WHY DOESN’T REP. JOHN SPRATT WANT HIS COLLEAGUES TO KNOW ABOUT A CHEAP, EFFECTIVE, NEAR-TERM MISSILE DEFENSE OPTION?

(Washington, D.C.): Within the next few days, the Senate will
resume debate on the Defend America Act of 1996 (S. 1635) —
legislation sponsored by virtually the entire Republican
congressional leadership that would set in motion the deployment
of effective anti-missile defenses for the American people. The
House of Representatives is expected shortly to follow suit on
its own version of the Act (H.R. 3144).

As in the past, opponents of such defenses have chosen
not to argue that the United States should remain completely
vulnerable to ballistic missile attack for the foreseeable future
— even though that would be the effect of their efforts to
prevent the prompt deployment of anti-missile systems.
Instead, they tend to argue that the cost of missile
protection would be unaffordable.

A prime example of this syndrome was evident in a hearing
yesterday of the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee’s National Security, International Affairs and Criminal
Justice Subcommittee. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC),
the perennial point man for those opposed to early deployment of
national missile defenses, participated in the hearing —
although not a member of the Subcommittee. He made much of the
excessive costs associated with providing even modest
anti-missile protection for the United States.

In this connection, Rep. Spratt cited the costs associated
with the deployment of a limited, fixed ground-based interceptor
system. These started at roughly $2.4-5 billion for twenty
modified Minuteman missiles capable of defending against only four
incoming warheads. A deployment of 100 of these modified ICBMs —
in theory, the maximum allowed under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty — would cost considerably more yet be able to
defend against only about twenty attacking reentry
vehicles. Mr. Spratt argued that, in order to have the capability
to shoot down larger numbers of missiles, a multiple-site
deployment of ground-based defenses would be required. This
option would likely cost tens of billions of dollars, a prospect
sure to produce the sort of “sticker-shock” engendered
when the Congressional Budget Office recently assessed what it
imputed to be the price of implementing the Defend America Act. wp=”br1″>

It Ain’t Necessarily So

Fortunately, Rep. Spratt’s straw-man is not the only
option available for defending America. As noted in the
course of yesterday’s hearing by the Center for Security Policy’s
director, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., a recently released
study by a blue-ribbon Missile Defense Study Team (“Team
B”) sponsored by the Heritage Foundation has come up with a
way to begin defending America that would be far more readily
available, far more flexible, far more robust and far more
cost-effective than the modified-Minuteman, ground-based idea href=”96-D51.html#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾:

“Thanks to an investment of nearly $50 billion
already made in the U.S. Navy’s AEGIS fleet air defense
system, the United States actually has already
deployed virtually all of the ingredients for a global
missile defense system. Team B determined that, for
an additional investment of just $2-3 billion spent over the
next five years, 22 cruisers and 650 of their surface-to-air
missiles could be modified to enable them to intercept
ballistic missiles in flight. The typical deployment pattern
of such ships allows them to provide a layered
defense — with several ships having an opportunity to take
one or more shots along an intercontinental missile’s
ballistic trajectory.”

Interestingly, when Mr. Gaffney requested that the Heritage
Foundation’s fifty-page study be included in the hearing record
— typically a formality — Rep. Spratt objected. While
he professed that this unusual discourtesy was motivated by a
concern for the tax dollars that would be entailed in reproducing
this short document, the real reason would appear to lie
elsewhere: If Members of Congress become aware that there
is an eminently sensible, technologically straightforward,
near-term and highly cost-effective means of protecting both
U.S. forces and allies overseas and the American people
against missile attack, then opponents of defending America would
be obliged to justify their position more forthrightly.
Certainly, if Rep. Spratt’s colleagues were to approve a
sea-based wide-area approach to global anti-missile defense
rather than the Rube Goldberg system he professes to support, the
savings would pay for the reproduction of a Team B report for
every American man, woman and child with money left over for
the Treasury!

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy takes pleasure in noting that the
Government Reform Committee’s National Security Subcommittee
ultimately rejected Rep. Spratt’s objections and voted to include
the Team B report in the hearing record. It is earnestly
to be hoped that this first skirmish over exposing legislators to
the persuasive analysis and thoughtful conclusions of the
Heritage Foundation Missile Defense Study Team will clear the way
for congressional approval of the prompt deployment of effective
anti-missile defenses.

1. This approach has been dubbed the
“three-plus-three” option by the Clinton Administration
which claims to favor it. This appellation arises from the three
years the Administration claims it would take to develop the
modified Minuteman systems, a period which would be followed
(either directly or after some further delay) by an additional
three years leading to deployment.