Space

[Page: S541]

• [Begin insert]

The critical paragraphs in the story read as follows:

The number of Patriot batteries involved [in the planned South Korean deployment], as well as where they would come from, has yet to be determined. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Frank Wisner said Patriot systems are in short supply, but indicated some have become available as a result of the U.S. drawdown in Europe.

Pentagon officials are considering whether to send Patriot batteries equipped with post-Desert Storm engineering upgrades. Only two Patriot battalions out of 11 in the U.S. Army currently have the quick reaction program (QRP) improvements installed, according to Army officials, and the rest are being modified with kits one battalion at a time.

With QRP changes, Patriot batteries can defend five times more ground area against tactical ballistic missile attack than was possible during Desert Storm. QRP improvements include refinements in the ground-based radar, remote siting capability for the radar so it can be placed up to 10 km. from a launcher and a self-locating device to speed the emplacement of a new battery to under 30 min. A separate improvement underway is the addition of any optical disk system to all Patriot batteries to capture radar data on any engagements for replay and analysis. The lack of after-action data in Desert Storm made it more difficult to adjust to unexpected Scud aerodynamic performance and to verify Patriot performance after the war.

The Patriots would provide protection against North Korean surface-to-surface missiles. North Korea has more than 100 Scud-B and -C and Frog-3, -5, and -7 missiles. It also has developed the new No Dong 1, which has a range in excess of 1,000 km. (622 mi.). U.S. and South Korean forces currently have no missile defenses, and observers say the air defense system is inadequate.

The issues raised by this article are critical. Which Patriots is the administration planning to send to South Korea? Will the battalion be one of the two upgraded battalions with the quick reaction program engineering upgrades installed?

If the answer is `no,' we have a more serious question--where in the world is the threat of surprise tactical ballistic

missile attack against deployed U.S. forces higher than it currently is on the Korean Peninsula? If it is true that the upgraded Patriot system can cover five times more ground area than the basic system, how would the administration justify a decision to send the less capable systems--systems that would leave some of our people exposed to attack when they could be protected?

Mr. President, not only is it important to make the final decision to send the Patriots and send them now, but it is vital that the right Patriots be sent--the ones with the full quick reaction program upgrades and the optical disk radar data recorders. We are waiting for the decision, and the countdown to the February 22, 1994, deadline for North Korea agreement to full IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities is running.

In fact, the time available to transport the Patriots to South Korea is so short that the administration may have to have them delivered by air instead of by sea. While are transportation is more costly, time has become critical.

It appears that the administration feels little urgency--at least from its public comments--in the Patriot deployment. The time has come for them to begin feeling the pressure and treating the issue as one that requires immediate decision and expeditious implementation.

My comments on this matter may seem unusual in the ordinary context of Defense Department deployment decisions. I ordinarily do not raise these matters on the floor. However, the Department's performance under Secretary Aspin's leadership in responding to a variety of contingencies causes me to raise this matter publicly and to make it an issue.

The men and women wearing this Nation's uniform in Korea deserve a far more competent and decisive response to their commander's request for the Patriots for force protection than General Montgomery's request for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to protect his forces in Mogadishu received. With that bloody and tragic lesson of the price of delay and indecision in mind, I believe it is vital that we press the Pentagon and the administration's national security leadership as a whole to make a positive decision, make it now, and ship the Patriots--the right Patriots--as soon as is humanly possible.

The alternative may be another disaster by indecision.

Mr. President, I ask that the full Aviation Week & Space Technology article from which I quoted above be printed in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

The article follows:

[Page: S542]

From Aviation Week & Space Technology, Jan. 31, 1994

Korean Impasse Spurs Patriot Plans

The U.S. is planning to deploy Patriot air defense missiles to South Korea, a move that simultaneously increases the political pressure and hedges Washington's bets in the continuing diplomatic confrontation with North Korea over nuclear inspections.

The missiles were requested by Army Gen. Gary Luck, the commander of U.S. forces in Korea, following a review of defense requirements. The Pentagon said it is looking `favorably' at the request but `no actual decision has been made.'

The plan comes amid increasing tensions on the peninsula. A U.S.-North Korean diplomatic standoff over the issue of full access to North Korea's nuclear facilities by international inspectors has spurred the threat of economic sanctions by the Clinton Administration.

The number of Patriot batteries involved, as well as where they would come from, has yet to be determined. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Frank Wisner said Patriot systems are in short supply, but indicated some have become available as a result of the U.S. drawdown in Europe.

Pentagon officials are considering whether to send Patriot batteries equipped with post-Desert Storm engineering upgrades. Only two Patriot battalions out of 11 in the U.S. Army currently have the quick reaction program (QRP) improvements installed, according to Army officials, and the rest are being modified with kits one battalion at a time.

With QRP changes, Patriot batteries can defend five times more ground area against tactical ballistic missile attack than was possible during Desert Storm. QRP improvements include refinements in the ground-based radar, remote siting capability for the radar so it can be placed up to 10 km. from a launcher and a self-locating device to speed the emplacement of a new battery to under 30 min. A separate improvement underway is the addition of an optical disk system to all Patriot batteries to capture radar data on any engagements for replay and analysis. The lack of after-action data in Desert Storm made it more difficult to adjust to unexpected Scud aerodynamic performance and to verify Patriot performance after the war.

The Patriots would provide protection against North Korean surface-to-surface missiles. North Korea has more than 100 Scud-B and -C and Frog-3, -5 and -7 missiles. It also has developed the new No Dong 1, which has a range in excess of 1,000 km. (622 mi.). U.S. and South Korean forces currently have no missile defenses, and observers say the air defense system is inadequate.

Stressing the defensive nature of the Patriot system, Wisner said: `The deployment is clearly not meant to increase tensions.' He said such a move had been considered for some time and was merely a response to the theater commander's request after Washington asked him to review security arrangements for U.S. forces. But given the current diplomatic tensions, it is certain to draw howls of protest from Pyongyang.

Wisner said the most viable way to pursue the nuclear problem with North Korea was through negotiations. But other officials have indicated that time is running out and warn that the U.S. could soon move to seek economic sanctions.

William Taylor, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said just the talk of deploying Patriots sends a message to the North Koreans that time is running out. It signals the Administration's realization that the imposition of economic sanctions increases the risk of armed conflict and the U.S. is preparing for that.

The U.S. has offered to cancel the annual joint exercises with South Korean forces in exchange for the North Koreans allowing inspections of its seven declared nuclear sites. But Pyongyang has balked during discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the details of how those inspections would be carried out.

IAEA Director Hans Blix is to report on the progress toward compliance by Feb. 22. The Administration's Patriot gambit has underlined the importance of that deadline, Taylor said. The Clinton Administration is basically telling North Korea it does not have much time to strike a deal with the IAEA, since it will take the agency two weeks to conduct inspections.

Wisner said the U.S. intelligence community is `divided' over whether the North Koreans have already developed a nuclear weapon. In testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee last week, CIA Director R. James Woolsey reiterated his previous assertions that North Korea could already have produced enough plutonium for at least one nuclear weapon. `Moreover, their Yongbyon reactor may be shut down soon, enabling them to extract fuel, reprocess, recover the plutonium and use it to produce weapons.'

Wisner said, however, it was `not immediately apparent' that the North Koreans are closing down the Yongbyon reactor. Furthermore, he noted that the U.S. intelligence community is divided over whether North Korea has nuclear weapons. He said it is possible, given the amounts of plutonium they have produced. `We should not rule that out.'

Taylor noted that the Administration's announcement of Patriot deployment plans also satisfies congressional critics who have been urging that the U.S. bolster its defenses in Korea. But at the same time, it would undercut long-standing U.S. efforts to get the South Koreans to buy Patriot systems of their own. `Forget Raytheon selling it to them if we bring it in,' he said.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D.-Pa.) said Korea will be the first major foreign policy test of the Clinton Administration. `Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia don't amount to anything compared to Korea.'

The chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee said he expected `a confrontation' with North Korea this year over the issue of nuclear weapons. `I think it's so serious we have to consider the ultimate, and that's military action.'

Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he did not think war was `imminent or inevitable.' Despite recent movements to concentrate more of its forces along the demilitarized zone, Clapper said there are `significant shortcomings in force capabilities that Pyongyang would prefer to correct before initiating military hostilities.' But he also noted that North Korea has no desire to become another East Germany and `it could find itself without attractive alternatives.'

U.S. Air Force officials said there has been `a lot of planning, a lot of what-if-ing' in terms of a potential conflict in Korea, but there has been no recent surge of activity. It has been at `a pretty constant level for the last six or seven months,' one official said. However, Woolsey has asked the intelligence community `to undertake additional specific steps to ensure strong intelligence support to our military forces [in Korea].'

• [End insert]

END