Space

Rep. Duncan Hunter - Prepared Statement

18 June 1996 - House National Security Committee
Subcommittees on Military Research and Development and Military Procurement
Near-Term National Missile Defense Options

I am pleased to co-host this important hearing on National Missile Defense options, and I, too, welcome our witnesses here today.

One of the most biggest shortcomings in America's defense posture today is the inability to destroy a single ballistic missile launched at the United States either intentionally or accidentally.

It behooves us to understand when a National Missile Defense system could be deployed and how capable such a system would be against the array of threats likely to confront us in the coming decade. Our witnesses today are among the Nation's foremost experts in this field and I look forward to their testimony.

We need to keep certain principles in mind. First, it is virtually impossible to limit the flow of information and technology and, as a result, we can and should assume that the threat will increase. We know that Russia already possesses the ability to destroy American cities from Anchorage to Atlanta and Honolulu to Hoboken. Likewise, China today has the capability to carry out its now famous nuclear threat to destroy Los Angeles, and Beijing is aggressively modernizing its strategic forces. Various Third World despots and terrorists also have announced their desire to develop or acquire ballistic missiles. I'm confident that, over time, their efforts will succeed and the risk to the American homeland will increase correspondingly.

Second, the maxim "don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good enough" also applies to missile defenses. I am convinced that today we possess the technology that can provide a reasonable "first step" defense. Some believe that limited, ground-based defenses represent the most appropriate first step. Others, myself included, believe that we need to seriously consider the capabilities a Navy system could provide. But just as we don't expect perfection from tanks or fighters or submarines, neither should we expect a near-term NMD system to defeat every conceivable threat from every conceivable quarter.

Critics contend that a new, improved technology is just around the comer -- that we ought not commit now to a defense because something better is right around the comer. Well, ladies and gentleman, that a recipe for more delay, more obfuscation, more unfocused research, and no deployment. We need to get beyond this "research-forever" mentality and move to deploy an NMD system. I am sorry to say that it normally takes the Department of Defense the better part of 15-20 years (and sometimes longer) to field a modern weapon system. We need to get on with it -- be it a Navy system or an Army or Air Force system. As a famous athletic shoe ad says, "Just do it!"

Again, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Thank you.