CENTER CALLS FOR ENDING U.S. AND ISRAELI STRATEGIC VULNERABILITY, REJECTION OF HOUSE ACTION ON SDI

(Washington, D.C.): In remarks today before the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., director of the Center for Security Policy, urged the Jewish community — and other friends of Israel — to demand an end to both Israel’s and the United States’ vulnerability to ballistic missile attack. A copy of his prepared statement is attached.

Gaffney observed that several lessons which emerged from Israel’s experience with Iraqi Scuds in the course of the recent war are equally applicable to the U.S. situation:

• Being defended is better than not being defended.

 

• An imperfect defense is better than no defense.

 

• Offensive counterfire, considered by some to be an acceptable alternative to strategic defense, is not necessarily a reliable means of either deterring an adversary from attacking with ballistic missiles or limiting the effectiveness of such an attack.

Gaffney noted that there is important technological, programmatic and strategic synergy to be obtained by complementing the impressive work now being performed by Israel and the United States under the Arrow interceptor program with rapid deployment of a space-based strategic defense. Specifically, the Brilliant Pebbles elements of the U.S. Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) program can greatly enhance the effectiveness of a future Israeli active defense — while offering the American people protection against ballistic missile attack at least equivalent to that recently afforded the citizens of Tel Aviv by the relatively primitive Patriot system.

The Center for Security Policy is extremely concerned that the effect of actions taken today by the House of Representatives in connection with the FY1992 Defense Authorization bill may be such as to degrade — if not to disrupt seriously — both the Arrow and SDI programs. This would be the inevitable, and thoroughly regrettable, consequence of House-passed initiatives aimed at: breaking up the SDI Organization; gutting space-based defenses; emphasizing procurement of large numbers of additional Patriots at the expense of more capable systems; and giving theater defense options priority over strategic defensive capabilities.

The Center commends President Bush for threatening to veto this legislation should such initiatives somehow be included in its final version. It is to be hoped that that threat — if not the clear and compelling need to eliminate these two nations’ grievous strategic vulnerabilities — will permit more thoughtful heads to prevail in Congress.