Missile defense in search of vision and leadership

By: James Inhofe
The Washington Times, December 18, 1996

One of the most important challenges
facing our nation is the need to address
the growing threat posed by ballistic
missiles. In the Congress and especially
in the White House, it is time for
leaders to inform the American people
about the realities of the modern world
and to take the steps which are prudent
and necessary to end our glaring
vulnerability to missile attack.

This month’s commemoration of Pearl
Harbor Day poignantly reminds us of the
stakes involved. Fifty-five years ago, a
totally unanticipated and unprovoked
attack resulted in the loss of more than
2,300 lives, the devastation of our
Pacific fleet, and our entry into a war
that cost many more casualties and
forever changed the world.

Today, America’s enemies are even
less easy to identify or anticipate. If
any one of them were to contemplate a
sneak attack, a revenge attack, a
terrorist attack, or just outright
political blackmail, they might well have
at their disposal weapons and delivery
systems a half-century more advanced than
the slow-flying bomb-loaded airplanes of
Japan in 1941.

Instead, the probable weapon of
choice might be an unbelievably horrible
weapon of mass destruction – nuclear,
chemical or biological – delivered by a
long-range missile traveling faster than
a speeding bullet. An attack by just one
such missile could result in incomparable
devastation and literally millions of
casualties, most of them innocent
civilians.

I am one of those in Congress who
believes it is imperative that we move
quickly to develop and deploy a defensive
system capable of intercepting and
destroying such a missile before it
reaches our territory. Today we have no
such system in place, even though many
Americans believe we do. But we do have
the technology and the know-how. We can
meet this challenge at an affordable
cost. That we would deliberately decide –
as we have done – to leave our cities and
our people naked to such an easily
identifiable and growing threat is
absolutely unconscionable.

No one disputes the fact that 25 to
30 nations either have or are developing
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missile capabilities. No one disputes the
fact that the traditional notion of
deterrence – the threat of retaliation –
is not alone enough to provide the same
level of safety it did during the Cold
War. These are the stark realities of the
modern world. International agreements,
diplomatic talks and wishful thinking
cannot change them. You don’t have to be
a rocket scientist to figure this out.

The same intelligence community that
was shocked (shocked!) by Iraq’s 1990
attack on Kuwait currently indulges in
arcane debates about whether
“indigenous” missile threats to
the “continental” United States
can or will emerge in the next 15 years
or 10 years or whatever.

The current administration fiddles
with whether we can wait another three
years or another six years before we
decide to defend America. The president
vetoes bills that appropriate funds to
complete a national missile defense
system. He cavalierly (and illegally)
refuses to implement other laws designed
to advance our promising theater missile
defense programs. He and his supporters
in Congress claim there is plenty of time
to wait.

Who do we think we are kidding? What
kind of close-minded silliness are we
perpetrating on the American people?

The threat – the capability to
deliver devastating weapons by ballistic
missiles – is here right now and it is
growing daily. The answer is equally
clear. We must get started in earnest to
fulfill the highest responsibility of
government bar none: to provide for the
common defense.

With determined leadership and a firm
commitment to get the job done, we could
deploy a limited defense capable of
dealing with one or a handful of
attacking missiles within four to five
years. This is what we need now, not a
“star wars” or
“astrodome” defense against
thousands of incoming missiles, as we
feared during the Cold War.

One of the most promising ways to do
this would be to upgrade the capabilities
of a portion of our Navy’s existing fleet
of AEGIS cruisers. Our nation has already
invested close to $50 billion in this
incomparable defense asset. We do not
have to start from scratch on a totally
new system.

Let us improve the AEGIS system’s
radars, computers and software. Let us
make use of advanced satellite
coordination techniques to provide early
warning, tracking and battle management
capability. Let us use the newest
technology to enhance propulsion systems
and interceptors so they can defeat
faster-flying long-range missiles. With
these improvements, we can make today’s
in-the-atmosphere AEGIS air defense a
fully capable above-the-atmosphere
ballistic missile defense.

These are not impossible or wildly
expensive tasks, requiring undreamed of
weapons or ideas. Such upgrades would be
common-sense applications of existing
technology, building upon the strength of
the AEGIS system which is already in
place, already bought and paid for. And
we could do it for as little as $4
billion to $5 billion over five years –
magnitudes less than the most commonly
mentioned alternatives.

Indeed, why shouldn’t we do what we
know we can do when the issue is
defending the American people? Why would
we deliberately hold back our defensive
technology, leaving ourselves wide open
to the whims of those who are
aggressively pursuing offensive missiles?
It makes no sense. Yet it is exactly what
we are doing.

It is time the American people were
informed and engaged about the debate on
missile defense. As a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, as a
father and grandfather, and as a
concerned citizen and public servant, I
am dedicated to doing what I can to
generate public scrutiny on this vital
issue and to ensure that the American
people get the defense they have every
right to expect. I am under no illusions
that it may be a lonely and difficult
task, but it is, without doubt, the right
thing to do.

James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma
Republican, is a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.