet Union:
Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. An agreement on the issue
has been drawn up as a result of U.S.-Russian negotiations in
Geneva.
Critics say Russia could block U.S. missile defense
deployment by preventing treaty changes through the added
signatories.
Excluding missile defense coverage of Alaska and Hawaii
would leave these areas vulnerable to a key emerging threat:
attack by Chinese strategic missiles or North Korean Taepo
Dong missiles that, if deployed, would be able to strike parts of
both states.
The U.S. intelligence community stated in a 1995 threat
estimate that a long-range missile attack from nations other than
Russia and China is not expected to emerge for at least 14
years.
The estimate came under fire in Congress because its
scope was limited to missiles capable of attacking the 48
contiguous states, a point that last year upset the chairman and
ranking member of the Senate Appropriations defense
subcommittee, Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican, and Sen.
Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat.
Senior U.S. intelligence officials have said long-range
North Korean missiles could emerge sooner than 14 years.
The BMDO documents also revealed that under
President Clinton's current defense budget the plan to build and
deploy a national missile defense in six years is seriously flawed
and its program schedules could not be met with current
funding.
As a result, Mr. Cohen has agreed to add $2 billion to the
program over five years, including an additional $500 million
for fiscal 1998, which already has allocated $504 million for
the program.
Rep. Floyd D. Spence, South Carolina Republican and
chairman of the House National Security Committee, said the
funding shortfall was "an astounding error of approximately 100
percent."
Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican and chairman
of the Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee on
international security, said during a recent hearing that Article
One of the ABM treaty prohibits missile defenses that defend
the entire territory, and would require major amendments.
The BMDO documents show the plan is to defend 50 states.
John D. Holum, director of the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, told the subcommittee May 1 the
administration will not allow the ABM treaty to hinder the
deployment of missile defenses if threats emerge, although the
treaty should be amended rather than abrogated.
Copyright © 1997 News World Communications, Inc.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
