Edited Exchange Between Frank Gaffney and John Pike at the Marshall Institute

Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy

February 26, 1998

Gaffney: I’d like to clarify what you’re in favor of, John, because on one
hand, it seems as though
you have made a pretty eloquent case for why an anti-satellite arms control regime would be an
exercise in futility. You talked about how there are lots of ways to hurt fragile satellites with
everything from ground stations to zapping or jamming or otherwise blasting them. You talked
about the incentives that all of the bad guys would have to do this against us, which generally
works against compliance. But you go on reflexively to stigmatizing weapons systems and call
for unilateral U.S. restraints, so that maybe nobody else will think of the idea of doing something
that they’ve obviously thought of and have a very profound interest in doing. So I’d just like to
amplify this. The Clinton Administration, it seems to me — despite a space policy that talks about
space control — is promulgating a policy that says we won’t do it. It vetoed three programs that
would lend themselves to that, and the policy grounds on which at least two of those were vetoed
explicitly preclude the use of MIRCL, or a classified program, or several classified programs.
Now, are you saying that you are not in favor of anti-satellite arms control, which I believe this
Administration is actually pursuing right now, or are you saying that even though it won’t work
and it certainly won’t work when we need it to work, we want it because, like some of these other
ideas of yours, it stigmatizes weapons?

Pike: I think that in the current threat environment in which our declared
adversaries don’t have
space systems and are not going to get space systems anytime soon, for us to have two
anti-satellite capabilities to negate their space systems should they get them is probably enough.
Number one. And number two, I think that for you and your guys to be out there pounding the
tub on this ASAT thing is barking up the wrong tree. It is the wrong war in the wrong place at the
wrong time.

Gaffney: Let’s just say in the future you might be wrong, and it turns out
that these distributed
commercial, Russian, Chinese, French, Iraqi systems turn out to be things that could kill
Americans, and we want to be able to prevent them from being used. If we have a policy, or
worse yet, we have an arms control treaty

Pike: Nobody’s talking about arms control.

Gaffney: The Clinton Administration is negotiating one right now, John, as
I would hope
someone who follows things as closely as you do and knows it

Pike: With whom?

Gaffney: With the Russians. For starters. Incredible as it may seem. But I
just want to know in
principle do you think an anti-satellite arms control treaty that would prevent MIRCL, that would
prevent a classified program, that would prevent an Army kinetic energy ASAT, that would
prevent us from using anything to interfere with other people’s satellites, if they had them and we
couldn’t live with them having them, do you favor that? Do you favor that, even though it won’t
work, it can’t be verified, and it would be, I think, a good system for our security?

Pike: Frank, it’s 1998, not 1988. Nobody’s talking about that. That’s not
what’s on the agenda.

Gaffney: Let’s just say for the purpose of discussion that it might be
thought about. Would you
favor an anti-satellite weapon?

Pike: I would oppose anybody spending any time worrying about such a
thing. I would oppose
anybody wasting their time, either advocating or opposing such a

Gaffney: An anti-satellite arms control treaty would be something he
wouldn’t want anybody to
negotiate.

Pike: I think it’s irrelevant. I think it’s irrelevant.

Gaffney: But is it a bad idea? Would you oppose it, [the merits of it]?

Pike: It’s an irrelevant idea. It is an irrelevant idea.

Gaffney: You would not oppose it on it’s merits. Where do you stand

Pike: I think it is irrelevant to our current security environment.

Gaffney: I don’t want to belabor the point, but if in fact I’m right, that the
Clinton Administration
is quietly pursuing just such a treaty, could you just address the question of — yes or no —
whether you would be in favor of a treaty that tried to prevent anti-satellite weapons from being
used?

Pike: I would be opposed to the Clinton Administration wasting their time
worrying about that
problem.

Jastrow: Yes or no?

Pike: You know, I could not, you know I would be against the Clinton
Administration wasting
their time worrying about that problem. I would certainly be against you wasting your time
arguing against it. I just think these are, like, you know, so low on the totem pole in terms of the
things we ought to be worrying about.

Worden: I guess since I’m part of the Clinton Administration, then I
shouldn’t worry about it,
right?

Gaffney: I hope you will take this back: that John Pike does not want you
to be working on this
problem.

Worden: We’re spending a lot of time on it.

Gaffney: That’s my understanding. I believe that it would be very
wrong-headed and I would
hope, if you think it is a bad idea that you would be willing to comment to that effect.

Pike: [Silence]

— End of Edited Exchange —