Space

[Page: E168]

• Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, long-range ballistic missiles are the only weapons against which the U.S. government has decided, as a matter of policy, not to field a defense. Few Americans are aware the U.S. military--the most powerful, most technologically-advanced, and most lethal military force ever assembled--could not stop even a single ballistic missile from impacting American soil today.

• Just last year, the bipartisan Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, led by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asserted the United States may have little or no warning before the emergence of specific new ballistic missile threats to our nation. This, coupled with the fact some 20 Third World countries already have or may be developing both weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and ballistic missile delivery systems, is cause for serious alarm.

• Yet President Clinton and many in Congress have chosen to adopt a posture of purposeful vulnerability to these weapons. Mr. Speaker, the topic of America's national security is regularly and thoughtfully debated before Congress. However, whether our country chooses to field a national ballistic missile defense could very well determine the survival of the United States of America.

• Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit for the Record, the full text of the letter I recently sent to U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, urging him to join me and other Members of Congress in ending our vulnerability to long range ballistic missiles.

House of Representatives
January 25, 1999

Hon. Bill Cohen,
Secretary of Defense,
The Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Cohen: Our lack of ballistic missile defense is a serious and growing vulnerability extending an unwelcome invitation to ballistic missile attack from rogue nations such as North Korea. We must build a defense against long range ballistic missiles.

A majority of Americans want a ballistic missile defense, and would want to quickly build a strong defense if they understood our vulnerability. General Charles A. Horner, Air Commander in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and former commander of the U.S. Space Command, noted a majority of Americans, even after finishing a tour of NORAD's warning complex in Colorado Springs, do not know we have no defense against long range ballistic missiles, believing instead we already have such defenses. I have found that to be the case with my constituents.

Our vulnerability to long range ballistic missiles is widely misunderstood even in Washington. A week after General Shelton claimed the Intelligence Community could provide the necessary warning of a rogue nation ICBM threat to the United States, North Korea surprised the Intelligence Community by launching on August 31, 1998 a three-stage ballistic missile with the potential of striking the western United States.

I believe we should end our vulnerability to long range ballistic missiles by vigorously building an effective ballistic missile defense employing space-based defense and accelerating Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide). Furthermore, the just purpose of saving lives requires us to end our reliance on a treaty against our defense--the ABM Treaty.

The administration's proposal to spend $7 billion for ballistic missile defense over six years period should instead spend $2-3 billion over three years in an accelerated Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide) program, and $4-5 billion over three years in an accelerated program for space-based defenses, including Space Based Interceptors like Brilliant Pebbles.

Other proposals can build other elements of an effective, multiple layer defense. We should pursue the Space Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator, recognizing the Space Based Laser program has successfully completed ground testing of its major components. We are ready to proceed and test the Space Based Laser in space.

Clearly, our best defense against long range ballistic missiles will be in deploying space-based defenses and accelerating Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide). I urge you to build those defenses. An extensive reliance on ground-based interceptors will neither be effective nor provide the best solution for our defense.

Ground-based interceptors inherently lack the boost phase defense capability we will need to counter bomblets or submunitions carried by long range ballistic missiles. In contrast, space-based defenses offer the potential for a boost phase defense, and will complement theater missile defense programs.

It is well known China is engaged in an aggressive military modernization program including the development of the road-mobile DF-31 and DF-41 long range ballistic missiles. The United States is the likely target of these missiles. Moreover, Russia still has approximately 756 ICBM and 424 SLBMs it can launch against us.

Will you join me and the other members of Congress in the noble endeavor to end our vulnerability to long range ballistic missiles by quickly building an effective defense against long range ballistic missiles? We must defend our freedom.

Very truly yours,

Bob Schaffer,
Member of Congress.

• Mr. Speaker, there are several other points I ask our colleagues to consider. Congress must be knowledgeable regarding the history of Spaced-Based Ballistic Missile Defenses.

• Beginning with Project Defender in the late 1950s and including the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) begun by President Reagan and continued by President Bush as GPALS (Global Protection Against Limited Strikes), defense planners have long understood the advantages of deploying ballistic missile defenses in space, using interceptors or directed energy weapons such as high energy lasers.

• The advantages from deploying ballistic missile defenses in space accrue from inherent characteristics of orbital platforms in space. These advantages include:

• Global Coverage. Constellations of orbital platforms can cover all parts of the earth, providing a defense against ballistic missiles launched by any country.

• Continuous Operation. Constellations of orbital platforms provide constant coverage, every day, without the need for additional or special deployments.

• Boost Phase Defense Capability. By being higher than a boosting missile rising through the atmosphere, orbital platforms have the opportunity for a boost phase defense.

• A boost phase defense capability is critical for an effective ballistic missile defense. The boost phase is the most vulnerable moment of a ballistic missile. A boost phase defense can intercept a missile before it releases any warheads, decoys, or submunitions.

• Space-based defenses also offer the opportunity for post boost phase defense and midcourse phase defense. Ground-based interceptors, in contrast, tend to be for terminal defense, or late midcourse phase defense. Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide) offers an early midcourse phase defense with flexible basing.

• Advances in computers and sensors since the 1960s have brought us to the point of deploying space-based ballistic missile defenses. Instead of nuclear weapons, we can rely on precision guided interceptors, and rapidly retargetable high energy lasers. In addition, we can protect space-based ballistic missile defenses against electromagnetic disturbances from nuclear explosions through hardening, the use of infrared sensors, and battle management plans able to function without centralized nodes.

• GPALS is the most comprehensive ballistic missile defense architecture recently developed. It featured global protection. GPALS based its capability for global protection on the deployment of Space Based Interceptors (SBIs), and Space Based Lasers (SBLs). A program for deploying an effective ballistic missile defense must include space-based defenses as a critical component.

• Long range ballistic missiles are a global problem requiring a global solution.

• Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about defending our country we must insist upon Streamlined Acquisition Procedures.

• Critical national defense programs have long used streamlined acquisition procedures. The Manhattan Project, combining the scientific talent and person of J. Robert Oppenheimer with the drive of General Leslie Groves, produced the atomic bomb in a few years. Air Force General Bernard Schriever successfully developed the Thor, Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman missile systems in under eight years.

• Streamlined acquisition procedures are useful for both programs developing new technology, and for accelerating programs where we already have the technology in hand, but need to apply, test, and produce it. Streamlined acquisition will be important for deploying a ballistic missile defense quickly.

• In using streamlined acquisition procedures for ballistic missile defense, we need to remember that we already have the basic technology for deploying effective defenses against long range ballistic missiles. We do not need to be paralyzed by the goal of developing the best technology possible--we already have the technology we need.

• We have already tested interceptors, kinetic energy weapons, and high energy lasers. While there is the need for practical field engineering, testing, and production of ballistic missile defense technologies, we have no need to continue basic research before reaching a decision to acquire a ballistic missile defense.

• This is not to say, however, that we should not continue basic research. Rather, we can and should continue basic research without delaying other programs to acquire a ballistic missile defense based on research already done.

• Accelerated funding and streamlined acquisition procedures are in order for Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide), and Space Based Interceptors such as Brilliant Pebbles (The Pentagon approved Brilliant Pebbles for acquisition in 1992). These are programs for which funding, not technology, is the primary constraint.

• In addition, while the acquisition of Space Based Lasers for ballistic missiles defense will require substantial engineering and design work, we have already developed and tested the primary components for the Space Based Laser. We are ready to proceed with its development and acquisition.

• We may expect accelerated funding and streamlined acquisition procedures to shorten timeframes for developing and deploying a ballistic missile defense. Timeframes for initial deployment may be as short as three to five years.

• Accelerated funding for programs such as Navy Upper Tier, Space Based Interceptors like Brilliant Pebbles, and Space Based Lasers can bring us closer to quickly deploying a ballistic missile defense.

• Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must consider Proposals for an `ABM Treaty Compliant' Ballistic Missile Defense.

• Proposals for an `ABM Treaty Compliant' Ballistic Missile Defense constrain themselves to a defense using ground-based radar, and ground-based interceptors deployed at a single site with a maximum of 100 interceptors.

• It is time we view proposals for deploying an `ABM Treaty Compliant' Ballistic Missile Defense from the context of providing the best defense possible for the American people.

• Thus, we need to compare an `ABM Treaty Compliant' defense with the effectiveness and availability of other ballistic missile defense programs such as Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide) and Space Based Interceptors.

• While an `ABM Treaty Compliant' defense may seem attractive from the viewpoint of being able to recycle Minuteman missiles by equipping them with a Kinetic Kill Vehicle rather than nuclear warheads, such proposals must be kept in their proper context.

• First, the most effective defense possible against long range ballistic missiles will be a boost phase defense. A boost phase defense, whether using interceptors or high energy lasers, will intercept a ballistic missile when it presents itself as a large, visible target, and is susceptible to destruction.

• In addition, a boost phase defense, will prevent a missile from releasing its warheads, decoys, or submunitions. Yet, an `ABM Treaty Compliant' defense will never be able to offer us a boost phase defense capability, in contrast to programs such as Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide), Space Based Interceptors, or Space Based Lasers.

• Furthermore, an `ABM Treaty Compliant' defense, limited to a single site, will be unable to protect the entire United States. It will put at risk Alaska, Hawaii, and many of our Pacific Island Territories such as Guam.

• Moreover, an `ABM Treaty Compliant' defense, by relying solely on ground-based interceptors, leaves itself open to its defeat through the use of decoys, multiple warheads or submunitions.

• Our best defenses will be found in putting themselves as close to the point of attack--as close or at the boost phase--rather than waiting for the last moment. Intuitively, this gives the defense the most room for maneuver, and restricts the offense.

• Our best defenses against long range ballistic missiles will thus be found in programs such as Navy Upper Tier, Space Based Interceptors, and Space Based Lasers, not in an `ABM Treaty Compliant' defense.

[Page: E170]

END