• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

---

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

INDEX
WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1998
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN

ARMS CONTROL
2-3	Brookings Institute report on the cost of nuclear weapons

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 79
WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1998, 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

...................

QUESTION: Here's something that will take both of us way, way back. Have you, like a lot of reporters, read the first three and the last two pages of the Brooking's report which --

MR. RUBIN: The nuclear-weapons-are-expensive report?

QUESTION: Stunningly expensive. But besides that, not only are they expensive, some interesting propositions are raised. The Administration and past administrations really haven't a great theory what they are doing with these weapons. And this challenges the notion - or at least leaves it open - whether having this incredible devastating force through the years - and expensive, too -- caused the Soviet Union to collapse, which the Reagan-nauts, of course, said all the time: our might caused the empire to collapse. Is this the place to address any of these conclusions? Do you have any responses?

MR. RUBIN: Let me give you some off-the-cuff responses, because we haven't had a chance to study this report. Number one, the fight to contain communism and to deter the outbreak of war in Central Europe and to deter the use of nuclear weapons against the United States necessitated a deterrent posture that we were correct to create and correct to ensure its viability and effectiveness.

Clearly, to the extent that one can judge anything, that deterrent posture worked. There was no conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union that nuclear weapons could have deterred that didn't deter. So to that extent, that was successful.

Number two, nuclear weapons and the fight against communism was an extraordinarily expensive proposition. That should not come as a surprise. Some people may have been surprised by the numbers. I don't think we've had a chance to assess them and assess their accuracy; but again, I certainly think we would agree that it was an expensive proposition.

I think as a government we would also argue that it was worth the expense -- that communism was worth deterring through a combined policy of containment and modernization of nuclear forces. But those days are gone. Now we're in a different time, and the time we're in is a time of disarmament and a time of deep cuts in nuclear arms. We're in a time when we're trying to bring to bear the arms control experience across a whole panoply of activities that was never part of the arms control process during those days; including, for example, the fact that we're trying to bring fissile material into the equation, that we're trying to include the counting of warheads, not just the counting of missiles and delivery systems.

So as far as the third point, the fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union collapsed and that communism collapsed in Eastern Europe. I think we all know that is a very good thing for the peoples of those countries, and an even better thing for the rest of the world.

I'm sure the historians will be examining for the rest of time what the precipitous cause was or what the historic cause was. It's a matter for historians to decide and not for spokesmen to beat their chest about.

..................

(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)

[end of document]