Rear Admiral Gene LaRocque (USN, Ret.)
Director, Center for Defense Information
INTERVIEWER & NARRATOR:
Sanford Gottlieb, Senior Producer,
MARKETING & OPERATIONS:
Mark Sugg
PRODUCERS:
Matthew Hansen
Nick Moore
Daniel Sagalyn
PRINCIPAL ANALYST & SCRIPTWRITER:
Matthew Hansen
PROGRAM PRODUCER:
Matthew Hansen
ASSOCIATE PRODUCER/MARKETING:
Lori McRea
ORIGINATION:
Washington, D.C.
PROGRAM NO.:
524
INITIAL BROADCAST:
1 March 1992
CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR"
(Center for Defense Information).
(C) Copyright 1992, Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.
Videotapes also available.
Rep. LES AuCOIN, (D-Ore.)
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense
MATT BUNN
Arms Control Association
RICHARD CHENEY
U.S. Secretary of Defense
FRANK GAFFNEY
Director, Center for Security Policy
ROBERT GATES
Director, Central Intelligence Agency
MICHAEL KREPON
President, Stimson Institute
Rep. JON KYL, (R-Ariz.)
House of Representatives
FRANK GAFFNEY: I think what we now have to be talking about, quite narrowly, is can we afford in this country to be without a ballistic missile defense any longer?
Rep. LES AuCOIN (D-OR): For my part, I'd just as soon not play the game -- GPALS, Star Wars or anything else.
["AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program introduction.]
Admiral GENE LaROCQUE: Welcome once again to "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR."
For the past 30 years, we've been concerned very much about the possibility of a Soviet missile attack against the United States. And now, just as we've laid that problem pretty much to rest, it appears that there are some other nations in the world that are developing short range missiles which they can turn into longer range missiles which might threaten the United States. We have to decide what, if anything, can be done about that.
Our program is about that today. I think you'll find it very interesting.
NARRATOR: While in the past the United States has fought wars with its neighbors, Canada in 1763 and Mexico in 1847, we don't fear attack by these countries today. But the nation's military officials have said we need to worry about other countries' missiles. To defend America from missiles, the Pentagon wants to deploy Star Wars.
The missile defense picture is admittedly a confusing one. The goals, design and cost of the Star War system, the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, have changed almost yearly since President Reagan started the research effort in 1983.
Just as soon as the Soviet Union dissolved and the specter of massive nuclear attack all but disappeared, the Pentagon came up with a whole host of new justifications for lavish spending on Star Wars. This, after American taxpayers had already spent $30 billion on the program.
During the US-led war with Iraq, the Patriot missile was used with some success in shooting down Iraqi Scud missiles over Israel and Saudi Arabia. Yet some studies raise serious doubts about the Patriot's effectiveness. The Scuds fired in the Iraq war may nevertheless provide political momentum to Star Wars by fueling fears about Third World missiles.
Some informed members of Congress, such as Representative Jon Kyl, see the Patriot as a logical springboard for SDI.
Rep. JON KYL (R-ARIZ): I think that because the American people have now seen with their own eyes very vividly how effective a ballistic missile defense can be and they've also, unfortunately, seen the devastation that can result when you don't have such a system, they will be asking the politicians when are you going to create something like this for us, to protect us.
NARRATOR: And even as Presidents Bush and Yeltsin continue the process of unilateral arms cuts, the Pentagon wants to deploy a missile defense system over the United States to foil an unauthorized or accidental limited nuclear attack from the territory of the former Soviet Union. Four republics -- Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus -- currently have the capability of firing nuclear-armed missiles directly to US soil. The three non-Russian republics reportedly have pledged to destroy all of their nuclear weapons.
SDI has changed drastically since President Reagan's early visions of space lasers and astrodome defenses against a massive Soviet nuclear missile attack. In his 1991 State of the Union Address, President Bush re-directed the Star Wars effort to defend against so-called small nuclear attacks of up to 200 nuclear warheads.
The new version of Star Wars is called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, or GPALS.
This plan is divided into four parts. GPALS would place up to 1000 "Brilliant Pebbles" anti-missile missiles in space, orbiting two-to-three hundred miles above the earth. Second, the plan calls for between 750 and 1000 anti-ballistic missiles to be based on the ground at six sites in the United States. Third, development of several new Patriot-like systems called anti-tactical ballistic missiles for deployment with US troops in foreign countries. And fourth, radars and space-based sensors to provide data to the various interceptor missiles. Total price tag, according to the Pentagon, about $50 billion.
Frank Gaffney was a deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and is now the knowledge-able director of the Center for Security Policy. A strong supporter of missile defenses, Mr. Gaffney wants GPALS with more than the 1000 Brilliant Pebbles the Pentagon wants to deploy.
FRANK GAFFNEY: My system of choice would be principally space-based interceptors, the most attractive of which appear at this point to be Brilliant Pebbles. It would feature a constellation of those that would give us global coverage in sufficient depth that we could seriously degrade, if not defeat a modest attack. More is better, in my view. And if the constellation were thicker and more robust, I think that would give us that much better global coverage.
NARRATOR: Congressman Les AuCoin is a thoughtful member of the influential House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
Rep. LES AuCOIN (D-OR): Well, I was an early opponent of the original crayon drawing of the umbrella in the sky, which was supposedly designed to protect the population from incoming missiles, because I thought it was wasteful, it relied on large satellites, it wouldn't work and it was going to cost an incredible amount of money. But I'm opposed to these other renditions of Star Wars, as well.
NARRATOR: Congressman AuCoin disagrees not only with placing US weapons in space, but also with the large spending that would be necessary for SDI.
Rep. AuCOIN: There are two schools of thought here about GPALS. Some Democrats -- not me, but some Democrats say, OK, we'll waste a few tens of billions of dollar on GPALS for the Star Wars advocates and let them have that, and that's it, and they'll have to be satisfied. And it might be that. I don't think that's a wise idea, wasting money in that way.
NARRATOR: But there's another Star Wars plan in the works. The Congress unveiled a proposal that took many by surprise. Engineered by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Missile Defense Act of 1991 authorizes the Pentagon to deploy a single-site anti-missile system at Grand Forks, North Dakota by 1996.
This site would have up to 100 anti-missile missiles, similar to an anti-ballistic missile system deployed there in the late 1960s. This ground-based option amounts to the first step in deploying the Pentagon-favored GPALS. The single site is supposed to cost between $7-and-$15 billion. Up to five similar sites would follow. But the congressional plan is not yet funded and is far from a sure thing.
Another observer of the Star Wars picture is Michael Krepon, the respected president of the Henry Stimson Center in Washington. Krepon thinks that eventually some SDI deployment would be warranted, but wants to keep US weapons on the ground and out of space.
MICHAEL KREPON: Well, I'm getting to the age in life where I'm conscious of insurance policies. And I look at the defense of the United States in terms of an insurance policy. And I see the debate in this country as shaking down into for and against camps. We either have to have a huge insurance policy or we can't have any at all, and that doesn't make any sense to me.
NARRATOR: Yet even though he supports ground-based anti-missile deployments in the United States, Krepon finds serious problems with the congressional plan, as well.
Mr. KREPON: The Congress has made a mistake, in my view, in specifying an early deployment date for a ballistic missile defense system. By doing so, when the technologies are not mature, when the test programs have barely begun to start, when design work still needs to be done, we are opening ourselves up to huge cost overruns and weapons that don't work.
NARRATOR: Some fear that SDI will develop a life of its own.
Rep. AuCOIN: Or, it could be, on the other hand, a foot in the door, a nose under the tent by real SDI advocates who want to use this as a major bank-breaker for the United States Treasury to go from here to build the full-up program.
For my part, I'd just as soon not play the game, GPALS, Star Wars, or anything else.
NARRATOR: The Pentagon still has visions of deploying a large Star Wars system which could ultimately cost as much as
$1 trillion. Some feel the congressional plan is too much, too soon, and a prescription for financial disaster.
Rep. AuCOIN: I think it's technologically well beyond the ability of the DOD to live up to. In fact, I would like very much to put the entire Star Wars program on a do-it-by-1996 basis because that would pretty much take care of the problem and give a major savings that we can invest in the United States.
INTERVIEWER: Because we'd never get there.
Rep. AuCOIN: We'd never get there.
NARRATOR: So, lawmakers, the administration and the American people are faced with three choices about Star Wars: ...GPALS with its Brilliant Pebbles,
...the congressional ground-based plan,
...or no SDI at all, if only for the time being.
For Americans to make reasonable decisions about this weighty issue, let's take a closer look at the arguments for and against missile defenses.
The Pentagon has presented an ominous picture of Third World ballistic missile capabilities. In recent congressional hearings and briefings, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney has repeatedly listed a growing number of nations seeking ballistic missiles. He uses the list as a justification for Star Wars.
Secretary of Defense DICK CHENEY (congressional testimony): "By the year 2000, we estimate that at least fifteen developing nations will have the ability to build and deploy ballistic missiles. Eight of those nations either have or are near to acquiring nuclear capabilities. Thirty countries will have chemical weapons, as well, and ten, we estimate, will be able to deploy biological weapons."
NARRATOR: But there's an unasked question beneath the predictions of the secretary of defense: While some nations may get their hands on ballistic missiles, are they the kinds of missiles that could reach US soil?
The modified Scud missiles used by Saddam Hussein against Israel and Saudi Arabia are at the outer limits of Third World capabilities. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and Yemen in the Middle East and North Korea in Asia all have Soviet-built or redesigned Scud missiles. The Scud has a range of a little less than 200 miles. Iraq and North Korea have extended the Scud's range by adding extra propellant to the missile body, but neither country has a missile with a range in excess of 800 miles.
Nations friendly to the United States, such as the United Kingdom, France, Japan and India, have missile programs that are far more developed than Third World efforts.
Matt Bunn, a widely recognized authority on SDI, points out some loopholes in the Pentagon's predictions about Third World missiles.
MATT BUNN: The Pentagon routinely refers to fifteen or twenty countries that are going to have ballistic missiles by the year 2000 and says that's why we need Star Wars, but that's a very misleading figure because even the director of the CIA has said none of those missiles are going to be able to reach the United States. Those missiles are threats to the neighbors of the Third World countries that are building them, there may be threats to our forces when we deploy them overseas, maybe to some of our allies, but they're not threats to us here in the United States.
NARRATOR: CIA Director Robert Gates.
(Congressional testimony): "Now let me review the threat in some detail. Only China and the Commonwealth of Independent States, the former Soviet Union, have the missile capability to reach US territory directly. We do not expect increased risk to US territory from the special weapons of other countries, in a conventional military sense, for at least another decade."
NARRATOR: Nevertheless, Frank Gaffney is ready to go all-out.
Mr. GAFFNEY: At the end of the day, as long as there as rascals in the world, and there are, and there will be, and they will be able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them over large distances, it seems to me only common sense to try to maximize the opportunities you have to prevent them from doing you any harm.
NARRATOR: But Congressman AuCoin asserts that hostile countries could do an end-run around Star Wars.
Rep. AuCOIN: Would you build a missile and launch it and let our satellites see where that missile is coming from and advertise that it was you that launched against the United States and get blown to smithereens or would you be clever? And I think you'd be clever and protect yourself.
If you were the latter and wanted to protect yourself, you'd put that device in a bale of marijuana, or a bale of cotton, or maybe a piece of luggage, put it in Grand Central Station in a locker somewhere, walk away, and the damage would be done and no one would know where it came from. Now SDI doesn't protect us from that.
NARRATOR: Before concluding that the United States must deploy a Star Wars system, we must consider how likely Third World leaders are to spend the billions of dollars necessary not only to build nuclear weapons, but to build intercontinental ballistic missiles to transport them to US soil.
There is nothing Star Wars can do about nuclear weapons on ships, aircraft, or in the hands of smugglers.
Is there a risk of an unauthorized or accidental launch of missiles from the former Soviet Union? Not much says CIA Director Robert Gates.
Mr. GATES (congressional testimony): "Moscow's centralized nuclear command and control system continues to function even as control of conventional forces begins to shift to the republics. Under current and foreseeable circumstances, we believe that new national command authorities will be able to maintain effective control over their nuclear arsenal."
NARRATOR: So, in the face of a remote risk of missile attack, should the United States spend a lot of money on an unproven Star Wars?
One of the most sobering aspects of the Star Wars program is the cost. The Pentagon estimates it could buy the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes system for about
$50 billion. Yet the Congressional Budget Office recently pointed out that in major Pentagon weapons programs, costs routinely run over by about 50 percent. For huge weapons programs like Star Wars, the cost overruns are dramatically higher.
Other estimates put the price tag for the GPALS version of Star Wars at $100 billion. Such massive expenditures attract military contractors, eager for profits when some military programs are being cancelled.
Even the congressionally-proposed single site deploy- ment at Grand Forks would not be cheap. Its cost is estimated between $7- and $15 billion. If the United States were to build and operate six such sites, the price tag for ground-based defenses alone would reach between $50- and $90 billion.
If the United States decided to build and deploy a missile defense system, the high costs would have several negative impacts on US military spending. If Star Wars expenditures rise to $10 billion or more annually, monies for other Pentagon programs could dry up. The $5.4 billion request is the largest weapons program in the military budget.
Mr. BUNN: The Bush administration is talking about cutting an additional $50 billion out of the defense budget over the next seven years, and yet its own GPALS program is going to cost $100 billion, which is twice as much.
NARRATOR: Adding $100 billion for an unproven system while proposing to cut $50 billion would do little to reduce military spending in the 1990s.
There's another very important factor in the decision to deploy ballistic missile defenses: the reaction of Russia, the most heavily armed of the former Soviet republics.
By deploying any missile defenses beyond a single ground-based site, the United States will either have to amend or abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This valuable arms accord limited missile defense deployments to 100 interceptors at a single site and, for twenty years, restrained competition between the two nuclear giants.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin has announced a plan to develop a joint US-Russian global missile defense system. The Russian plan does not include space-based weapons. It stresses joint projects on early warning of missile attacks and better coordination in command and control of nuclear forces. Russian diplomats suggest the Russians are not eager to abandon the ABM Treaty.
Frank Gaffney sees this treaty as a relic of the past.
Mr. GAFFNEY: I think it's a dinosaur. Only worse, it's a dinosaur that actually is imposing real costs upon us because, while it is no longer contributing in any rational sense to our security, it is actually degrading that security by inhibiting us from taking the steps that we need to take to defend ourselves.
NARRATOR: Matt Bunn, on the other hand, still finds benefits in the treaty.
Mr. BUNN: If the United States refuses to abide by the international agreements that it signs, then what's left of the rule of law? If the United States doesn't stand for the rule of law, who does? Particularly, right now, when we don't face a serious threat of ballistic missile attack, and when we have the opportunity for deep arms reductions, and when Russian President Boris Yeltsin, even though saying let's think about a joint missile defense program, is at the same time saying we ought to faithfully observe all the provisions of the ABM Treaty, I think that's exactly what we ought to do.
NARRATOR: If the United States abrogates this arms treaty, it would be the first time in our nation's history.
There are several courses short of deploying Star Wars that could held address the spread of nuclear and missile technology. Two international agreements, in particular, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Missile Technology Control Regime, can help keep nuclear bombs and long range missiles out of the hands of nations that do not currently have them.
Rep. AuCOIN: What we need to be working on is non-proliferation, working through the UN, being robust in our efforts to do so, and insisting, through strong UN action, that the spread of nuclear weapons -- China and other countries, for example -- stops and we throw the full energy of our country into that effort.
NARRATOR: While it's impossible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT for short, can use the International Atomic Energy Agency to check on nations' civilian nuclear power programs. All international transfers of nuclear reactors and materials, such as uranium, are monitored by the international agency, called the IAEA.
This agency should be allowed more access to different nations' nuclear programs. Significant penalties could be applied against those that turn civilian power efforts into weapons programs. States that sign-on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty might then face harsh economic sanctions for violating their treaty commitments.
It will take an international effort and moral leader- ship from the United States to make this cooperative solution a reality.
The United States can take two concrete steps: living up to commitments we made in the NPT to cut our own nuclear arms and stopping underground nuclear explosions. This would be a clear US example of restraint to the rest of the world.
Matt Bunn sees no imminent danger.
Mr. BUNN: There are some who say these short range missiles, it's just a hop, skip and a jump from there to an ICBM. It's not true. If we control these technologies, we can make it very, very difficult for countries in the Third World to build a long range missile capable of reaching the United States.
NARRATOR: Many of the major industrial countries have signed-on to the Missile Technology Control Regime, an international agreement that prohibits the sale or transfer of techno-logy needed for missiles with ranges in excess of 190 miles. Recently, Russia and China have stated their commitment to join this international agreement. But, as with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the IAEA, stringent penalties for violations must be developed.
On another level, if the United States were to lead an international effort to improve relations with Third World countries, some of these countries might have fewer incentives to build ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. And by trying to deal with the causes of Third World conflicts before they turn violent, the United States could use diplomacy as the best protection for its citizens.
Let's take a look at some of the consequences of deploying GPALS, the global system advocated by the Pentagon with its space-based Brilliant Pebbles.
The first word, global, should raise eyebrows. Are American taxpayers prepared to pay for a missile defense system that puts a partial shield not only over the United States, but over Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, as well?
Finally, what will happen to the Brilliant Pebbles after they're placed in orbit around the earth? Aldraic Saucier, an Army scientist fired for his criticism of the Star Wars program, said recently that the space-based missiles would fall back to earth long before their expected ten-year lifetime was reached.
On top of that, Saucier asserts that $20 billion of the $30 billion spent on Star Wars so far has been wasted and that the Pentagon's cost estimates for GPALS are unrealistically low.
For his candor, Saucier was fired.
Rushing ahead with an expensive, unproven anti-ballistic missile system, especially when it won't stop a nuclear smuggler, is not the best way to defend America.
Admiral LaROCQUE: Well, I don't know about you, but I learned a lot from that program. There certainly are differing opinions on what is happening in the missile field. It is obvious, however, that there are some Third World nations that are trying to develop the capability to launch long range missiles, some of which could conceivably, in the years ahead, reach the United States.
It would be wonderful if we could devise a system to build a complete shield over the United States to defend our- selves against any kind of attack. But the history of warfare is replete with examples of the ability of any nation to penetrate any defense system. So, before we spend a lot of money for a missile defense system, we ought to proceed very carefully and proceed with research and development to try to avoid the necessity of ever having to build a missile defense system over the United States.
Until next time, for "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I'm Gene LaRocque.
[Over credits]
CIA Director ROBERT GATES (congressional testimony): "Now let me review the threat is some detail. Only China and the Commonwealth of Independent States, the former Soviet Union, have the missile capability to reach US territory directly. We do not expect increased risk to US territory from the special weapons of other countries, in a conventional military sense, for at least another decade."
Rep. AuCOIN (D-ORE): Or, would you be clever? And I think you'd be clever and protect
yourself. If you were the latter and wanted to protect yourself, you'd put that device in a bale of
marijuana, or a bale of cotton, or maybe a piece of luggage, put it in Grand Central Station in a
locker somewhere, walk away, and the damage would be done and no one would know where it
came from. Now SDI doesn't protect us from that.
[End of broadcast.]
CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR"
(Center for Defense Information).
[ Transcripts ] [ ADM Homepage ] [ CDI Homepage ]