DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: STATUS OF US MILITARY
SUBSECTION: DEFENSELESS AGAINST ICBMS
U.S. DEFENSELESS AGAINST ICBMS
11-12/98 Ambassador Henry F Cooper on spending money on catastrophic disease v. defense "...PRICE: Yes, but we already have the technology for defense. We need to quit spending it on defense. GREEN: Have you been listening? PRICE: Yes, I have been listening. AMB.COOPER: I agree with you that we already have the technology. The problem is that we haven't exploited the technology to build the defenses [against missiles]. PRICE: We are 30 years ahead of every other country. COOPER: But we have absolutely zero defenses today. PRICE: We also have zero health care. We can't figure out cancer and the cures for that. That is what we need to be spending money on. COOPER: I think it is a bit extreme to say we have no health care. You know, I am not arguing that we can't use more health care. But it is not extreme to say that we have no defense because we have absolutely none.... But we put together programs that end up spending a lot of money and not achieving anything because of...the ABM Treaty, which prohibits us from actually building an effective defense. PRICE: Yes, but we already have effective defenses. COOPER: No, that's the part you don't seem to understand, Sir. We don't have the ability to shoot down a single missile that is launched at us. PRICE: If you take a look at the Star Wars project - we could shoot out 98% of their missiles before they leave the ground. COOPER: I was the Director of that program, Sir, and I can assure you we have not the ability to shoot down a single missile launched at the United States. Zero. Nada. Nothing. Money has been spent on research and development, and you are correct that it was employed to gain the edge in technology and keep the edge in technology. And in fact our private industry is exploiting it. There are several companies using the technology that we developed in the Pentagon - by the Star Wars program as you referred to it - to make money: with communications, with remote sensing and with a host of other things. But the Pentagon is not using that technology to build defenses for you and your family at home...."
From High Frontier website www.highfrontier.org "...But one lingering threat that the American people can actively help to alleviate is that of our own government's rigid adherence to the 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty. This treaty prevents the U.S. from deploying already existing technology to defend America. The current Administration vetoed the FY1996 Defense Authorization Bill which would have mandated the deployment of a nationwide ballistic missile defense system to protect the continental U.S., Hawaii, and Alaska by 2003. Alarmingly, a poll has shown that 60% of America's citizens are unaware that they are not protected from an attack. When the truth about our lack of a missile defense was presented to them, more than 80% expressed outrage and feelings of vulnerability.... According to a 1995 Defense Science Board Task Force Report, a particularly troublesome threat involves multiple warheads released early in a ballistic missile's flight - during its "boost-phase" - as its rocket engines burn out. This would render useless all of the missile defense systems currently being built by the Clinton Administration which aim to destroy a missile while it is en route. The only sure way to defeat such missiles is by destroying them in their boost phase, before they release their warheads. A defense system that is capable of destroying missiles during the boost phase should ideally be deployed in space, however, such space based defense systems are banned by the 1972 ABM Treaty with the Soviet Union which no longer exists...."
The Florida Times-Union 2/27/99 "...A military crisis may be developing in the South China Sea - one that, unlike the Serbian civil war, involves a legitimate U.S. interest. Recent photos from American spy planes indicate China is rapidly turning Woody Island, which has a 7,300-foot runway, into a giant military base. Woody is one of the Paracel Islands, which are located off Vietnam's coast. China also is buying 300 jets from Russia and is developing its own line of fighter bombers. It is believed that the Woody base will be used as a refueling station for fighter planes headed for the Spratly Islands to the south. China is one of several countries claiming the Spratlys, which have oil reserves and good fishing waters. Military intelligence officials say Beijing plans to slowly gain control of hundreds of tiny islands that form an arch stretching from Japan to Indonesia. Taiwan is one of those islands. China already is deploying large numbers of short-range ballistic missiles on its coastline, about 100 miles from Taiwan. And the Philippines is one of the countries claiming part of the Spratlys. The United States is obligated, under treaties, to defend both countries....Besides, American troops are scattered all around the world; there are not enough readily available military resources left to ''stare down'' China. Also, the United States lost a lot of maneuverability a few years ago when the Filipinos forced the closure of the last American military base on their soil. Now that they feel threatened by China, they are reaping what they sowed. Feelings have gotten so tense that the Philippines bombed Chinese installations on Mischief Reef, one of the Spratlys, in 1995. Once China's planes have greater range, that isn't likely to happen again....China in the past has not been shy about seizing islands. The Paracel Islands used to be Vietnamese property. China seized them when Hanoi and Saigon were preoccupied with the Vietnam War. In all probability, the United States is going to have to accept some Chinese domination of Asia. U.S. military resources are not limitless. ..."
Conservative News Service 8/13/98 Ben Anderson "The status of America ' s missile defense capabilities is rising to the forefront of national debate following a growing list of developments which indicate U . S . citizens are more vulnerable to foreign attack than previously believed . Representative Curt Weldon last week lead the passage of a bipartisan bill which says, in it's entirety, "That it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense." The bill passed last Wednesday evening by a vote of 240-188. Simple in form, the bill effectively blocks "funding for the implementation of modifications that the Clinton Administration has made to the to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," according to a statement released by Weldon's office ."
Washington Times 12/3/98 ". A blue-ribbon Pentagon panel is urging the Clinton administration to improve U.S. nuclear forces for decades to come in the face of Russia's large arsenal and a growing Chinese strategic force. The report by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence warns the direction of nuclear-weapons programs at the Pentagon and Department of Energy is weak and should be strengthened to maintain the balance of power in the years ahead. "While the declarations of senior Department of Defense leaders are very positive, the management attention to planning to sustain the nuclear deterrent does not match the declaratory policy," the task force report concludes. A copy of the report was released Thursday to The Washington Times.It states that U.S. nuclear forces are declining, while those of major strategic adversaries are improving. "There is a near certainty that, wherever arms control efforts take us, Russia will continue to be a nuclear superpower and China will continue to evolve to more capable nuclear forces," the report stated. Russia and China are both building new nuclear missiles. The task force findings represent an unprecedented public review of normally secret U.S. strategic forces and needs. They were presented to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre in October by the task force chairman, retired Air Force Gen. Larry Welch. The panel's findings challenge many of the arms-control plans and policies of the Clinton administration, such as its ban on nuclear testing, its reliance on arms-reduction agreements, and the effort to monitor nuclear-warhead reliability dubbed the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The report states that nuclear testing "could be a hedge" to maintain deterrence if the non-testing program suffers a "substantial failure." The report is likely to fuel Republican opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, now pending before the Senate."
China Post Newsday Patrick Sloyan 12/7/98 ".U.S. President Clinton is considering unilateral cuts in U.S. nuclear warheads that would match reductions in Russian arsenal disintegrating from a lack of money and manpower, senior administration officials said. A final administrative decision could come in time for Clinton's State of the Union speech next month to Congress in which he would outline cuts in U.S. strategic systems and resulting savings in defense spending. "We could save billions" a senior Pentagon official said. Support for strategic weapons reductions has grown among cash strapped generals on the Joint Chiefs of Staff who want to pay for new ships, planes and weapons while improving the quality of life for a shrinking military. One possibility would permit a halt in production of the D5 rocket for Trident submarines, a missile program costing U.S. $3.3 billion over the next four years. The warhead reduction program would allow scrapping four of the oldest Trident boats as well as 200 of the remaining 500 Minuteman III land based rockets.."
Wall Street Journal 1/5/99 ".If the New Year is the time for resolutions, we can't think of one we'd like more than a determination to provide America with a system to protect us from the increasing likelihood of a missile strike, whether from a rogue state like North Korea or a terrorist such as Osama bin Laden. Though Republicans have been asking for one since Ronald Reagan, and though Bill Clinton is in principle on board, the key component remains missing: a commitment to actually test, build and deploy. Unfortunately, a forthcoming Clinton Administration budget statement looks set to confirm an apparent Defense Department decision to defer any real protection against missile attacks further into the future. It will do this by taking the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense system and combining it with the Navy's Theater Wide program, effectively pulling the plug on THAAD and dissipating the latter..."
The Kathryn and Shelby Cullon Davis International Studies Center - Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org 12/14/98 ".After years of delay, it appears that President Bill Clinton may announce a decision to deploy a limited national missile defense, perhaps in his State of the Union message in January. Many supporters of missile defense will be tempted to view this as a victory. Their reason: Any defense of the American people from long-range missiles, however limited, is better than the current state of total vulnerability. They should be careful not to celebrate prematurely, however. All indications are that the national missile defense system envisioned by the Clinton Administration will be of doubtful effectiveness... The fact remains, however, that if President Clinton indeed announces a nationwide, two-site missile defense plan, he is doing so because he no longer can ignore the reality of the growing missile threat. This would represent a critically important concession. It would mean that the President and his supporters have been wrong in downplaying the missile threat and delaying the decision to deploy defenses against it. It also would mean that once the President has conceded the point for the need for a nationwide defense, the debate then should become how to make it the most effective defense possible..."
Philadelphia Inquirer 1/11/99 Richard Parker ".Pentagon officials have concluded it will take up to two years longer than expected to protect the country from a ballistic missile attack, possibly leaving the United States vulnerable to the increasingly long-range missiles of such states as North Korea and Iran. Despite intensive research since the early 1980s, the military so far has failed to master the technology of reliably destroying an incoming missile with another missile. President Clinton promised to decide next year whether the country needed a missile defense against accidental launches by Russia and hostile developing nations... Even if Clinton orders a system built, a delay of a year or two could leave the country open to missile attack by North Korea or even Iran early in the next century, according to intelligence officials and independent experts. "It means you could have a threat before the United States is prepared to deal with it," said Paul Wolfowitz, a former Reagan defense official who served on a panel that recently assessed missile threats. "We should have been treating missile defense as a matter of highest priority. If we'd done that, we wouldn't be in this position right now."
Washington Post 1/21/99 Dana Priest ".The Clinton administration yesterday pledged $6.6 billion over five years to field a national missile defense system, reversing years of official skepticism about whether it was necessary or even possible to build a weapon that could detect and shoot down enemy missiles racing toward the United States. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said the system was needed to respond to a growing missile threat from North Korea and other nations. He said the administration would pursue the program, an heir to Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" proposals, even if Russia were to charge that it violates the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by the United States. ."
Washington Times 2/3/99 Harry Summers ". Homeland defense has been much in the news lately, as the Clinton administration announced it will add billions to the fiscal year 2000 defense budget for counterterrorism and national missile defense. As The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer commented, "Better late than never,'' for it is axiomatic that a secure base is the essential foundation for both offensive and defensive military operations.. But what made sense during the Cold War has become a dangerous anachronism today when the threat is no longer a massive nuclear exchange but the threat of nuclear attack by rogue states like North Korea or Iran, both of whom are well on the way to developing the capability to do just that. "Right now if an enemy fired just one nuclear missile at Los Angeles or New York,'' wrote Mr. Krauthammer, "there is nothing, absolutely nothing, the United States could do to stop it.'' Finally that's begun to change, with Defense Secretary William Cohen himself repudiating the obsolete ABM treaty. But, as usual with the Clinton administration, it's one step forward and two steps back. President Clinton himself proposed delaying deployment of missile defenses until 2005, long after he is out of office. And his State Department backtracked as well, saying we would deploy only what Russia would agree to under an amended treaty. As Mr. Krauthammer sarcastically asked, "What standing does Russia, of all nations, have to dictate how and whether the United States will defend itself? Russia is the principal supplier to Iran of precisely the missile and nuclear technology that could one day turn New York into Hiroshima."."Defense Daily 2/5/99 Sheila Foote ".President Clinton is threatening a veto of national missile defense legislation (S. 257) sponsored by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) "because it suggests that our decision on deploying this system should be based solely on a determination that the system is `technologically possible.'" In a Feb. 3 letter to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), National Security Advisor Samuel Berger says that a decision based only on technological feasibility "would ignore other critical factors that the administration believes must be addressed when it considers the deployment question in 2000, including those that must be evaluated by the president as commander-in-chief." "We intend to base the deployment decision on an assessment of the technology (based on an initial series of rigorous flight tests) and the proposed system's operational effectiveness," Berger says. "In addition, the president and his senior advisors will need to confirm whether the rogue state ballistic missile threat to the United States has developed as quickly as we now expect, as well as the cost to deploy." Further, "a decision regarding NMD deployment must also be addressed within the context of the ABM Treaty and our objectives for achieving future reductions in strategic offensive arms through START II and III." ..Cochran said he is "disappointed" by the letter from Berger, but does not intend to change the text of his bill. Cochran has 53 cosponsors, an aide said, including Hawaii Democrat Sen. Daniel Inouye, the ranking member of the defense appropriations panel.."
FundRaising letter 2/18/99 Republican Majority Leader - Senator Trent Lott ". And I am terrified by the grave jeopardy our nation is in today due to Clinton/Gore policies that have put America in a dangerously vulnerable position. Consider these facts: * 35 non-NATO countries now have ballistic missile capabilities; * China alone has 13 nuclear missiles fully capable of reaching U. S. targets; and * North Korea is selling its missiles to Iraq and other terrorist states, and just tested a ballistic missile over Japan. And if Communist China or North Korea, Iraq, or Iran, or some rogue terrorist fires a missile at our nation tomorrow, we have no way to stop it. That's right. Any Third World dictator or insane terrorist who can get his hands on a ballistic missile can "point and shoot" it toward the United States, and be virtually guaranteed of killing thousands or millions of Americans with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Right now. Today. Because Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the Democrats in Congress shut down development of our missile defense system. And last fall the Democrat minority filibustered to death our Republican "American Missile Protection Act of 1998"... Whether he doesn't know or doesn't care, the result is the same. Americans could die - by the hundreds, the thousands, or the millions - because of deals he may have make with the Chinese; because he refuses to work with Republicans to implement a missile defense system; and because he cares more about using the military as a political tool and social policy testing ground than as the proudest and strongest fighting force in the World.."
U.S. House Policy Committee http://www.policy.gov/ 2/18/99 Freeper A Whitewater Rsearcher ".House Policy Chairman Christopher Cox called today for the West to seek "the strongest possible missile defenses" against emerging international missile threats. "The overarching characteristic of the coming century will be a rapid and dramatic increase in the ability of comparatively small or poor nations to threaten the vital interests of even the wealthiest and most powerful countries-like ours...In sum, the West has no realistic option but to seek a shield against these emerging threats."...Rep. Cox, in addition to being the highest-ranking Californian in the Congressional Leadership, is chairman of the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China. The Committee concluded in a classified report approved unanimously in December that technology transfers to the PRC harmed national security. A public version of the report is expected to be issued next month upon completion of the declassification process by the Administration.... "
Original Sources 2/25/99 Mary Mostert "... Legislation introduced by Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) committing the United States to deploy a national missile defense system cleared its first hurdle in Congress today. Weldon's legislation, one of the top ten legislative priorities for the House Republican leadership, was approved today by the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 50 to 3. The legislation states simply 'that it is the official policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense' and will be voted on by the full House in March. "Hostile countries like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are all aggressively pursuing the missile capability to strike American cities," stated Congressman Curt Weldon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's Research and Development Subcommittee. "Last month, CIA Director George Tenet announced that North Korea has recently developed missiles that can hit our families and a report issued last summer found that Iran may obtain that capability within the next five years. Americans are in danger today, and we need a defense now." "A recent poll found that an overwhelming 73 percent of Americans did not know that America lacked the ability to destroy even a single incoming ballistic missile fired on the United States," stated Weldon. "The American people expect their leaders to provide for their protection and defense. Up until now, we have failed them." "But while our potential enemies have grown stronger, the Clinton Administration has dithered, refusing to make any commitment to deploy a national missile defense to protect our families," said Weldon...."
National Review 2/22/99 Jeane Kirkpatrick ".A GOOD many Americans still have trouble understanding why the United States needs a missile defense-this despite the only slightly veiled threat made by a Chinese general during the Taiwan Straits crisis in 1996 to bomb Los Angeles. Since then the reach and accuracy of China's missiles have increased, with the help of generous infusions of advanced U.S. missile technology. At the end of January, news surfaced that the Chinese army had conducted exercises against Taiwan and--most remarkably--U.S. troops in the area. Reluctant to face, much less to publicize, China's new posture and power, the Clinton administration is said to be delaying a report to Congress on these developments... Nor is China the only power in the region breaking through to the production of long-range ballistic missiles. Since summer, North Korea has tested weapons capable of reaching Taipei, Tokyo, Alaska, Hawaii, and other U.S. bases in the Pacific.. In Iran, the long-range missile Shihab 3 was flight-tested last summer, and development is moving ahead on a still-longer-range missile, the Shihab 4. To its credit, the Clinton administration has worked hard to prevent Russia from aiding Iran's progress in missile technology and guidance systems. But this effort has failed. The administration has failed, too, in Iraq, which like North Korea has broken commitments to permit inspection. No one should have forgotten that inspections after the Gulf War revealed Iraq to be much closer-- dangerously closer--to production of a nuclear missile than the world had suspected. So too, India and Pakistan have established themselves as members of the nuclear club. The bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission issued a report that details these developments (one version of which is unclassified). Obviously, Americans cannot entrust their future to arms-control efforts such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, conceived in 1968... Today, it makes no sense at all to grant Russia a veto over our capacity to defend ourselves. We should give notice and withdraw from the treaty. Without a national and theater missile defense, we are without protection from weapons of mass destruction targeting our cities and blackmailing our policymakers and allies. No president has the right to ignore the common defense...
National Review 2/22/99 Bill Gertz ".Since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has undertaken a systematic program that must be described as anti-anti-missile defense. Despite promising to build defenses against short-range missile attacks as soon as possible, President Clinton and his senior national-security officials have adopted a policy of delay and obfuscation intended to maintain the defenseless status quo. And it is not clear even now--in the wake of the administration's calls to renegotiate the ABM Treaty--that it is truly willing to abandon its arms-control orthodoxy.. The architect of Clinton's anti-anti-missile defense policy is Robert Bell, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee under Sam Nunn.. Bell joined the White House National Security Council staff in 1993 and at once carried out a major "review" of missile defense with the underlying goal of preserving the ABM Treaty. This review led to a secret directive signed by Clinton in 1993 that affirmed the treaty as the basis for U.S. missile defenses (such as they were) and strategic relations with Russia. The directive said that the United States would not deploy national missile defenses outside the ABM Treaty--which limits those defenses to a single site with 100 interceptors, a stricture that makes it virtually impossible to defend the entire United States against even a small attack. Clinton also agreed to add to the treaty four former Soviet republics that possessed nuclear weapons: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan..The CIA quickly figured out the method in the Russians' delaying tactics. In May 1996 a National Reconnaissance Office satellite snapped photographs from space of a Russian manufacturing plant at Verkhnaya Salda, about 650 miles southeast of Moscow. The photos showed that Russia had restarted large-scale production of SA-12 air-defense systems, and included images of at least 38 SA-12 missile systems being produced at the factory. The SA-12 can shoot down short-range missiles. .."
National Review 2/22/99 Bill Gertz ".President Clinton's handling of national missile defense--systems explicitly designed to knock out incoming long-range missiles--is just as discouraging. On several occasions in the 1990s he vetoed or used his Democratic allies in Congress to filibuster and defeat legislation calling for deployment of a limited missile defense against long-range attack. The White House insisted that a multi-billion "research" program without a definite deployment plan was the only policy it would follow. Yet in 1997 Pentagon documents revealed that the so-called National Missile Defense program was underfunded by an astonishing 100 percent--a discovery that was made by the same Pentagon officials who had been running the program for two years.. A single testing failure of a target missile in 1997 set back the program for an entire year. The reason: The Pentagon did not think to produce a back-up test missile in case the test failed. Civilian defense officials could provide no explanation when Congress demanded one. But the reason seemed clear enough: Without the support of the most senior administration officials, the program had languished. ..Cohen also announced that the administration's 1996 plan to develop a system in three years and then decide whether to deploy it in three years more was "a rush to failure," something no one bothered to mention when the plan was announced. Cohen said the three-plus-three plan would now become three-plus-five, with the earliest possible deployment slipping from 2003 to 2005. So the administration (or at least part of it) now acknowledges that the threat is real--but the president's response is further to delay deployment. ..The administration now says it will begin discussions with the Russians on modifying the ABM Treaty to allow for modest defense against long-range missiles, talks that will likely prove as fruitless as the negotiations on theater missile defenses. When asked what will happen if the treaty cannot be renegotiated, Cohen said, "Then we have the option of . . . indicating we would simply pull out of the treaty." For arms controllers like Bell, who have an almost theological devotion to the ABM Treaty, the defense secretary had committed a heresy, prompting Bell to hold a press conference the next day to repeat what national security advisor Samuel R. Berger had said only a week before Cohen's announcement: "We remain strongly committed to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty." The administration continues to argue that without the treaty there is the risk of a new arms race with Russia. I asked assistant defense secretary Ted Warner if he honestly believed Russia can afford an arms race, given that its economy is on the verge of collapse. He said, "Well, no, not right now," but perhaps in the future.."
Center for Security Policy 9/1/98 "In a recent interview, the Chairman of the House National Security Committee, Rep. Floyd Spence (R-SC) declared with palpable frustration: "The first warning you have of a heart attack is a heart attack....And that's the way it is [with the missile threat]. The [Clinton] Administration's response to all this is that we are working on [an anti-missile] system and we are going to experiment for about three years. And if the threat arises, we will decide at that time whether or not to deploy. My God, the threat is right now here, this minute, this moment, not some time in the future. And they refuse to make that commitment to deploy"."
AP Tom Raum 9/9/98 "A renewed Republican push to speed work on a national missile defense system faltered by a single vote in the Senate Wednesday. The 59-41 vote fell one short of the 60 needed to overcome Democratic opposition and move ahead with debate on the legislation. Even though Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., had made the bill a top part of his 1998 agenda, the vote was identical to one last May It was an election-year effort by Republicans to vent their frustrations with Clinton administration national-security policies.."
Washington Times 2/28/99 Curt Weldon Freeper Stand Watch Listen "…Amazingly, we in the United States have failed to learn from our mistakes. Eight years later, we have still not completed development of highly effective theater missile defense systems to protect our troops overseas. Instead, the Clinton administration continues to hamper these programs with inadequate funding and testing programs. The bottom line? With only modifications to the limited range Patriot system in place, most of our troops are no safer from the threat of missile attack than they were during the Persian Gulf war.....Contrary to the belief of the majority of Americans, the United States does not have the capability to shoot down even a single missile launched on one of our cities. Instead, the Clinton administration believes the threat of retaliation will dissuade any nation that would dare launch a missile attack on an American citizen…."
U.S. News & World Report 3/8/99 Michael Barone "…Bill Clinton likes to say that no Russian missiles are targeted at the United States. But we have every reason to believe that there are, or soon will be, North Korean missiles targeted at this country--missiles capable of delivering nuclear or chemical and biological warheads. In a few years, and without much warning, Iranian and Iraqi missiles could also be targeted at us and our allies. What can we do to stop such missiles once they are launched? Not a thing. None of this was clear eight months ago; it is undeniable now. The question is whether our government will build a missile defense system to protect our cities, military bases, and oil fields--and to block the kind of nuclear blackmail suggested by China's threat, during the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1996, to bomb Los Angeles. A full warning came from the report last July of the commission on missile threats headed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This was a bipartisan commission, with members who have often disagreed on weapons issues. The panel had access to all U.S. intelligence sources, and its conclusion was unanimous: Rogue states could "inflict major destruction on the U.S." within five years of deciding to do so, and with little or no notice to us…."
Defense Week 3/1/99 John Donnelly Freeper Stand Watch Listen "…There is "little doubt" a new ballistic-missile threat to the U.S. will emerge by 2000, the director of the Pentagon’s missile-defense agency said in the most specific official reference yet to how soon such a capability could materialize. ....A commission chaired by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld last July said a "rogue state" could develop an ICBM within five years of a decision to do so. Until now, the most specific statement about when such a threat to U.S. territory could be realized was Lyles’ statement last month that the ICBM threat would emerge "in the next couple of years."…"
Center for Security Policy 3/03/99 No. 99-D 28 "…On 20 January, a top Clinton Administration official for the first time acknowledged what has become increasingly obvious to all but the most unreconstructed arms control ideologues. At a Pentagon briefing, Secretary of Defense William Cohen confirmed that there is an imminent ballistic missile danger to this country. He then told the American people that they would have to have a limited national missile defenses (NMD) to protect them against such a threat.(1) Secretary Cohen even went so far as to indicate that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty would have to be changed in order to permit this defensive deployment. In response to a question, he averred that, if the Russians refused to agree to make such changes, the United States could always withdraw from that Treaty. Within hours, however, Mr. Cohen had been effectively repudiated on all three scores. On the record and not-for-attribution comments by, among others, the President's National Security Advisor, Samuel Berger, by one of his senior subordinates, Robert Bell, and by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made clear that the Secretary of Defense had deviated from the Administration's abiding party line on missile defense…. In other words, if left to its own devices, hell will experience a cold day before the Clinton Administration fields anything to protect the American people against ballistic missile attack. Although largely obscured by the press interest expressed in Secretary Cohen's apostasy about deploying anti-missile systems, the practical upshot of the programmatic actions the Administration is taking in this area will be to postpone by years the availability of ballistic missile defenses and to diminish the capability of any that might ultimately be deployed…."
Reuters 3/5/99 "…President Clinton vowed Friday the United States will not abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty despite U.S. plans for a missile defense system. The Clinton administration has pledged $6.6 billion for development of a missile defense system in its fiscal 2000 budget, but would delay a presidential decision on building one until June 2000. Clinton said researching a missile defense does not violate the 1972 ABM treaty with the Soviet Union that limits both sides' ability to deploy anti-missile systems. Russia says it will not carry out strategic arms cuts unless the ABM Treaty is observed….. "
Washington Weekly 3/8/99 Robert Stowe England "…The Clinton Administration consistently opposed developing a limited missile defense system until last summer. An official national intelligence estimate prepared a few years ago by the CIA claimed the ability of states like North Korea to develop and deploy ICBM's was 10 to 15 years away. The CIA projection did not go over well in Congress. "Based on my classified briefings I said [at the time] that the report had been politicized. And that it really didn't look at the possibility of proliferation affecting nations who could build capabilities very quickly," Weldon recalls. Congressional doubts led to two independent reviews. "One, we asked the [General Accounting Office] to do an analysis of the CIA report. They agreed that it was faulty," Weldon says. Then Congress authorized a bipartisan blue ribbon panel to look at the emerging security threats from around the world. Headed by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the commission unanimously delivered a report last July that indicated that the emerging missile threat form rogue states was more imminent than previously claimed by the CIA. "Both Democrat and Republican appointees agreed that the threat is here now," says Weldon. …"
Washington Weekly 3/8/99 Marvin Lee "…America is defenseless against a missile attack from rogue nations that may recently have acquired the technology from China with the help of the Clinton Administration. Who is to blame for this national security disaster? Last Friday, Clinton said that doing research on a missile defense system would not be a violation of the ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union that his Administration is trying to uphold. Well, if that is the case, then why did his Administration early on cut exactly such research beyond the bone? So vehement and emotional has the opposition of liberal Democrats to missile defense (originally proposed by Ronald Reagan) been that it cut even the development of theater-based missile defense to protect our troops in the battlefield. The result of such irresponsible national security policy is that we are now years away from developing and deploying any national missile defense…."
US News Online 3/8/99 Michael Barone "…Bill Clinton likes to say that no Russian missiles are targeted at the United States. But we have every reason to believe that there are, or soon will be, North Korean missiles targeted at this country–missiles capable of delivering nuclear or chemical and biological warheads. In a few years, and without much warning, Iranian and Iraqi missiles could also be targeted at us and our allies. What can we do to stop such missiles once they are launched? Not a thing. None of this was clear eight months ago; it is undeniable now. The question is whether our government will build a missile defense system to protect our cities, military bases, and oil fields–and to block the kind of nuclear blackmail suggested by China's threat, during the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1996, to bomb Los Angeles… A new world. The case against rapid deployment rests on three arguments: (1) the threat isn't real, (2) the technology is impossible, (3) it is more important to maintain the antiballistic missile treaty signed with the Soviet Union in 1972, which bars most missile defense systems. The Rumsfeld report demolished argument 1. Argument 2 is still raised by some who note that we have spent large sums on missile defense since Ronald Reagan proposed it in 1983, with disappointing results. But stopping a few rogue-state missiles with the computers of 1999 is much easier than stopping hundreds of Soviet missiles with the computers of 1983. As for argument 3, the strategic environment in which the ABM treaty was adopted no longer exists. The argument for the treaty was that a missile defense system might provoke a Soviet or American first strike. But the proximate missile threats now come from states that might risk such a strike. The Clinton administration is split on missile defense. The president has called for more spending but a later date for possible deployment–a typical Clintonesque straddle…."
China Peoples Daily 2/12/99 Chinese Communist Party "…The US missile defense system (MDS) aims to render other nations' missile ineffective. It is a threat to other nations rather than for US self-defense….The United States has the biggest and most advanced nuclear and conventional weapon arsenals in the world. It will acquire a strategic position of averting missile attacks through the MDS….This will definitely break the existing world military and political balance and lead to a new arms race, which will yield serious side-effects on world peace and stability. …The US-Russian relationship is at the lowest point since 1991 due to the two nations' divergence over Iraqi and Kosovo issues. Someone worry that the MDS might resume Cold War, which is not uncalled-for….The United States has asked Japan and other nations to participate in the development of TMD. Some forces even attempt to include China's Taiwan into this system…"
NewsMax 3/12/99 Christopher Ruddy "…US DETROYS NUCLEAR ARSENAL, RUSSIAN ARSENAL EXPANDS Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been systematically destroying its nuclear arsenal. In 1991, the US had approximately 30,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Under Clinton, that arsenal has fallen nearly 60%. In 1997, the United States had only 12,500 (tactical and strategic) nuclear weapons. Of these, only 8,750 were active, 2500 more were on reserve, and 1,250 were slated to be destroyed. Moreover, our nuclear arsenal has a limited "shelf life," and year by year, more and more weapons become unusable. The Clinton administration has only recently taken belated steps to produce tritium, a necessary component for the maintenance of nuclear weapons. In contrast, the Russians may now have as many as 50,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons -- ranging from small suitcase bombs to large warheads suitable for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM's). The lion's share of these weapons remain targeted at the US. And Russia is quickly building even more weapons. Never before has the strategic nuclear balance been so greatly in Russia's favor…."
Chicago Tribune 3/11/99 Michael Kilian "…A group of 14 Reagan and Bush administration defense officials on Wednesday urged President Clinton to shelve his proposal for a land-based "Star Wars" type of national missile defense shield and push ahead with a cheaper, faster, sea-borne Navy system instead. They also called on Clinton to scrap, revise or ignore the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with the Russians, calling it the biggest obstacle to development of a workable U.S. defense against the growing threat of missile attack from rogue nations. An intense fight over the anti-missile defense is expected in Congress, where support is strong for giving the issue top national-security priority. Outlining their views in a report commissioned by the conservative Heritage Foundation, Henry Cooper, former head of the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") program, and the other defense experts claimed that Clinton's proposed land-based missile defense plan would leave the U.S. vulnerable to hostile missiles until at least 2005, if not longer, while the Navy plan could have protection in place in three years. "The only thing standing in the way of this affordable, effective and responsible (Navy) system to defend the United States is political will," the group said in the report. "The Clinton administration and Congress can end our vulnerability to attack, and they can do it for less than we spend in two years on the air traffic control system." …"
Drudge 3/14/99 "…The NEW YORK TIMES on Monday is set to report that China now has "roughly 20 nuclear missiles that can reach American shores, and perhaps 300 nuclear weapons that, aboard medium-range missiles or bombers, could hit Japan, India or Russia. "China has deployed five to seven of its longest-range missiles, called the DF-5, that can hit virtually any part of the United States. An additional dozen or so missiles, the DF-4, can reach the West Coast…The duo report that China currently has only one nuclear-equipped submarine, with 12 missiles that have a range of 1,100 miles. The sub's seaworthiness has long been doubted by intelligence experts, and it does not threaten the American mainland…"
South China Morning Post 3/12/99 Freeper Copycat "…Beijing confirmed yesterday that it had held talks with Russia on the US plan to create a theatre missile defence (TMD) system to protect its troops and allies in Asia. Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao said: "Both China and Russia have expressed their respective stands on the issue of TMD." Mr Zhu did not say where and when the talks were held or who was involved. The Japanese news agency Kyodo, quoting an unnamed Russian government source, said on Wednesday that security experts from the foreign and defence ministries of China and Russia had met every two months to exchange information about the anti-missile system. The talks began late last year at China's request, and the two sides would likely end up deciding on a united approach, possibly jointly asking that the US and Japan terminate development of the programme, the source said…."
New York Times 3/15/99 David Sanger Erik Eckholm "…It is a bare-bones arsenal compared with the thousands of warheads still maintained by the United States and Russia…. Despite continuing evidence of Chinese espionage abroad, most experts doubt that China intends to fundamentally change its largely defensive nuclear strategy or that it will try to alter the imbalance of weapons with the United States. But many experts outside the U. S. government -- including some who have talked at length with Chinese leaders and military officials -- say Beijing is clearly seeking to modernize its nuclear forces, with a 10-year plan to make them more accurate, easier to launch and far less vulnerable to attack than they are today. And it is hoping to use high technology to offset its outmoded conventional forces…. "With or without the W-88 warheads, China today is able to threaten the United States," William J. Perry, the former defense secretary, said last week in Washington, just after returning from a visit to China where he spent time with military leaders and China's president, Jiang Zemin. "You have to anticipate that ability will improve in coming years. They will evolve into a more global force. The challenge is how do we manage that?" …"
Associated Press 3/15/99 Tom Raum Freeper Brian Mosely "…Sixteen years after President Reagan called for a national missile defense shield, both houses of Congress are moving toward approval this week of legislation to commit the United States to such a system…."
Newsday 3/15/99 Roy Gutman "…The Republican-controlled Congress, in another test of strength against President Clinton, will attempt to force the administration to speed up deployment of a controversial missile defense. Clinton opposes bills that will come before the Senate today and the House later in the week, but proponents say the legislation has a good chance of passage…."
Washington Times 3/17/99 Bill Gertz Freeper Jolly "…Legislation calling for deployment of a national missile defense moved closer to final passage yesterday after President Clinton dropped a threat to veto the bill…."
Dallas Morning News 3/17/99 New York Times News Service "…The White House and Senate Democrats abandoned their long-standing opposition on Tuesday to a politically popular bill that calls for a national defense against limited long-range missile attacks. The actions all but assure overwhelming approval of the overall bill, which declares it to be U.S. policy to field an anti-missile system against ballistic missile threats as soon as "technologically possible." The administration dropped its threatened veto by President Clinton after the Senate passed a compromise amendment that Democrats say ensures that any anti-missile system will not interfere with arms-control negotiations with Russia…."
New York Times 3/18/99 John Broder "… The Clinton White House seldom lets a popular parade pass by without leaping to the front, or at least latching onto the last carriage. In years past, President Clinton was a late but fervent convert to Republican crusades on the balanced budget, IRS abuses and a federal law discouraging same-sex marriages. Clinton has once again joined a popular cause, this time national missile defense, the latest version of the much-derided "Star Wars" anti-missile program of the Reagan era. Clinton added $6.6 billion for missile defense to his Pentagon budget request in January and this week dropped his opposition to a bill he had threatened to veto. Clinton on Tuesday abruptly withdrew his objections to a Republican-sponsored Senate bill calling for the development of a limited missile defense system. He did so after Democrats drafted two face-saving amendments that allowed the White House to assert that the bill would not jeopardize arms deals with Russia or commit the United States to building an untested system…."
http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpwh0r.htm 3/18/99 Freeper Thanatos "…Russia and China on Thursday criticized the Senate's approval of a U.S. anti-missile defense system, saying the move would threaten the globe's strategic balance. The bill overwhelmingly approved by the Senate on Wednesday commits the Pentagon to building a national defense against limited ballistic missile attack ``as soon as technologically possible.'' ``That poses a serious threat to the whole process of nuclear arms control, as well as strategic stability, for which major international agreements have been worked out for decades,'' the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement…."
BBC 3/19/99 "…Representatives and Senate both supported the bill Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov has described the US Congress decision to resume development work on a national missile defence system as an "unpleasant surprise". Mr Primakov said in a US television interview that reviving the project - nicknamed Star Wars - would be in breach of an international weapons control treaty. "I don't believe we need to get involved in another race ... or bring back the infamous Star Wars," Mr Primakov told NBC Nightly News. China has also expressed "serious concern" over the vote, fearing similar technology could be used to forge a defence umbrella in Asia. The Star Wars project was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan 16 years ago, but it was abandoned because it was too costly and too complex to develop. But now the Congress has said the US must implement some kind of missile defence system as soon as possible…"
Wall Street Journal 3/29/99 "…Serb strongman Slobodan Milosevic has the technology to build a modern air defense, and the brutality to conduct what increasingly looks like genocide in Kosovo. It seems, thankfully, that he does not have advanced missile and nuclear programs. The North Koreans and Iraqis, among others, do.With overwhelming votes in the Congress and the White House dropping its veto threat, it is finally U.S. policy to defend itself from ballistic missile attack. The next question is how best to do it…..The race to build a national missile defense is in some real sense a race against time. Two-dozen countries already have or are building ballistic missiles and there's a burgeoning export trade, not to mention spy trade, in missile parts. As the Rumsfeld Commission pointed out, we're likely to have little warning of an attack; it's an easy matter for a determined missile-maker to conceal his work from U.S. satellites and intelligence. One of the first objectives, then, is speed. Get something up there fast -- before a Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il decides to test his missiles on Los Angeles…Ultimately, an effective national missile defense will surely be a "layered" defense: on land, on sea and in space. The Heritage commission has made a strong case for deploying the Aegis option first, but that doesn't mean forgoing research into other systems….. At last week's conference, Dr. Kissinger said, "I cannot imagine what an American President would say to the American public if there was an attack and he had done nothing to prevent it." If the U.S. doesn't renounce this [ABM] treaty, a President may yet get that awful assignment in some future Kosovo…."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Bill Gertz 3/26/99 Freeper Patriot "…The State Department is quietly informing overseas embassies that, despite Senate approval of a bill to establish a national missile defense, the administration does not have to deploy such a system. Two amendments added to the Senate bill last week prompted President Clinton to drop his veto threat and offer the administration a loophole to avoid deployment, according to an internal State Department cable obtained by The Washington Times…."
Claremont Institute 3/99 Brian T Kennedy "…the White House is working behind the scenes to ensure that missile defense won't be "technologically possible" for at least a decade……In this case, it's important to look past the public proclamations. Which brings us to the Space Based Infrared System, or SBIRS-Low for short. SBIRS-Low is a proposed constellation of 24 satellites that will employ infrared technology to pick up the heat signature of ballistic missiles upon their launch, track these missiles throughout their flight, and transmit data to whatever land- or sea-based anti-missile system the U.S decides to deploy. SBIRS-Low is the heart of any U.S. missile defense system, from the simplest--such as using our current fleet of Navy Aegis cruisers to launch anti-missile interceptors--to the most advanced space-based lasers. This includes any theater defense we could deploy to defend our troops abroad or our allies such as Taiwan and Japan. Even the missile defense system Israel is building depends for its success on SBIRS-Low. Without SBIRS-Low, the only missile-detection and tracking system currently being researched, any other advances in missile-defense technology will be worthless. On February 4, just two weeks after Secretary Cohen's announcement of a pro-missile defense policy, the Air Force cancelled its contracts with TRW Inc. and the Boeing Corp. for two SBIRS-Low demonstration projects. The reason for these cancellations, according to Aviation Week and Space Technology, was to "avoid cost-and-schedule impacts on the SBIRS-Low constellation." But this is nonsense. In fact, Boeing and TRW will be paid the lion's share of the contracts anyway, including the portion that covered the cancelled demonstration projects. And even prior to canceling the contracts, the Air Force moved back the proposed launch date for any part of the main SBIRS-Low constellation from 2004 to 2006. The excuse was that there was too much "technical risk" involved in launching at the earlier date. But how, one wonders, does the Air Force plan to avoid "technical risk" without demonstration projects? Right now, any further contracts for research and development of the SBIRS-Low program have been put on hold. And this looks more than anything like the tactic the Clinton administration will use to block missile defense surreptitiously, while publicly embracing missile defense to defuse it as a political issue…."
http://www.nando.net/noframes/story/0,2107,38448-61951-449966-0,00.html 4/14/99 Nando Media Freeper Thanatos "...Russia and China on Wednesday warned of a new arms race if the United States goes ahead with plans to develop a nationwide system to defend agai nst a limited missile attack. The U.S. Senate recently approved a bill calling for construction of the defense system "as soon as technologically possible." The Americans have grown concerned about the possibility of attack from countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Russian politicians have been unanimous in assailing the U.S. plan to develop anti-missile defenses, saying the move would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Moscow strongly opposes U.S. proposals to amend the treaty to allow for limited miss ile defenses...."
The Heritage Foundation 4/8/99 Thomas Moore "... The Clinton Administration's antipathy toward anti-missile protection for the American people apparently runs so deep that it soon may reject the most significant national missile defense (NMD) legislation put forth in recent years. In the face of overwhelming public and congressional support for this legislation, however, President Bill Clinton and his national security advisers are attempting to distort its meaning and nullify it by presidential decree rather than employ the veto, which is the proper way for a President to block legislation he opposes..... Despite the overwhelming show of sentiment in Congress for deploying a NMD, the Clinton Administration continues to oppose the legislation. On March 19, the White House sent a confusing cable to U.S. embassies informing diplomats that the two amendments added to the Senate bill meant "no deployment decision has been made" even if the Senate version became the primary source of the bill--which is the likely outcome of the House-Senate conference....Under the plain meaning of [S. 257], the United States would commit to deploy a national missile defense.... Now we learn that the Administration is telling foreign governments that those words do not mean what they obviously mean. ..... "
Washington Weekly 5/2/99 RICKI MAGNUSSEN AND MARVIN LEE "...QUESTION: But there has been some concern that the most important parts of the Cox report would be redacted before release. TIMPERLAKE: But my argument is that it's so bad that we can assume the worst, regardless. They can redact everything but honest credible journalists can no longer give the benefit of the doubt to the President of The United States. He's a known liar! There's no longer any excuse for any spin. It's too serious for that. This transcends Republicans or Democrats, this goes to the heart of the next century. So the worst case has to be assumed. It can be redacted but who cares. Regardless of how much they redact, the worst has already happened and it happened because of Bill Clinton. It's already to late. We now have to break the conspiracy and hope that we can move to the new generation of missiles like missile defense, new strategic weapons on the drawing board that may protect us, but we are not there yet so we really have to ring the alarm bell. I wouldn't speak like this if I didn't truly believe it. I don't want to scare America, but right now it's a wake up call and the fire bell is ringing. There's a fire right now and the fire is that all our nuclear secrets are open to the rogue nations and The People's Republic of China. ..."
Reuters 5/11/99 "...Russia and China lashed out Tuesday at U.S. plans to deploy a national anti-missile defense system, saying it would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and set off an arms race in space. Ambassadors Vasily Sidorov of Russia and China's Li Changhe also denounced NATO's missile attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last Friday, which killed three people. They were addressing the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, whose 61 member states opened their second 10-week session of 1999 in Geneva. U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Grey did not take the floor to respond to the attacks. .... Regarding the ABM treaty, Russian and Chinese officials expressed concern last month after joint talks in Moscow about U.S. plans to deploy a Star Wars-type missile defense umbrella. Russia says the scheme would force changes to the 1972 ABM treaty, which limits Russian and U.S. ability to deploy anti-missile systems. It would be land-based but probably use space sensors to provide early warning of enemy or accidental launches....."
NY Times 5/13/99 JAMES RISEN and JEFF GERTH "..."The DF-31 ICBM will give China a major strike capability that will be difficult to counterattack at any stage of its operation," a 1996 Air Force intelligence report on the DF-31 stated. "It will be a significant threat not only to U.S. forces deployed in the Pacific theater, but to portions of the continental United States and to many of our allies." Some United States officials say the new Chinese weapon will use design technology from the American W-70 warhead, a small bomb designed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California in the 1970's. China stole secret design information about the W-70 from Lawrence Livermore in the late 1970's or early 1980's, Government investigators believe. A scientist was fired from Lawrence Livermore in 1981 in connection with the investigation into the suspected theft, but no one has ever been arrested in the case. The F.B.I. said it did not have evidence to bring charges in the case....The W-70 warhead is also known as the neutron bomb, a weapon that kills people with enhanced radiation while leaving buildings intact. But its "primary" can be used in other, conventional nuclear weapons as well...... Despite the debate, the broad conclusion that the DF-31 will come equipped with a warhead that uses stolen American technology is included in two new secret Government reports, officials said. Part of one report from a select House committee is soon to be made public. The other report is the result of a Government-wide intelligence assessment of the damage done to United States national security by Chinese nuclear espionage, according to officials. That Government-wide assessment, however, acknowledges the uncertainty..... Once the DF-31 and other advanced missiles are deployed, China is expected to begin to phase out its older and less accurate ballistic missiles. "The DF-31 ICBM will give China a major strike capability that will be difficult to counterattack at any stage of its operation, from preflight mobile operations through the terminal flight phase," the 1996 Air Force intelligence report predicted. The "road mobility" of the DF-31, the report adds, "will greatly improve Chinese nuclear ballistic missile survivability and will complicate the task of defeating the Chinese threat."
Washington Times 5/17/99 Bill Gertz Excerpts from Betrayal "...Clinton administration efforts to defend the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty at all costs led to the death of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) -- the revolutionary concept of shifting from reliance on mutual offensive nuclear annihilation to a strategic defense against long-range missiles. For the administration, even theoretical or potential violations of the treaty could not be tolerated. Preserving the pact was more important than building defenses that could defend American troops or cities.....On Sept. 9, 1998, the Senate failed by a single vote to end a Democratic filibuster that blocked legislation calling for deployment of a national missile defense capable of hitting and destroying incoming missiles like the Taepo Dong. .... But all Mr. Biden had done was to revive the Cold War doctrine of mutual assured destruction, a doctrine irrelevant in confronting rogue states like North Korea. Several months after the test launch of the Taepo Dong, the Pentagon was shocked by new intelligence indicating China and its scientists were helping North Korea develop space launchers and satellites. The White House again ignored the danger, signaled by the National Security Agency's interception of communications between China and North Korea about the collaboration. The Pentagon, however, was not fooled. Satellite and space technology is virtually identical to the know-how needed to build long-range missiles and warheads. "I think the Chinese are helping them with the missile program, not just with satellites," a senior Defense Department official said. "The two are so closely intertwined, there is no way you can separate them." About a month before the Taepo Dong test, Iran had test-fired its first medium-range missile, the Shahab-3, which could travel 800 miles. And Pakistan had test-fired a medium-range missile that had come off-the-shelf from North Korea. By the end of 1998, the danger became too great for the president to continue to ignore.......In January, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen announced that the Pentagon would begin budgeting, but not actually spending, $6.6 billion over six years to deploy a national missile defense. For the first time, the Pentagon admitted it was wrong to think no threat of long-range missiles would emerge until 2010....... In March, Congress endorsed Mr. Weldon's stance when both the House and the Senate passed a bill declaring it U.S. policy to deploy a national missile defense. The bill won wide bipartisan support, so much so that the president could not veto it. Nevertheless, in private the White House remained opposed to deployment. In President Clinton's view, having an agreement limiting arms takes precedence over building systems to defend the nation against long-range missiles --whether from rogue states like North Korea and Iran or from nuclear powers like Russia or China...."
Philadelphia Inquirer 5/20/99 "...China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, North Korea and Israel have now built missiles that can deliver biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Others will follow. As Bracken explains, this is changing the global security equation in ways our leaders haven't begun to think through. We got a glimpse of this new world during the gulf war, when Iraq hit Israel with Scud missiles, and could have put biological bombs atop them had Saddam dared. Near that war's end, intelligence reports suggested that Saddam would have used such weapons on Israeli civilians and U.S. bases if we marched to Baghdad. Maybe that explains why he's still around. The pattern since has been clear. North Korea shot a test missile over Japan. China has tested missiles near Taiwan. India and Pakistan have not only detonated their own nuclear bombs, but keep testing better missiles that can strike deep into each other's territory. Bracken argues that missiles and "weapons of mass destruction" (the umbrella phrase for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons) are "disruptive technologies." Just as Microsoft outflanked slow-moving IBM by competing with software, not hardware, so too have missiles changed the rules of the geopolitical game...."
WallSt. Journal 5/25/99 Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington "...Far more important, neither response even begins to address the threat the U.S. and its Asian allies will face if only half the Cox report's findings are true: a China that in 10 years could wield sufficient strategic clout to marginalize U.S. forces in Asia, intimidate our allies there, and propel Japan, Taiwan and South Korea into an arms rivalry with Beijing that would be sure to go nuclear and ballistic. Why is this likely? Right now China has no more than 20 nuclear warheads that can reach the U.S. and no more than 400 that can threaten Beijing's neighbors. Those that target the U.S. are on highly inaccurate intercontinental-range missiles, missiles that are so large and slow they make ideal ground targets and easy pickings for planned U.S. national missile defenses. A large portion of the remaining warheads can only be delivered by bombers, all of which are sitting targets on the ground and in the air. Because these forces have not grown much in the past decade, some have insisted that China has no interest in amassing an offensive force, only a retaliatory one against Russia, the U.S. and, lately, India. What the Cox report makes clear is that it would be a mistake to bank on this in the next century...... The bottom line: By 2009 the Chinese threat against the U.S. may no longer consist of a few slow-flying, vulnerable missiles. Instead we may have to face hundreds of accurate, fast-flying, and hard-to-intercept warheads and China's neighbors may face thousands. This is not a threat that firing an attorney general or national security adviser will avert. Nor will tightening security at the national laboratories or monitoring U.S. exports of sensitive technology to China have any significant effect. As the Cox report has made clear, most of the technology China needs to deploy the forces noted above it has already acquired...."
Washington Post 5/26/99 Walter Pincus "...The Cox committee recognizes that China up to now has followed a strategic policy of deterrence, which means it has maintained a small nuclear force, but one that could inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy in a retaliatory strike. The roughly 10 strategic ICBMs aimed at the United States, for example, have thermonuclear warheads in the megaton -- or 1 million tons of TNT -- range that could destroy any American city. However, the panel hypothesizes that China in the future could change its strategy, deploy many more than the 100 intercontinental missiles than currently estimated, build multiple warheads for each one and finally, "develop an early warning system in order to support a launch-on-warning posture." That is the strategy by which a country that believes itself under attack launches its missiles before they can be destroyed by incoming missiles....The report also suggests that Chinese strategy might change so radically that it would be the first country to prepare to use a nuclear weapon against invaders on its own territory. The panel cites the neutron warhead, designed to kill opposing forces without the widespread material damage caused by other nuclear weapons, the design for which it said China stole in the late 1970s...."
5/27/99 scmp "...China is gearing up to test an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of more than 8,000km this year, military sources in Beijing said yesterday. Preparations have started to test the sea-to-surface Julang-2 (JL-2) missile in the coming months, they said. The JL-2 is the successor to the JL-1 successfully tested from submarines, including the Xia, the navy's only nuclear-fuelled submarine, in the 1980s. China is hoping the JL-2 will be operational from next year. It would carry either one warhead of 2.5 megatonnes or three 90 kilotonne warheads...."
Center for Security Policy 5/26/99 "...The Senate Foreign Relations Committee took testimony today concerning one of the most important national security issues of our time -- the Nation's abject vulnerability to ballistic missile attack -- from one of this era's most influential policy practitioners, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger.... "I do not believe [the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)] could work in a world of many nuclear powers." The continued observance of the 1972 ABM Treaty has been a "deliberate policy choice." If the U.S. is attacked, "how could such a government explain to the American people" that we chose not to defend ourselves? It would be "difficult for any arms control system to reduce [potential damage from a nuclear exchange] to [levels] that are acceptable." Even if you could get to START III levels, that would still be "morally unbearable." "I cannot imagine what an American president would say to the American public if there should be an attack, and if he would have to explain that he did nothing to prevent or defeat the resulting catastrophe. I think the legitimacy of government would be threatened if such a condition existed." On the ABM Treaty "...the [ABM] Treaty was signed with an eye to an environment that simply does not exist today." The "ABM Treaty must not be allowed to stand in the way of national missile defense." "I am not in favor of attaching new significance to the ABM Treaty."...."I believe it is strategically and morally necessary to build a missile defense: strategically, because of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missile technology to deliver them; morally, because the doctrine of mutual assured destruction which I have opposed in my writings for at least thirty years, is bankrupt." "I believe that we should proceed with the development of the best technology for the defense of the United States." "I believe we should create a national missile defense as soon as it is possible to do so" with a system upon which there is a consensus..... Negotiations with Russia, on such issues as nuclear reductions, should not be permitted to postpone the decision to proceed with an anti-missile defense. "I am more concerned about third countries that I am about Russia." On the question of Developing only Theater Missile Defenses "[It] isn't natural for us to protect our allies more than ourselves." ..."
Center for Security Policy 5/26/99 "...This session was preceded by a no-less-noteworthy hearing held yesterday at which the Chairman of the Board of the Center for Security Policy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and other legal experts established that America is no longer legally bound to adhere to this expired treaty.....The Center for Security Policy takes particular pride in the appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday of Mr. Feith and George Miron, a highly regarded attorney who served previously in the Department of Justice in connection with a comprehensive analysis they prepared for the Center concerning the legal status of the ABM Treaty..... Messrs. Feith and Miron were joined at the witness table by David Rivkin and Lee Casey of the law firm of Hunton & Williams, who last year authored at the request of the Heritage Foundation a legal memorandum that arrived at similar conclusions. Specifically, both of these studies found that, in the absence of Senate advice and consent to any agreement that would give the ABM Treaty renewed legal standing (e.g., its approval of the "succession agreement" signed with Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in September 1997 -- an agreement that has yet to be submitted to the Senate), the Treaty legally can only be said to have been observed since 1991 as a matter of U.S. policy. As Mr. Feith stated at Tuesday's hearing, "When the USSR became extinct, its bilateral, non-dispositive treaties lapsed. Hence, the ABM Treaty lapsed by operation of law - that is, automatically - when the USSR dissolved in 1991. It did not become a treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation."(2) The practical conclusion that must then be drawn from these analyses, according to Mr. Feith, is that the Clinton Administration's Multilateralization Memorandum of Understanding "is not simply an amendment of an existing treaty, but a new treaty. If approved, it would create the ABM Treaty of 1999. If not approved, it would preserve the status quo - that is, there would continue to be no binding international agreement prohibiting the United States from deploying a defense against ballistic missiles." ....."
Investor's Business Daily 5/28/99 "....While most of the debate surrounding the Cox report focuses on the past, the real issue is what to do about the future. The report makes it very clear that America needs a ballistic missile defense system. The Clinton White House counterattack never takes long. The administration has been working for months preparing for the release of the congressional probe of Chinese espionage. The first line of defense noted that Chinese espionage began as far back as the Carter administration. But the difference between the Carter, Reagan and Bush presidencies is the fact that these presidents didn't know what was going on. Some members of their intelligence forces suspected Chinese espionage. In March, President Clinton claimed he didn't know anything about foreign spionage - despite kaffee klatsches at the White House with Chinese agents and Russian gangsters. We now know this is a lie..... But even if the Clinton administration were as ignorant of Chinese espionage as earlier White Houses, Clinton is guilty in this regard: He has opposed the Strategic Defense Initiative since he took office. Rather, he has opted for meaningless treaties such as Start II, a pact between the U.S. and the defunct Soviet Union that sets limits on nuclear weapons. The even more unrealistic Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty risks the effective testing of our weapons...."
Salon 5/28/99 David Horowitz "....On many occasions over the past few years, including innumerable campaign appearances and three State of the Union addresses, the president of the United States has looked the American people in the eye and assured them that because of his policies, "There are no more nuclear missiles pointed at any children in the United States." For President Clinton, the truth of this statement probably depends on what the meaning of "are" is. But for the rest of us, it is imperative that we recognize the president's statement for the dangerous lie that it is. The tiny shred of truth out of which Clinton has woven this politically useful lie is a meaningless, post-Cold War agreement between Russia and the United States to stop targeting one another's cities. But even if Russia's government were not in a state of near dissolution, the stark military reality is that U.S. intelligence services simply have no way of telling what targets Russia's leaders have actually chosen for their nuclear warheads. In any event, it would take only 15 seconds for Russian commanders to retarget any of their hundreds of strategic missiles tipped with multiple nuclear warheads our way once again. More importantly, by every military index available, the Russians are in fact energetically planning for the possibility of future nuclear war with the United States. And they are not alone. Thanks to technology transfers courtesy of the Clinton administration, China and North Korea are also armed with long-range missiles capable of reaching the American mainland, and neither of those countries are parties to our non-targeting agreement with Russia. According to a recent CIA report, 13 of China's 18 nuclear warheads are known to be aimed at American cities. Nevertheless, after six years of tenacious, dedicated opposition by the Clinton administration to the Strategic Defense Initiative, America has almost no protection against incoming missiles and no prospect of deploying a new system for many years to come....."
WorldNetDaily 6/1/99 Charles Smith "...The Cox report also details for the first time the long ignored sea leg of China's strategic arsenal. "The JL-2 (Julang 2, or Great Wave 2) is a submarine-launched version of the (Dong Feng, or East Wind) DF-31. It is believed to have an even longer range, and will be carried on the PLA Navy's Type 094-class submarine. Sixteen JL-2 missiles will be carried on each submarine." What does the Great Wave 2 mean to the U.S. homeland? The Cox report noted "The JL-2's 7,500 mile range will allow it to be launched from the PRC's territorial waters and to strike targets throughout the United States." On May 27, 1999, the South China Morning Post reported that the People's Liberation Navy (PLN) had begun preparations to test the Great Wave 2 (JL-2). PLN officials reported that the JL-2 is scheduled to be deployed on the nuclear submarine Xia by 2000. The sub-launched missile is slated to carry a single 2.5-Megaton, thermonuclear warhead, or three 90-Kiloton warheads. "If the JL-2 were to employ a shroud to protect its warhead as do the majority of submarine-launched ballistic missiles today," states the Cox report. "This would be the first use of a shroud or fairing on a PRC missile."
Fox News Wire 6/2/99 Tom Raum "...If ratified, a nuclear test ban treaty that has languished before the Senate for 20 months could make it harder for China to advance its acquired nuclear-weapons capacity, arms-control advocates say. But the pact - the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - remains caught in a dispute between the Clinton administration and the Republican-led Senate over modifications to an earlier arms-control agreement, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., has refused to schedule hearings on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty until the administration sends the ABM amendments to the Senate for ratification. Helms had given the White House until Tuesday to submit the ABM legislation - threatening to put a freeze on all treaties if it failed to do so. The ABM modifications, which concern how the treaty affects other former Soviet republics as well as Russia, were agreed to by Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin. But the administration doesn't want to submit them to the Senate until the Russian parliament ratifies a later arms control regimen - the so-called START II treaty..."
Oklahoman Online 6/04/1999 MARK GREEN "...Rummaging through the Cox Report's synopsis of the deadly toys Red China is building with the help of stolen U.S. design secrets -- a mobile-launched this, a submarine-launched that -- I ask myself: "And Bill Clinton says it will be how long before we can have a missile defense system?" Our complete vulnerability to missile attack is the sobering reality behind U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox's detailed report on Chinese spying. I think utter terror is a perfectly appropriate reaction to news that two decades of espionage have let the communists acquire nuclear weapons designs "on a par with our own," as the Cox Report states it, simply and grimly. Many Americans remember the "duck-and-cover" school drills and the bomb shelter frenzy of the early 60s, when everyone thought Castro had a missile aimed at their town. It's stunning to see surveys that show most Americans believe the U.S. military has a secret laser- guided gizmo stashed in a hangar somewhere, capable of picking off incoming missiles. Only in video games. At the bottom of page ix of the Cox Report's overview it says "Neither the United States nor the PRC (People's Republic of China) has a national ballistic missile defense system." That hits in the pit of the stomach. Bill Clinton's faith in the United Nations, "the international community" and his own gift of gab is an inadequate shield against the increasing likelihood of missile attack. Worse, if we're ever attacked by Chinese missiles, the added insult to injury will be that the weapons were essentially of our own design....."
Orlando Sentinel 6/6/99 Charley Reese "...Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, had some alarming things to say after recent meetings in Moscow and Sweden. She said that, because of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's attacks on Yugoslavia, the world is much closer to nuclear war than is understood by the Western press, which dismisses Russian warnings as just rhetoric. She quoted Dr. Aleksander Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma, as saying the following: U.S. Russian relations are at the "worst, most acute, most dangerous juncture since the U.S.-Soviet Berlin and Cuban Missile Crisis." The anti-U.S. sentiment is deep, and the slogan, "Serbia today, Moscow tomorrow," is deeply planted in the Russian mind. Disarmament treaties are dead, and nuclear re-armament is back on the agenda. Other Russian officials told her that Russia would not allow the bombing to continue and that, because its conventional forces are in such disarray, it would have no choice but to rely on nuclear weapons. ..."
House Small Business Subcommittee on Government 6/01/99 Mr. Ron Wiltsie "...I am Ron Wiltsie, The Program Manager for Strategic Systems at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, located in Howard County, Maryland...... Discussion of the effects of a nuclear attack on the United States has, for the most part, focused on the effects such attacks would have on our defense capabilities, on our ability to function militarily in such a situation and to prevail on favorable terms.... A nuclear detonation also changes the surrounding environment, causing radio and optical propagation disturbances which adversely affect communications over an extremely wide range of frequencies. An additional, and very important, effect of a high-altitude detonation, particularly for airborne and ground systems, is the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that results from the conversion in the Earth's ionosphere of weapon gamma-ray energy to radio-frequency energy which propagates toward the Earth's surface. The detonation of a nuclear weapon produces high-energy gamma radiation that travels radially away from the burst center. When the detonation occurs at high altitudes where the mean free path of the gamma photons is very long, these photons travel long distances before they interact with other particles. Gamma rays directed toward the earth encounter the atmosphere where they interact with air molecules to produce positive ions and recoil electrons which are called Compton electrons after the man who discovered the effect. The Compton recoil electrons also travel away from the detonation point but are deflected by the earth's magnetic field.... The gamma radiation interacting with the air molecules produces charge separation as the Compton recoil electrons are ejected and leave behind the more massive, positive ions. The earth's magnetic field interaction with the Compton recoil electrons causes charge acceleration, which further radiates an electromagnetic field. High Altitude EMP (HEMP) is produced by these charge separation and charge acceleration phenomena, which occur in the atmosphere in a layer about 20 kilometers (km) thick and 30 km above the earth's surface. The effective source region covers the earth within the solid angle subtended by rays from the detonation point that are tangent to the atmosphere.........The EMP threat is unique in two respects. First, its peak field amplitude and rise rate are high. These features of EMP will induce potentially damaging voltages and currents in unprotected electronic circuits and components. Second, the area covered by an EMP signal can be immense. As a consequence, large portions of extended power and communications networks, for example, can be simultaneously put at risk. Such far-reaching effects are peculiar to EMP. Neither natural phenomena nor any other nuclear weapon effects are so widespread...."
Curt Weldon Website 6/8/99 "... Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that later on this year China will be testing the newest version of their long-range ICBM missile with a range of 13,000 kilometers that can be launched from a submarine that has the potential for a MIRV or a multiple reentry capability. This rocket, this long-range ICBM, the JL-2, is beyond anything they have had in the past, and it is almost a replica of the trident class ICBMs that we have used in this Nation. We did not think China would have this capability until several years down the road. We now have word they will test that missile, that ICBM, this year. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. The American people need to understand what is happening to their country. They need to understand the blame game cannot stop by firing lower level employees who are only following directions. The blame game cannot stop by saying it was industries' fault...."
WorldNetDaily.com 6/9/99 Jon E. Dougherty "...Bill Gertz, a defense reporter for The Washington Times and author of the new book, "Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security," said that not only does China pose a national security threat to the United States, but that Beijing is building up military forces for other than regional security interests. "The Chinese are engaged in a pretty serious strategic and conventional military buildup," Gertz told WorldNetDaily. "The alarming part of that is that it doesn't appear as though they're building up forces just for a regional conflict. It appears as though they're developing forces [strictly] to oppose the United States." Gertz said the People's Liberation Army "is building nuclear missiles and new types of warheads," based in large measure on technology robbed from U.S. weapons labs. "Throughout the '90s, that gleaning of technology was also based on technology transfers" with the cooperation and approval of the Clinton administration...... Beyond that, he added, "based on the U.S. technology they've attained from us," the Chinese are in the process of building two road-mobile missiles that will have the capacity to deliver weapons "within three years." He said these weapons "are expected to have multiple warheads." Gertz said that was important "because the U.S. is planning -- we haven't done it yet -- but we're planning to have missile defenses, and those multiple warheads would be aimed at defeating any [U.S.] defenses." "The U.S. decided not to build mobile missiles," he said, "but our country does have submarine-launched nuclear missiles, which are the backbone of our nuclear triad." That triad, he said, consists of land, air and sea launched weapons. ..... "Theoretically, you could put a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile like that on the deck of a freighter, park a couple hundred miles off the U.S. coast, and launch one of them at an American city," he said. "In my book I make the point that that's the real reason you need to have missile defenses, and this administration has steadfastly refused to" build them. The author also said the negotiated agreements between Russia and China are endangering national security.."
Front Page Magazine 6/1/99 David Horowitz "...Pennsylvania representative Curt Weldon, who is chair of the National Security subcommittee on military research and development, and is fluent in Russian, and who took the care to tabulate the presidential lies mentioned at the top of this article, has characterized the six years of Clinton's Administration as "the worst period in our history in terms of undermining our national security." In May, Weldon traveled to Russia, in company with ten other congressmen. On that trip, in his presence, a Russian General threatened the assembled congressman, warning that if the United States put ground troops in Kosovo, Russia "could" detonate a nuclear device in the lower atmosphere off the eastern United States. The resulting magnetic pulses would "fry" every computer chip in the country, shutting down phones, airplanes, electrical grids, and so on until the country was thrown into absolute chaos. This threat was not made during the Cold War by a ruler of the former Soviet Union. It was made by a Russian General, within the last month...."
Associated Press 6/10/99 "...An expensive experimental antimissile missile did today what it had been unable to do on six previous attempts -- hit a flying target. A white puff of smoke in the southern New Mexico sky marked where the Army's Theater High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, missile struck a target missile. Before today, the $3.9 billion system had missed its target on six consecutive attempts. The weapon's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, was fined $15 million after THAAD's sixth failure to hit its target on March 29....."
6/10/99 Reuters "....The United States Thursday destroyed a missile with another missile high over New Mexico in the first successful intercept test of its troubled ``THAAD'' anti-missile defense system, the Pentagon said...... The missile hit and destroyed a Hera test rocket in flight over the military's White Sands, New Mexico, missile test range in the intercept at 5:19 a.m. local time (1119 GMT), Irwin said. The military's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization said Thursday's Hera flight simulated that of a Scud ballistic missile such as those fired by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War and that the intercept took place high over the central portion of the sprawling test range...... More than $3 billion has been spent on the THAAD system since 1992 and the Clinton administration faces pressure from Congress to put in place both a system like THAAD against medium-range missiles as well as an even more ambitious national missile defense system. Thursday's test was the 10th of a series of 13 scheduled flights for the Lockheed Martin system. Defense officials have cited a number of reasons for THAAD's earlier failures, including problems with the target-seeking system on the interceptor rocket. The U.S. Senate, alarmed at reports that China acquired sophisticated U.S. weapons technology and North Korea and Iran were testing ballistic missiles, passed a bill in March committing the United States to deploy an ambitious national missile defense system ``as soon as technologically possible.'' ...."
Centre for Defence and International Security Studies 6/13/99 "….On 12 June 1999, a high-ranking Chinese military delegation visited a Russian Topol (SS-25) Intercontinental-range Ballistic Missile (ICBM) unit in Novosibirsk in central Russia. Moscow's ITAR-TASS, the main government information agency, commented on the significance of the visit by noting: For the first time in the history of Russian-Chinese military cooperation, a delegation of top representatives of the People's Liberation Army [PLA] of China has visited a unit of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces in the last years....The Chinese delegation reportedly was shown the Topol missile "and explained its possibilities in overcoming the air defense of a 'potential foe,'" according to ITAR-TASS. The Topol (SS-25) is the world's only operational road mobile ICBM… We recently reported that Russia had flight tested the Topol-M (a follow-on system to the Topol) that is currently deployed in small numbers in a silo-based configuration, but which also may be deployed in the future in a road mobile configuration. During this recent flight test, Russian commentators praised the system's maneuvering reentry vehicle (MARV), stating it could help overcome ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems (see Russia Tests Topol-M ICBM)….A ballistic missile with a MIRV can place nuclear warheads on multiple enemy targets in different locations. A ballistic missile with a MARV enables the warhead to perform preplanned maneuvers during reentry in an attempt to evade missile defenses. Both systems represent high levels of technology currently only mastered by the United States and Russia….."
Salon 6/21/99 David Horowitz "...As a result of the 1993 Clinton decision to terminate the COCOM security controls that denied sensitive technologies to nuclear proliferators and potential adversary powers, the Chinese communists have been given the secrets of our intercontinental ballistic missile systems, along with previously restricted computer hardware. This allows them for the first time to target cities in the United States. In the past few years, therefore, the Chinese communist dictatorship has been able to close a huge technology gap, and to destroy a security buffer that had kept America safe from foreign attacks on its territorial mainland for more than a century...... America's new vulnerability to nuclear attack is a reality now not merely in respect to China, because of the absence of an anti-ballistic missile defense system. This, the Clinton administration has steadfastly refused to develop, despite the emergence of rogue states armed by China or Russia. These two are the chief distributors of nuclear, missile and satellite technologies to other governments. The governments that have benefitted are notorious stockpilers of biological and chemical weapons and among the most dangerous and dedicated enemies of the United States: Libya, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Syria. ..."
Washington Post 6/21/99 Thomas Lippman "...There are limits, it seems, to the detente Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright forged two years ago with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), and the administration crossed one of them June 1. That was Helms's deadline for the Clinton administration to submit for Senate ratification modifications negotiated with Russia to the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Helms believes the amendments would fail to receive the two-thirds vote required for ratification, an outcome that in his view would scuttle the entire ABM treaty, which he and other congressional conservatives have long sought to abandon. The administration is required by law to submit the amendments, but for political and strategic reasons is not prepared to do so now. So it ignored the deadline. Helms is trying to force the issue. His staff has drafted legislative language to make future treaty ratifications -- not just on arms control but on any issue of Helms's choosing -- conditional upon submission of the ABM amendments. The language, which Helms as committee chairman has the power to attach to any future ratification measure, would prohibit the White House from putting any new treaty into effect until the ABM amendments go to the Senate...."
Center for Security Policy 6/21/99 Decision Brief 99-D 72 "... if left to their own devices, the Clinton-Gore Administration and its friends in the Kremlin will almost certainly try to use the pretext of these discussions further to fend off such a deployment. [missile defense] ....This gloomy prognosis is based not only the fact that -- as Mr. Berger suggests -- the Administration has made no decision to deploy a missile defense. (Such a statement is particularly striking in light of President Clinton's announced intention to sign legislation recently enacted by veto-proof congressional majorities that makes it U.S. policy to deploy effective limited missile defenses for the territory and people of the United States "as soon as technologically possible."..... If the United States were serious about deploying missile defenses, it need not negotiate the matter with the Russians.... Under international legal practice and precedent, when the other party (the Soviet Union) became extinct, this treaty had to lapse..... Neither the Russians nor the Clinton Administration really want the United States to have effective protection against missile attack. For the former, this is a matter of strategic advantage: The former Soviet Union illegally deployed territorial defenses, the U.S. has none and Russia prefers to retain that unilateral advantage. ...The ABM Treaty is the proverbial sow's ear. There is, as a practical matter, no way to "modify" a treaty that is designed to prevent effective anti-missile defense of the United States into one that will allow this country to be protected in a cost-effective, robust manner..... Instead, the Clinton Administration and the Russians are apparently preparing to discuss changes to the treaty that would only allow the U.S. to field some number of ground-based missile defense sites. This approach costs the most, has the greatest environmental impact, provides the least comprehensive defense and would take longer to field, certainly than sea-based defenses and possibly even longer than space-based ones. For these reasons, repeated efforts to deploy ground-based missile defenses have come to nought and this one is likely to, as well. ..."
The Heritage Foundation 6/3/99 James H Anderson, PhD "...China's relentless effort to acquire sophisticated U.S. nuclear weapons designs is part of a larger strategy to promote its position as Asia's hegemonic power. A key element of this strategy is China's determination to threaten other countries with ballistic missiles, as Beijing did in 1996 during Taiwan's first presidential elections. Since then, China has positioned more than 100 short-range missiles within striking range of Taiwan. Unless the United States and its Asian allies move quickly to deploy credible missile defense systems, China will continue to flex its "missile muscles" to intimidate its neighbors. China's role as a proliferator of advanced military technologies also has contributed to the spread of ballistic missiles in the Third World. The Cox report emphasizes that the "PRC has proliferated nuclear, missile, and space-related technologies to a number of countries." These countries include Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The assistance to rogue states is particularly worrisome...China's potential to arm its next generation of mobile missiles with multiple warheads and penetration aids highlights the flawed nature of the Clinton Administration's proposed architecture for a national missile defense, which calls for two-ground based sites in the United States. The ground-based interceptors would be far more costly and less effective than sea- and space-based alternatives. They would have a more difficult time coping with multiple warheads and penetration aids, such as decoys. To counter the growing Chinese missile threat, the United States should develop sea- and space-based defenses that can identify, track, and shoot down hostile missiles shortly after liftoff and before they can release multiple warheads or decoys. This "boost-phase" intercept capability will offset China's ability to threaten the United States and its allies with ballistic missiles. The ability to shoot down missiles over an adversary's own territory also will make Third World tyrants think twice before attempting to attack the United States...."
Los Angeles Times 6/22/99 James Anderson "...The most disturbing--and overlooked--conclusion to be drawn from the Cox report on Chinese espionage is that China now has the technical information to build missiles capable of overwhelming the Clinton administration's proposed national missile defense. The White House will not decide until June of next year whether to field such a program. But the deployment timetable is now largely irrelevant because the administration's ground-based missile interceptors would be vulnerable to Chinese countermeasures from Day 1.....The Clinton administration's missile defense plan will be inadequate to meet emerging missile threats, whether from China, North Korea or any other state. The effort to build one, possibly two, ground-based sites would be far more costly and less effective than sea- and space-based alternatives. A ground-based system would have a narrow window of time to intercept missiles tipped with multiple warheads and decoys that have separated from their rocket boosters. Even if the intercept were successful, deadly fallout from a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon would occur. To counter this threat, the U.S. should develop defenses to identify, track and shoot down hostile missiles shortly after liftoff, when they are most vulnerable to interceptors and before they can release their payload. By developing this "boost-phase" intercept capability, the U.S. will offset the ability of China, or any other country, to endanger Americans with ballistic missiles....."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 6/22/99 Bill Gertz "...The Clinton administration is heading for a confrontation with Congress over legislation that would make it U.S. policy to deploy a nationwide defense against missile attack. President Clinton is expected to sign the legislation as early as next week. Congressional backers say the measure will require missile defense deployment, but administration officials contend they are not required to do so. Mr. Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed in Cologne, Germany, on Sunday to continue talks this fall on possible changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The pact prohibits deploying missile defenses that protect either side's entire national territory. White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger told reporters in Cologne that a U.S. national missile-defense deployment decision will not be made before June 2000. Mr. Berger also said the administration softened its position on first requiring Russia's parliament to ratify the START II nuclear arms treaty before moving ahead with a START III pact. Negotiators will report to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Yeltsin by July 30 on a new arms pact. As for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Yeltsin's ABM talks: "What they have agreed to is to consider possible changes in the strategic situation that have a bearing on the ABM Treaty," Mr. Berger told reporters. Mr. Berger said that verbal formulation means, "in English," that U.S. and Russian officials will talk about a new strategic arms reduction treaty, or START III, and "modifications to the ABM treaty that may be occasioned by a national missile defense system, if we were to deploy one."....Senior White House officials have said the missile defense bill does not require deployment because it lacks language about funding, and because of several minor amendments added by Democrats. Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and the key House sponsor of the missile defense bill, said Mr. Berger should not be interpreting the will of Congress as stated in the legislation. "Until he runs for Congress, he's not the guy who interprets our legislation," Mr. Weldon said. "The interpretation is that it means deployment now. Our position is that it's the policy of this government to deploy a national missile defense now, when the president signs that bill." As for Mr. Berger's view that the administration will not be bound to the deployment legislation, "he is wrong and we're not going to stand for it," Mr. Weldon said..... Also, the missile defense bill passed both the House and Senate by large majorities, stating that it will be U.S. policy to deploy a national defense "as soon as the technology to do so is ready," the aide said. "The question of whether to deploy NMD is resolved, not withstanding Mr. Berger's statement," he said...."
WorldNetDaily.com 6/25/99 John Dougherty "...Clinton has signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which changed the onus of our nuclear response. In the past the U.S. military has been able to "respond on warning" of a nuclear attack. No longer; Clinton has required our military commanders to receive direct approval from him before they can order the retaliatory launch of U.S. nuclear weapons against a country who launched at us first, even though U.S. commanders would know within seconds -- via satellite -- when an enemy's missiles were launched, and from where. Clinton has ordered that America reduce her nuclear warhead deployment to 2,500 warheads -- far fewer than Russia, and before Russia has even considering ratifying a treaty limiting warhead deployment. This means, essentially, that the doctrine of "MAD" -- Mutually Assured Destruction -- no longer applies because the Russians can destroy our retaliatory capability at once, and still have enough inventory in reserve in case they need to launch further nuclear strikes... Clinton has refused to acknowledge the absolute necessity of an advanced anti-ballistic missile defense system (ABM), even though the proliferation of these weapons has increased nearly 5-fold since he became president. Clinton has ordered all nuclear weapons production halted, while the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and North Koreans continue to develop them. Our current top ICBM, the Peacemaker, is over ten years old and the technology is stagnant. There are reports that the new Russian Topol-M ICBM has technology incorporated within its warhead that scrambles U.S. radar signals necessary to target them with an ABM system. Without new research and testing, the U.S. cannot possibly develop the necessary countermeasure to defeat this technology, which leaves us vulnerable. ..."
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "...Later in 1995, the Administration released , NIE 95-19 "Emerging Missile Threats to North America During the Next Fifteen Years." This assessment flatly ruled out a rogue missile threat to the U.S. for the next fifteen years. On December 1, as the Senate was debating the Defense Authorization bill which directed the deployment of a National Missile Defense, the Administration in an unprecedented move released a letter citing these conclusions. Two weeks later, President Clinton vetoed the Defense Authorization bill, stating that the Administration did not see a missile threat to the United States in the coming decade. Previous intelligence estimates showed that threat could emerge much sooner, and many Members questioned assumptions in the classified assessment -- such as the exclusion of the missile threat to Alaska and Hawaii. I knew from my own monitoring of Russian security developments that the estimates ignored the disintegration of the Russian military and the breakdown of command and control. Given these doubts, my Committee tasked the GAO to evaluate the soundnes of NIE 965-19. GAO determined that its conclusions were overstated, and noted numerous analytical shortcomings in the report. Former Director of the CIA Robert Gates, who headed an independent review of NIE 95-19 said it was "politically naive" "rushed" and that the exclusion of Alaska and Hawaii from the threat analysis was "foolish from every perspective."..."
Washington Post Walter Pincus 6/29/99 "...The Clinton administration hopes to have an agreement with Russia by next June on modification of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that would permit the United States to go ahead with a limited national missile defense system, a senior State Department official said yesterday...... Once that decision on the "architecture" is made, Holum said, "Our intention is to complete an agreement on permitted national missile defense . . . by next June, when there would be a deployment decision" by Clinton. Holum added: "It's important that the decision on architecture will be made based on the threat, based on security considerations. Then we'll decide what amendments to the treaty are needed and how to approach the treaty. We're not saying protect the treaty, so tailor the defense to fit the treaty." ...."
FoxNews Tom Raum AP 6/29/99 "...Revised estimates of nuclear missile capability, particularly of North Korea and Iran, add new urgency to development of a national missile defense system, the Clinton administration's top arms-control official said. "Cold war disciplines are gone. Technology is more widely available," John Holum, acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, told a Senate confirmation hearing. House Republican leaders were to rally on the steps of the Capitol Tuesday to applaud President Clinton's signing of a GOP-sponsored bill committing the United States to a national ballistic missile defense against limited attack, as might be launched by a small nuclear power....."
FoxNews Tom Raum AP 6/29/99 "...Since Congress passed that bill in May, two developments have occurred on the missile-defense front: - Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed, for the first time, to consider reopening the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to consider easing that prohibition against either American or Russian nationwide ballistic missile defense systems. - After six straight failures, a $3.8 billion experimental missile defense system scored its first hit in a test at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, shooting down an incoming test rocket....."
Associated Press 6/29/99 "...Standing by a huge map showing Chicago almost within range of North Korean missiles, Republicans sought Tuesday to remind Americans that legislation for a missile defense shield started as a GOP initiative. With President Clinton expected to sign the bill shortly, Republican leaders gathered outside the Capitol to credit President Reagan with getting the project moving in the early 1980s with his idea of arraying missiles to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. ``We usher in a new era of American security,'' House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said about the program Democrats once derided as ``Star Wars.''....And ardent missile-defense advocate Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., likened the moment to President Kennedy's vow to put an American on the moon within a decade. The bill would commit the nation to field a system against a limited missile attack as soon as ``technologically possible.'' Clinton vetoed a 1995 defense bill containing similar language. The turn in Democratic sentiment followed upward revisions in estimates of nuclear missile capability of both North Korea and Iran and reports of Chinese espionage at U.S. nuclear weapons plants. As a prop, the Republicans used an oversized map of the United States showing ``range'' lines depicting distances from North Korea. The most distant one, about 6,200 miles, crossed the country just west of Chicago. ``It might be aimed at Chicago and hit St. Louis, but surely they have that capability,'' Weldon said. The North Koreans tested a multistage ballistic missile last year, and U.S. intelligence officials have suggested they may soon test a more advanced one...."
Sen. James M. Inhofe Republican from Oklahoma. "...We used to think China was decades behind us in terms of building a modern advanced nuclear arsenal. Now we learn that, later this year, China is planning to test its new JL-2 long range ICBM, a submarine-launched ballistic missile with MIRV capability-meaning multiple independently targeted warheads on each missile-almost a replica of our Trident ICBM. This missile will have a range of over 13,000 kilometers and could reach anywhere in the United States from protected Chinese waters. In addition, we know that China has been helping North Korea, among others, with weapons and technology. North Korea is also expected to test its long range Taepo Dong II missile later this year. I remind my colleagues we have no defense against either of these potential threats, because of the policy decisions of the Clinton Administration. Some one very smart back in 1983 determined that we would need a national missile-defense system in place by Fiscal Year 98. We were on track to meet the deadline until 1993, when President Clinton, through his veto power, stopped this missile-defense system...."
Washington Post 7/2/99 Charles Krauthammer "...After 15 years, the Democrats have apparently given up their opposition to a "star wars" missile defense for the United States. A law committing the United States to building such a defense passed Congress by overwhelming majorities. And President Clinton, who had vetoed such legislation in the past, will sign it. This was no Democratic conversion to toughness. This was Democratic acquiescence to blinding reality. The reality is that: (1) Rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are building nuclear missiles soon to be aimed at the United States, and (2) The United States is utterly defenseless to shoot them down. For the better part of this decade, the Clinton administration has denied both ends of this reality. First, it claimed that the threat was distant....The administration now recognizes that its own CIA estimates of the threat were hopelessly wrong and that the congressionally mandated Rumsfeld Commission was right when it warned last July of the imminent capacity of rogue states to develop the means to attack the United States. The other feat of reality-denial involved American defenselessness. Democrats liked to argue, alternatively, that American defenselessness is (a) paradoxically a good thing or (b) divinely -- technologically -- ordained. Defenselessness was good because it made for "strategic stability" with the Soviet Union.....Less than three months later, on June 10, an Army THAAD missile intercepted a ballistic missile launched from 120 miles away. This was precisely what Baldwin claimed was unfeasible: destruction by collision, a bullet hitting a bullet. Reality bites, even for Democrats..... Is Clinton really serious? Former Pentagon expert Frank Gaffney, an ABM hero who has campaigned on its behalf for 15 years (we should name the first system after him), warns that a recent Clinton-Yeltsin agreement to renegotiate the ABM treaty has the makings of a trap. The ABM treaty, amended or not, can only hinder the building of an American defense. For example, because of the administration's interpretation of the treaty, THAAD could only test against a missile going no more than five kilometers per second. But North Korea's new missile goes seven to eight kilometers per second. This THAAD won't catch up to it. Even worse, the ABM treaty prevents the Navy's Aegis ships (which could carry mobile ABMs) from using satellite information to track incoming long-range missiles. This deliberately and unnecessarily degrades the Aegis system, our best hope for a cheap, fast, near-term national defense...."
Heritage Foundation 7/12/99 Jack Spencer "…The following quotations are taken from officials of foreign governments or from government-controlled media outlets. Americans who may be unsure about missile defense should note which foreign governments are opposing it so vehemently. They also should note the striking similarity between some of the arguments made by these governments and the arguments made by some U.S. opponents of missile defense…
IRIB Television First Program Network in Persian, Tehran
Unnamed Spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Iran
Mohammad Mohammadi, Spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Iran
Unnamed Spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, North Korea
[North]Korean Central News Agency
Commentary in Nodong Sinmum (North Korean Newspaper)
Pyongyang Korean Central Broadcasting Network
Baghdad Al-'Iraq (Newspaper)
Unnamed Spokesman for the Ministry of Culture and Information, Iraq
Muammar Qadhafi, Head of State, Libya
Mustafa Tlass, Defense Minister, Syria
Li Changhe, Ambassador of China to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament
Zhu Rongji, Prime Minister, China
Sun Yuxi, Foreign Ministry, China
Sha Zukang, Director-General, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China
Igor Ivanov, Foreign Minister, Russia
Leonid Ivashov, Senior Russian General
Vladimir Ryzhkov, First Deputy Speaker of the Duma, Russia
Yevgeny Primakov, former Prime Minister, Russia…"
Drudge/Washington Times 7/23/99 Bill Gertz "...A week ago the Clinton administration's top officials met at the White House for a National Security Council discussion of plans for a nationwide missile defense system - plans that run counter to the president's policy of strict adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty prohibits protecting the entire country under missile defenses. At the State Department the day before, a meeting was held to prepare Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright for the NSC session. The problem of Russian opposition to building a system that can protect all 50 states against long-range missile attack came up. The issue was whether to defend some of the United States from a single site in North Dakota or anger the Russians with adding a second interceptor site in Alaska. At one point, State Department policy planning director Morton Halperin expressed his view. "A thousand people out there aren't worth upsetting the Russians over," Mr. Halperin said, referring to residents of Alaska's Aleutian Islands, which cannot be protected from a single U.S. site...."
Softwar 7/26/99 "...In 1997, USAF RC-135 "Cobra Ball" aircraft observed the successful test firings of the SS-27 (TOPOL-M).... The first deployment was reported to be in a SS-19 silo complex located at Tatishchevo in January of 1998..... The TOPOL is manufactured by the Moscow Institute for Thermal Technology. The new, truck mobile, SS-27 is reported by Russian officials to have Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle (MARV) capability designed to defeat any expected US deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems.....The mobile Russian SS-27 also raises serious proliferation questions since the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology is providing the SS-27 design to China. China intends to produce the TOPOL-M missile under the designation "Dong Feng" (East Wind) DF-41. ...."
The Economist 7/31-8/6/99 "...Within the next few weeks, a handful of metal tubes soaring into space at several miles per second could force some recalculations by military planners down on earth. At least two countries which the western world views as pariahs are preparing to prove their ability to inflict deadly missile strikes not just on neighbours but on distant targets as well. North Korea is getting ready to test a ballistic missile that could hit Alaska. If the warhead were small enough, it might reach Hawaii or even California. Iran is also assembling a new multi-stage missile which could reach most of Europe. It already claims to have deployed "in considerable numbers" a missile which can hit Israel and bits of Turkey....Meanwhile scientists, notably in America and Israel, are trying to refine the art of stopping missiles in mid-flight. Of course, the fact that a trouble-making regime has the capacity to carry out missile attacks does not mean it will do so. A direct attack on the United States, or a country America is obliged to defend, could be an act of self-destruction for a smallish state. Anyway, hastily assembled rockets are probably not viewed by their masters as military weapons in the strict sense; they are too inaccurate. More likely, they are seen by their owners as tools of intimidation, meant to concentrate minds in the neighbourhood and impress their own people. But even if ballistic missiles are not intended for immediate use, the western world cannot ignore them. Whether or not they threaten Los Angeles, the rockets of rogue regimes do pose an immediate danger to many American allies in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere, while rocket-wielding countries are often friendly with Russia or China. Just as international networks of missile proliferation have emerged, despite efforts to curb them, so too could international networks of anti-missile protection...."
CNSNews.com 7/29/99 Lawrence Morahan "...The United States is making unrealistic assessments of threats posed by enemy ballistic missiles, leaving the country vulnerable to attack by rogue nations such as North Korea, a freshman congressman told CNSNews.com. "We need to test against the threat we know is out there. The capability of missile attack is here now in the hands of the North Koreans," freshman Congressman David Vitter (R-LA) told CNSNews.com. .... Together with co-sponsors Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Curt Weldon (R-PA) - both senior members of the House Armed Services Committee - Vitter is proposing "Realistic Tests for Realistic Threats," or "RT2," a bill that would mandate the Navy and Army to test against missiles that replicate the velocities of missiles now in North Korean arsenals. The current Navy Theater Wide (NTW) and the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems are limited to anti-ballistic missiles with a velocity of five kilometers-per-second or less, Vitter said. "However, North Korea has missiles with velocities of between five and eight kilometers-per-second, depending on the size of the payload," he said. The higher velocity makes the current systems ineffective, defense experts have said. "The problem is we're testing our systems against missiles with velocities well below what we know a nation like North Korea has. North Korea has tested the Taepo-dong 1 and we know that the characteristics of that missile, specifically the velocity, are greater than what we're testing these theater systems against. "So obviously, if we're going to be prepared and develop those systems aggressively and intelligently, we need to test against the threat we know is out there," Vitter said...."
AP 8/2/99 "...An experimental antimissile missile apparently hit a simulated warhead over New Mexico today, the second success for a controversial $3.8 billion defense system that failed in its first six attempts. The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system is designed to use ground-launched missiles to destroy high-altitude enemy missiles from 800 miles away or more, a distance that current U.S. weapons cannot reach... THAAD scored its first hit June 10 over White Sands. The Pentagon has since said that it will cancel the fine if the defense contractor improves THAAD performance and that it is confident Lockheed Martin can successfully develop the system...."
Heritage Foundation 7/29/99 Baker Spring "...On July 23, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed the National Missile Defense Act (H.R. 4) into law and established as the policy of the United States the decision to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technologically possible. H.R. 4 does not include specific steps, however, to implement this historic policy. In order to deploy a missile defense system, the U.S. military must be able to test the systems currently under development against the types of missiles that may be launched against the United States or its allies. Today, the clearest threat of attack emanates from North Korea, which surprised the military community last August by launching a Taepo Dong-1 rocket over Japan. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration's current policy bars the testing of certain defense systems against target missiles resembling the Taepo Dong-1....."
Heritage Foundation 7/29/99 Baker Spring "... In 1995, when the Clinton Administration announced its intelligence estimate that no hostile Third World country would be able to launch a ballistic missile similar to the Taepo Dong-1 within the next 10 years, it affirmed its policy to limit the capability of U.S. missile defense systems to meet this long-range threat. Consequently, its current policy bars the NTW and THAAD systems from being tested against target missiles that resemble the Taepo Dong-1. To begin testing against such missiles, Congress should insist that the Administration remove its restrictions on testing....."
http://www.senate.gov/ 7/27/99 U.S. Senator James M Inhofe "....U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said today President Clinton is employing word games and abusing the constitutional lawmaking process to cover-up his administration's ideologically-driven opposition to protecting the American people from ballistic missile attack. "Every American must understand that the Clinton-Gore administration strongly opposes the deployment of a national missile defense system," Inhofe said. "They must also understand the President's position has not changed in spite of signing a bill into law last week which calls for the deployment of such a system. "In the spirit of redefining what the meaning of 'is' is, the President has brazenly chosen to interpret this new missile defense law in a manner contrary to its intended and stated purpose. In so doing, he makes a mockery of the Constitutional lawmaking process and once again illustrates the threat posed by his incessant deception, manipulation and dishonesty." Inhofe was referring to President Clinton's actions Friday in which the President a) signed into law a bill calling for the deployment of a national missile defense system; and at the same time, b) issued a statement claiming the bill actually called for no such thing. ..."
http://www.senate.gov/ 7/27/99 U.S. Senator James M Inhofe "....The Missile Defense Act, which passed the House and Senate earlier this year, sought to clearly define U.S. policy on missile defense. The bill states in its entirety that "it is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective national missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to annual authorizations of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for national missile defense. It is the policy of the United States to seek negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces." In his statement on signing the bill, Clinton claims that "by specifying that any national missile defense deployment must be subject to the authorization and appropriation process, the legislation makes clear that no decision on deployment has been made." Inhofe: "In fact, it makes no such thing clear. It is a ludicrous and preposterous interpretation to suggest that the language of the bill means 'no decision on deployment has been made.' The whole point of the bill is to make an affirmative national decision on deployment. The references to 'authorizations' and 'appropriations' are nothing more than policy-neutral statements of fact about the legislative process. For the President to argue differently is shameless."
http://www.senate.gov/ 7/27/99 U.S. Senator James M Inhofe "....Also in his statement, Clinton asserts with a straight face that the second sentence of the two-sentence bill "puts Congress on record...reaffirming my Administration's position that our missile defense policy must take into account our arms control and nuclear nonproliferation objectives." Inhofe: "In fact, it does nothing of the sort, for if it did, I and many others would not have supported the bill in the first place. The purpose of this bill is to state that our nation's missile defense policy is decided in favor of deployment 'as soon as technologically possible.' The policy does not need to 'take into account' anything else. The stated goal of seeking negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces is a wholly separate statement of policy, not a contingent one. ...."
Wall St. Journal 8/6/99 "...It was nice indeed this week to see the Theater High Altitude Area Defense ace its second test in as many months. On Monday, Thaad successfully intercepted a simulated ballistic missile over the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, following another successful test in June. The test was important on two counts: It took place outside the Earth's atmosphere and against a warhead that had separated from its missile, just like in the video games. That is, the radar was able to look at two objects in space and determine which one was the warhead. Air Force Lt. General Ronald Kadish, head of the Pentagon's ballistic missile defense program, called it "one of the watershed events in the technological history of our country.".... Both the Navy and the Air Force have made progress of late in their own theater missile defense programs. The Air Force had a home run with an Airborne Laser test recently and the Navy successfully tested a booster for its Lower Tier program. The Army's new Patriot PAC-3 system (the successor to the Gulf War Patriot) performed a series of successful intercepts earlier this year. All of this is to say that we have been moving fast up the learning curve recently. Every time there's a successful intercept in one of the TMD programs, it's important to the other programs....Now that Thaad has passed two tests, the crucial next step is to manufacture and deploy it as soon as possible. That job has just been made tougher by the Republican House, which at the same time that it axed the F-22 also voted to cut the $83.7 million that the Administration had requested for engineering and manufacturing Thaad. In the Senate, Republicans say they'll see to it that the money is restored -- or allocated from the supplemental $1 billion that Congress authorized last year for ballistic-missile defense. Along the way, it would be a good idea if they gave their House colleagues a tutorial on the importance of staying on-message on the subject of missile defense, which is supposed to be a defining issue between the two parties....."
San Diego Union-Tribune 8/4/99 James Hackett "...On Monday, for the second time in just over six weeks, an Army Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile interceptor streaked into the New Mexico sky and smashed into a simulated warhead that had separated from a modified Minuteman ballistic missile. While the earlier intercept was inside the Earth's atmosphere, this one was outside the atmosphere, more than 60 miles high. In addition, the interceptor's seeker proved its ability to distinguish the warhead from the rocket booster and other debris. This is a major success for the hit-to-kill technology that makes it possible to stop ballistic missiles by direct impact. That was Ronald Reagan's basic requirement for the Strategic Defense Initiative -- to develop missile defenses without using nuclear weapons on the interceptors. This THAAD hit outside the atmosphere proves the concept for both theater defenses and a national missile defense, and shatters the main argument of missile defense opponents: that hit-to-kill technology will not work and cannot distinguish the warhead from other objects...."
Inside Missile Defense 8/11/99 "...The newest member of the House of Representatives wants the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to conduct tests of the Army Theater High Altitude Area Defense and Navy Theater Wide systems against targets representative of the North Korean missile that flew over Japan last year..... "It is not as if we are talking about some possible or hypothetical threat 10 or 20 years down the line. We know this threat is in the hands of the North Koreans, so it only makes sense to test these systems as soon as practical against the threat that is there." In addition, the bill calls for modifications to the THAAD and NTW systems to improve their interceptor speeds and allow for cuing from external sensors. These changes run counter to the Clinton administration's current TMD testing plans and are sure to be contentious....The Taepodong 1 is estimated to have a maximum speed of between five kilometers and eight kilometers per second, according to Baker Spring, senior defense analyst at the Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation. That velocity is much greater than the targets used to date in tests with the THAAD system or planned for the initial NTW tests. Without a third stage, the Taepodong 1 is thought to have a range of 1,500 kms to 2,000 kms, depending on its payload. Intelligence officials have stated that debris from the three-stage version of the missile was found in the ocean as far as 5,500 kms from the North Korean launch site.....Further, in order to improve the likelihood of success in the tests, it calls on the BMDO director to "review changes in the configuration" of the NTW and THAAD systems to "increase the speed of their interceptor missiles to well in excess of three kilometers-per-second," and "allow the interceptor missiles of those systems to receive and use targeting data provided by a variety of external sensors, including shipboard radar, airborne sensors, ground-based radar, and satellite sensors." Funding for these tests, the bill states, "shall be paid out of funds available" to both programs.....The changes proposed to the NTW and THAAD systems under the Vitter bill expose a raw nerve between the administration and ardent congressional missile defense proponents. Under two theater missile defense demarcation agreements to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the Clinton administration signed in September 1997 with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, the United States would be prohibited from testing THAAD and NTW against target missiles with velocities greater then five kms per second. Also, the administration has been reluctant to configure the systems to allow for cuing from external sensors because of existing ABM Treaty compliance issues. Although the TMD demarcation agreements have not been submitted to the Senate yet for advice and consent and the administration maintains it is undertaking no efforts to implement those agreements before their formal ratification, critics charge that the White House has been tacitly abiding by them and in the process "dumbing down" the capabilities of U.S. TMD systems...."
Seattle Times 8/11/99George Tibbits "...Boeing Co. on Tuesday began assembling a 747-400 freighter to carry the Air Force's flying laser, a powerful "death ray" intended to shoot down missiles from hundreds of miles away. The weapon, which runs nearly the length of the 231-foot jetliner, would be the first in any country's arsenal to use light as a destructive force. The Airborne Laser is specifically designed to combat short-range or "theater" ballistic missiles, such as the Scuds used by the Iraqis in the Persian Gulf War or the missiles now being developed by North Korea. "You cannot comprehend the speed of light and how it is going to change things," said Col. Mike Booen, Air Force systems program director for the Airborne Laser at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. Although laser guns may sound more suitable for the weapons bay of the Starship Enterprise, Booen and other Air Force and Boeing officials say the ABL's technology has been around for years and has already shot down missiles in test programs. All that remains to be proven, they said, is whether it can be successfully turned into a combat-ready jet. After years of researching what only recently was considred science fiction, "the moment comes when you have to say to yourself, `Do I have the courage to take the final step?"' said Lawrence Delaney, Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition. Boeing is building the plane under a $1.1 billion contract it shares with TRW, the manufacturer of the laser, and Lockheed Martin, which is making the electronics to track targets, fire and control the beam. By 2007, the Air Force wants three ABLs in operation, and a full fleet of seven by 2009, at a total cost of about $6 billion...."
Aviation Week & Space Technology 8/9/99 Robert Wall "...The second successful intercept of a target by the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense system has drastically changed the way some Defense Dept. officials view the program and could result in the Pentagon's jump-starting the next phase. The Pentagon initially wanted Thaad to complete three successful intercepts before the program could move from risk reduction into its engineering and manufacturing development phase next spring. But now Army leaders are interested in moving ahead even sooner. ''We demonstrated that the technology works, both endo- and exoatmospheric,'' Lt. Gen. Paul Kern, the Army's top acquisition officer, said after Thaad's latest test on Aug. 2, which was the first successful intercept outside the atmosphere. ''We have great confidence now, after this second flight, that we are well underway to proving that technology out.'' ....BUT PLANS TO GO INTO production haven't been approved, yet. Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, the new director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, made vague references to the fact that program plans are under review. But he wouldn't endorse Thaad moving into the next phase. ''We would like to have a capability as soon as practical but not rush to failure,'' he said. The Pentagon was criticized last year for ''rushing to failure'' in missile defense by not allowing technology to mature...."
Aviation Week and Space Technology 8/16/99 Michael A Dornheim "…On July 23, President Clinton signed the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 that calls for the implementation of a system to protect against limited attack "as soon as is technologically possible." The act was passed by an overwhelming congressional majority under the perception that rogue nation ballistic missiles could threaten the U.S. sooner rather than later, sparked by North Korea's test of the long-range Taepo Dong 1 missile last August. Consensus has been maintained by the recent Chinese test of a long-range missile and North Korean plans to test the more capable Taepo Dong 2. The deployment readiness review (DRR) is to determine whether to deploy a national missile defense (NMD) system, and if so, whether to build it by the end of 2005 or accelerate deployment to 2003 if the threat is judged pressing. The decision will be reviewed by the secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and finally will be made by the President, said Army Brig. Gen. Willie B. Nance, the NMD program manager in the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The choice needs to be made by the end of July 2000 to support 2003 deployment, and by September 2000 for a 2005 deployment. An initial system is to protect against a "C1" first level of capability threat with a limited number of warheads and the simple countermeasures expected of a rogue nation. The system is to be upgradable to "C2" and "C3" threats. C2 is more sophisticated countermeasures and a small increase in warhead quantity. The C3 "objective" system has more quantity and can represent an unauthorized or accidental launch by a more capable country. The DRR could decide on a C1-plus system, short of C2 capability. None of the options would protect against a full Russian attack, so the rules of mutual assured destruction and the intent of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 still apply. Some solace is gained by the reasoning that a country rich enough to pose a sophisticated threat has enough to lose that they will be deterred by mutual assured destruction….."
Chicago Tribune 8/18/99 "…This week, the United States persuaded Japan to throw its political weight, technological know-how and a few hundred million dollars behind multiyear research on a so-called theater missile defense system. The goal: a system that could knock down an incoming missile fired by a rogue state like North Korea. But exact details of the program--specifically its cost--were kept secret, supposedly at the request of the Japanese….. A regional missile defense system can't be deployed in the Pacific without violating the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972, a bedrock of U.S.-Russian arms control efforts. Russia has adamantly opposed changes in the treaty. American diplomats are in Moscow this week trying to engage the Russians on the issue. But that distracts from the much more serious issue they are also discussing--reducing long-range nuclear weapons that both countries still target on each other. Those long-range missiles would be cut under the START II treaty, signed by both countries in 1993, but never approved by the Russian Duma. It's unlikely to be approved, either, so long as the U.S. makes noises about unilaterally breaching the ABM treaty. Someday, technological breakthroughs might make missile defense possible. Accordingly, the U.S. should carry out strictly limited research while at the same time adhering to the ABM treaty. But all of this needs to be part of a comprehensive strategy, clearly articulated and transparent. The U.S. has a legal right to abrogate the ABM treaty if it determines "extraordinary events. . .have jeopardized its supreme interests."…"
Defense Daily 8/19/99 Hunter Keeter "…Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and six other Republican senators are criticizing DoD’s decision not to deploy the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) radar to observe the upcoming test of the North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 missile launch. Earlier this month, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Henry Shelton denied the requests of SPACECOM and the support of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) to deliver the THAAD radar to South Korea or Japan to monitor the test, according to the Aug. 18 edition of the Washington Times. In an Aug. 17 letter to Defense Secretary William Cohen, Kyl and the other lawmakers state that the decision to withhold the Raytheon [RTNA/RTNB] THAAD radar "appears to have been driven by ABM treaty concerns" and that the Senate believes "such decisions should be based solely on military and intelligence concerns." The other signatories to the letter are Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.). "Shelton’s initial response was to raise the ABM treaty issue; it has far reaching tentacles," one Hill source said. "This might be another case where the treaty is hampering us and it’s our own methodology [that’s causing the problem]. The Russians [co-signatories to the ABM treaty] have never raised protest against THAAD, but DoD’s argument is better to be safe than sorry."…"http://www.jewishworldreview.com 8/26/99 Joseph Perkins "…WHEN WORLD WAR II began six decades ago, with Germany's invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, the biggest fear of this nation's political and military leadership was that Adolf Hitler would successfully build an atomic bomb. Indeed, refugee physicists here in the United States warned that German scientists had discovered nuclear fission in 1938 and that it was theoretically possible to harness that power in the form of the most destructive weapon in the history of the world. Recognizing this grave threat to U.S. national security -- even though this country would not meet the German Wehrmacht in battle until two years after the start of World War II -- President Franklin Roosevelt approved the creation of the Manhattan Project. It was the most ambitious scientific-military undertaking in American history. To start from scratch and build an atomic weapon. And to build it before the Germans, who had a three-year head start….. Now, here we are, 60 years later, and the United States finds itself facing a threat to its national security that may eventually become as grave as the Third Reich's race to develop the atomic bomb. That is: the growing number of authoritarian regimes -- including China, North Korea, Iraq and Iran -- that either have or are actively developing nuclear missiles with which they can threaten America's strategic allies, if not this country itself. Much as the United States created the Manhattan Project to concentrate the efforts of this nation's best scientific minds to build the first atomic bomb, there needs to be a similar project, here and now, to develop and deploy a missile-defense system that can protect the United States and its allies -- including Taiwan, Japan and Israel -- from nuclear missile attack. Our allies agree…."
Washington Times 8/24/99 Frank Gaffney, Jr "…As in so many areas, the Clinton administration wants to have it both ways on the missile defense issue. On the one hand, President Clinton earlier this month signed Republican-initiated legislation committing the U.S. government to the deployment of anti-missile protection for the American people "as soon as technologically possible." His administration has also recently initiated joint U.S.-Japanese research into the most promising, near-term means of accomplishing such protection for the people of both this country and Japan--from the sea -- by adapting the two nations' AEGIS fleet air defense ships. And the Pentagon announced on Friday that it was, at long last, prepared to take steps to accelerate the development of the urgently needed Theater High Altitude Air Defense System (THAAD). On the other hand, in a statement accompanying his signature of the Missile Defense Act of 1999, Mr. Clinton declared that he has made no decision to deploy a national missile defense system. This flimflam infuriated one of that legislation's early sponsors and a vociferous congressional advocate of global anti-missile defenses, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican: "What we have here is the latest example of the president's dishonest method of governing and communicating. In the face of growing evidence of the seriousness of the missile threat, the president hesitates to veto a missile defense bill which he knows has popular support. But in keeping with his ideologically driven hostility to missile defense and his blind support for the outdated 1972 ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty [which prevents effective missile defenses], he stealthily seeks to cloak his true positions behind layers of confusion, deception and obfuscation." …."
Washington Times 8/24/99 Frank Gaffney, Jr "…Unfortunately, the Clinton administration is also seeking to breathe new life into an ABM Treaty that has, according to international legal practice and precedents, clearly lapsed with the extinction of the other party, the Soviet Union. This is the transparent purpose of negotiations initiated in Russia on Aug.17, ta1ks that seem likely to make it even more difficult to prepare and deploy antimissile capabilities whether for the purpose of protecting the Japanese people or other allies and U.S. forces in East Asia, the Middle East or Europe, to say nothing of the population and territory of the United States itself….Mr. Spence's concern has only been borne out by the results of the first round of the new negotiations. After the talks recessed on Aug. 19, the Russian Interfax news service reported, "Russia and the United States have pledged to boost the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the future. The two countries [agreed they] "will continue efforts aimed at strengthening the viability and efficiency of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the future." They also "confirmed that the ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of strategic stability." …."
Dow Jones Newswires 8/24/99 "…Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) completed flight tests that confirmed the effectiveness of its laser-based, directional infrared countermeasures, or DIRCM, system using a compact mid-infrared laser In a press release Tuesday, the company said the laser system, known as Viper, is designed to produce multiple laser lines in the mid-infrared spectrum to jam virtually all fielded infrared, or IR, missiles. The Viper was mounted on a Northrop Grumman DIRCM-equipped U.S. Army UH-60A Black Hawk helicopter at the Aviation Technology Test Center in Ft. Rucker, Ala. According to the company, the system directed laser energy on target and defeated four missile seekers at ranges up to three kilometers. The laser was jointly developed by its Electronic Systems and Sensors Sector and Fibertek Inc., a Herndon, Va.-based maker of ultra-compact, solid-state, diode pumped lasers. Northrop Grumman makes and sells military products.
New York Post 8/25/99 "…
Wall Street Journal U.S. Speeds Up Defense-Missile Plans, In Expected Lift to Lockheed MartinANNE MARIE SQUEO and JEFF COLE 8/21/99 "…The Pentagon said it will accelerate development of a major missile-defense program led by Lockheed Martin Corp., boosting the aerospace company's outlook for future funding. Officials of the Army and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization announced Thursday that based on a pair of recent testing successes, the Pentagon is authorizing the company to proceed toward fullblown development of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense missile interceptor about six months earlier than some government officials had envisioned. The move increases the likelihood that Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Md., will benefit from expanded funding for the closely watched program to provide missiles that can protect U.S. troops by intercepting and destroying incoming missiles at very high altitudes above battle zones….."
Reuters 9/8/99 "...An upbeat U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott held arms control talks in Moscow Wednesday, but Russians made clear the going would be tough if Washington pressed for a change to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. "I'm going to be concentrating particularly on strategic matters, laying the ground with my colleagues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for talks that are coming up,'' Talbott told reporters after arriving at Moscow's main international airport. Diplomats said the talks were mainly about the prospects for a START-3 nuclear arms reduction pact and Washington's desire to change the 1972 ABM treaty to allow it to deploy a limited shield against potential rogue missiles. Russia regards the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of international disarmament, and Russian officials have raised the stakes this week by saying Moscow had the technology to develop a missile to breach any U.S. defenses. ..."No anti-missile defense will be able to stop our new missiles,'' Roman Popkovich, chairman of the parliamentary defense committee, told a news conference. "Just let the Americans waste their money.'' ...."
New York Times 8/30/99 Eric Schmitt "…The White House and Senate Democrats say they are preparing for a pitched battle with the Republican-controlled Senate to save one of the top foreign policy goals of President Clinton's waning administration: a treaty banning nuclear testing. Armed with public opinion polls and the support of many scientists, military commanders and arms control groups, Democrats have threatened to bring the Senate to a standstill when Congress returns next month from summer recess unless Republicans agree to hold hearings this year on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which 152 countries have signed. Without the treaty, Clinton warned this month, "Countries all around the world will feel more pressure to develop and test weapons in ever more destructive varieties and sizes, threatening the security of everyone on earth." …."http://www.security-policy.org/ 8/30/99 "…Today's New York Times telegraphs the arms control punch the Clinton Administration and its allies on Capitol Hill hope to deliver in coming weeks: In a bid to engender heretofore absent Republican support for the Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) Treaty Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) (who serves as the ranking minority member on the Foreign Relations Committee) told the Times that "There ought to be the makings of a grand deal in all of this." Such a "grand deal" would reportedly purchase Senate advice and consent to the unverifiable, ineffective and counter-productive CTBT(1) by: 1) obtaining some new commitment from President Clinton to proceed with the deployment of limited anti-missile defenses; 2) securing an agreement from the Kremlin clearing the way for the U.S. to do so, in exchange for 3) a new nuclear arms reduction agreement that would reduce American and Russian strategic forces to perhaps as few as 1500-2000 weapons. Unfortunately for those like Senator Biden, whose attachment to arms control approaches the theological, negotiated limits on weaponry have exceedingly limited, if any, utility in a world filled with myriad dangerous regimes, none of whom can be relied upon to honor its international commitments. As President Truman once observed, "If you can't trust a man's word, it won't help much to have it in writing." …"
The Washington Times 9/5/99 Bill Gertz "…It was only a simulation, but tension filled the Pentagon's Cheyenne Mountain Complex here when soldiers watched China's long-range nuclear missiles streak northward, heading toward the United States. The oversized computer screen at the complex, known as the "Mountain," lit up as red lines showed the flight path of the Chinese missiles as they traveled over the globe to targets in the United States. Hit: areas near Seattle, Colorado Springs, Chicago, New York and Washington….That was the scenario played out Friday in the U.S. Space Command's dimly lit command bunker, located nearly a mile beneath the Rocky Mountains…… The exercise highlights that Russia is not the only strategic nuclear threat to the United States. China has a small arsenal of about 24 CSS-4 long-range missiles capable of hitting all of the United States except parts of southern Florida. Last year the CIA reported secretly within the U.S. government that 13 of them were targeted at U.S. cities. China, however, is building three new ICBMs, including two road-mobile systems that the CIA believes will be the first to incorporate stolen U.S. missile technology and small warhead design information…..When asked if the military has anything that can knock the missiles down, Col. Baker said, "Absolutely nothing." So why track them? "We're tracking them so we can tell our commanders exactly what is happening so they can figure out what their response is going to be," he said. "If they take out Washington, D.C., do we want to take out Beijing? I don't know. That's their decision."….."
Associated Press 9/8/99 Pauline Jelinek "…The Clinton administration has selected Alaska as the likely first site for its proposed anti-ballistic missile defense network. State Department spokesman James Rubin, who announced the decision Wednesday, said the administration won't decide whether to deploy a missile defense until next summer. Rubin spoke as U.S. and Russian officials in Moscow opened two days of negotiations on the terms under which a missile defense could be established. In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty not to construct a national defense against such missiles. The theory was that leaving both sides vulnerable deterred nuclear attacks because either country would face deadly retaliation. …."
AP via Drudge Report 9/9/99 "….North Korea and Iran are likely to join established nuclear powers Russia and China as long-range missile threats to the United States over the next 15 years, the CIA said today. These emerging missile forces ``potentially can kill tens of thousands, or even millions, of Americans, depending on the type of warhead, the accuracy and the intended target,'' the intelligence agency said. In an intelligence report with major implications for the Pentagon's efforts to develop defenses against ballistic missiles, the CIA said Iraq posed an additional - though somewhat more distant - threat. It said it was questionable whether Iraq could test a missile with enough range to reach the United States before 2015, although the likelihood depends heavily on how much foreign assistance Iraq gets. The report characterized the prospect of North Korea acquiring a long-range missile by 2015 as ``most likely,'' Iran's prospect was judged to be ``probable'' and Iraq was labeled a ``possible'' threat….."
Fox News 9/9/99 Robert Burns AP "…Over the next 15 years, North Korea and Iran are likely to develop missiles potentially capable of killing millions of Americans, the CIA said Thursday. In an intelligence report with major implications for the Pentagon's efforts to develop defenses against ballistic missiles, the CIA said Iraq posed an additional — though somewhat more distant — threat. It said it was questionable whether Iraq could test a missile with enough range to reach the United States before 2015, although the likelihood depends heavily on how much foreign assistance Iraq gets. The report characterized the prospect of North Korea acquiring a long-range missile by 2015 as "most likely,'' Iran's prospect was judged to be "probable'' and Iraq was labeled a "possible'' threat. These emerging missile forces "potentially can kill tens of thousands, or even millions, of Americans,'' depending on their accuracy and whether they are armed with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, it said. The United States has no means of shooting down long-range ballistic missiles, although the Pentagon is spending billions of dollars to develop anti-missile missiles to shield the United States against a limited attack. Russia already has about 1,000 long-range missiles with about 4,500 nuclear warheads. China has about 20 missiles capable of reaching the United States. The CIA report said short-range ballistic missiles, such as Iran's Shahab-3 and North Korea's No Dong, pose an "immediate, serious and growing threat to U.S. forces, interests and allies'' in the Middle East and Asia. Those missiles do not have the range to reach U.S. soil….."
Fox News 9/9/99 Robert Burns AP "…The report also said the countries developing ballistic missiles also are probably working on "countermeasures,'' or ways of enabling their missiles to overcome U.S. defenses. Russia and China, which already have developed numerous countermeasures, probably are willing to sell these technologies, it said. The report is a summary of a classified National Intelligence Estimate, the first the CIA has done on ballistic missile threats since 1995. In an October 1998 update of its assessment, the CIA told Congress that the United States was facing a growing threat from the spread of ballistic missiles…. A senior U.S. intelligence official said Thursday the CIA has changed the way it assesses missile threats. Reflecting its Cold War-era practice, the CIA used to wait until a country deployed a missile for the first time before declaring it a threat. Now it will declare a threat as soon as a country successfully test-launches a missile, the official said. ….
Washington Post 9/10/99 Walter Pincus "….Iran and Iraq may join North Korea in presenting a ballistic missile threat to the mainland United States within the next 10 years, according to a declassified version of a new national intelligence estimate released yesterday. In the next few years, Iran "could" test an ICBM capable of delivering a small, nonnuclear payload to the United States using technology and assistance it has received from Russia, according to the report by the CIA and other members of the U.S. intelligence community. "In the last half of the next decade," the report adds, Tehran could test a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear-weapon-sized payload to most of the United States. Iraq, according to the report, could test a North Korean-type ICBM that could hit the United States in the next 10 years, "depending on the level of foreign assistance." Analysts differ, however, on whether it would take 10 or 15 years before the Iraqis could test an ICBM that could carry a nuclear warhead.
The report is an outgrowth of a controversy that developed two years ago, when Congress criticized a national intelligence estimate that appeared to underestimate the ballistic missile threats facing the United States….."
Washington Post 9/10/99 Charles Krauthammer "…Some debates just never go away. The Clinton administration is back again pressing Congress for passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is part of a final-legacy push that includes a Middle East peace for just-in-time delivery by September 2000. The argument for the test ban is that it will prevent nuclear proliferation. If countries cannot test nukes, they will not build them because they won't know if they work. Ratifying the CTBT is supposed to close the testing option for would-be nuclear powers. We sign. They desist…… The most dramatic counterexamples, of course, are rogue states such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran. They don't sign treaties and, even when they do, they set out to break them clandestinely from the first day. Moral suasion does not sway them. More interesting is the case of friendly countries such as India and Pakistan. They are exactly the kind of countries whose nuclear ambitions the American example of restraint is supposed to mollify. …."
Inside Missile Defense 9/8/99 Michael Sirak "…According to the criteria established for next year's National Missile Defense deployment review, two successful test intercepts will be required before the go-ahead can be given to field the system, says a senior Ballistic Missile Defense Organization official. "The specific criteria that we have for the [deployment readiness review] says that we must have two intercepts prior to the authorization to begin the actual site construction," NMD joint program office Program Manager Brig. Gen. Willie Nance told Inside Missile Defense here at a space and missile defense conference. At the same time, Nance said, the criteria will also allow for the site construction contracts to be awarded after one intercept by the time of the June 2000 review if the system can achieve a second intercept before site construction would actually begin. That second stipulation is especially important because of delays to the NMD program that have reduced from four to three the number of flight tests that can occur before the DRR (IMD, Aug. 25, p13). According to the current NMD schedule, NMD site construction would have to begin in May 2001 in order for program officials to meet the goal of having the system operational by the end of fiscal year 2005, if the decision is made next year to deploy the system (see related story). An accelerated deployment option to field the system in less than five years is also still alive, but less likely. …."
Investors Business Daily 9/10/99 Brian Mitchell "….It's as hard as hitting a bullet with a bullet, or as easy as a rendezvous in space, depending on who's talking. By month's end, one side or the other will have something to crow about. The first hit-to-kill test of a ballistic-missile interceptor designed for national missile defense - dubbed Star Wars - is scheduled for Sept. 29. The interceptor has already passed two fly-by tests of its targeting sensors. The next test will try an actual collision or ''kinetic kill'' of a target launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., by a missile launched from Kwajalein atoll in the Pacific. Success couldn't come too soon for those who worry about a growing missile threat. The CIA, in a major report released Thursday, warned that over the next 15 years North Korea and Iran are likely to develop missiles that could potentially kill millions of Americans. Already, North Korea may be set to test its new Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, which could reach Alaska and Hawaii, and possibly the rest of the U.S. Barring glitches, the national missile defense system being built by the U.S. could be ready by 2005, maybe even 2003. ….Critics also argue missile defense won't protect the U.S. from nuclear or biological threats delivered by cruise missiles or smuggled into the country. And that it won't work well enough against ballistic missiles to justify the risk or expense. ''It would be totally ineffective even against early ICBM threats from North Korea,'' said Richard Garwin, who chairs an advisory committee for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He also served on a recent congressional commission on missile threats chaired by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Garwin says it's too easy for rivals to overcome missile defenses through the use of countermeasures like decoys or multiple warheads. Russia's giant SS-18 missile can put up as many as 40 targets - 10 warheads and 30 decoys. North Korea has only to load its missiles with decoys or bomblets carrying biological warfare agents to make it impossible for interceptors to destroy all the right targets, Garwin says.
''Missile defense is a fool's game,'' Circione said. ''You cannot win this game. The offensive side can always trump your defense.'' Missile defense advocates admit the U.S. is a long way from being able to counter a missile attack by Russia or China, but it still can defend against rogue states with small arsenals and simple missiles. It might also defend against the accidental launch of a Russian or Chinese missile…..In the long run, ground-based interceptors are likely to be cheaper because of the cost of maintaining ships at sea, he said. But a sea-based system offers two advantages. First, it might intercept some missiles sooner, allowing time for a second shoot if the first one fails.
Second, it provides greater flexibility and potentially broader coverage against missile threats around the world.
Heritage advocates not just a national missile defense, but also a ''global missile defense . . . first from the sea, then from space.'' It envisions adding a space-based system within five years for $4 billion to $5 billion. Other analysts say space is still 10 to 30 years off. Some question the difference between defending the world and dominating it.
''There's the question of what kind of defense posture we're going to assume,'' said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. …."
The Center For Security Policy /http://www.security-policy.org/latest.html 9/10/99 "…..With a psychiatrist's nose for neuroses, he points out that "History has not been kind to [the] argument" that unilateral U.S. restraint and "international norms" translate into universal behavior that mirrors our own. Dr. Krauthammer then applies the coup de grâce: "Whether the United States signs a ban on nuclear testing will not affect the course of proliferation. But it will affect the nuclear status of the United States." …… Dr. Krauthammer's arguments -- and those of the growing number of national security experts who have publicly declared their opposition to the CTBT(1) -- appear closely to parallel the views of the Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS). In an exchange with Sen. Dorgan on the Senate floor this morning, Sen. Lott cautioned his colleague that he better be careful what he wishes for. In response to the North Dakotan's insistence that the Senate open hearings and schedule action on this treaty (an insistence that may translate into an effort to block the chamber's action on other matters), the Majority Leader made clear that hearings would prominently feature, among others, sharply critical testimony from Dr. James Schlesinger. Few people in the Nation have more authority and credibility on this topic than the only man in history to have held the positions of Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Director of Central Intelligence, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy -- a career made even more influential in the Senate by virtue of his service in both Republican and Democratic cabinets. The prospects for favorable Senate action, already troubled,(2) can only further decline as a result. ….."
Denver Rocky Mountain News 9/11/99 Michael Romano "….A contingent of Russian nuclear-weapons officers will spend New Year's Eve in Colorado at one of America's most sensitive strategic sites. They'll be at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, monitoring missile-defense data from nearby Cheyenne Mountain in hopes of avoiding a computer glitch that might trigger nuclear war. The Russian officers will witness the workings of the U.S. Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command's early warning missile-defense system. U.S. officials say the presence of Russian observers at NORAD could prevent Armageddon if the Russians' problem-plagued missile-defense system malfunctions at midnight because of the Year 2000 Millennium Bug. A computer glitch could shut off Russia's radar, leading them to assume the worst and order a massive missile strike. "We are not doing this because we anticipate that there is any great problem at stake here," a senior defense official said at a Pentagon briefing Friday. He asked not to be named. …."
Washington Times 9/19/99 Yuri Karash "...Col. Gen. Boris Gromov, chairman of the subcommittee on Arms Control and International Security of the Russian State Duma's Committee on International Affairs, spoke recently in Moscow with correspondent Yuri Karash. Question: What is your attitude toward the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-2), and why has the State Duma not ratified it yet? Answer: I believe that START-2 is strategically important for both Russia and the United States. The treaty has not lost its significance and positive potential since 1993 - the year when it was signed. I believe the treaty should have been ratified after it was signed by the presidents of Russia and the United States. My attitude toward this issue is based on common sense. The START-2 ratification would have a good foreign-policy effect for Russia and would not contradict the defense interests of this country. The reason for the delay of START-2 ratification is based on the serious decline of the economic and social situation in Russia.......Q: Are you satisfied with political and military cooperation between Russia and the United States during the Balkan crisis? If not, why? A: No, I am not satisfied. The main reason for my dissatisfaction is that there was no such cooperation at all. Russia and the United States were going in their autonomous, although parallel, political directions. However, straight and parallel lines never meet. Such an observation is related not only to the military side of the crisis. I am sure that our countries and their foreign-policy establishments could have cooperated much better during the war if they had coordinated their actions.......Q: Did the war in Yugoslavia introduce any changes in your views on the possibility and desirability of future U.S.-Russian military cooperation? If so, what kind of changes? A: First of all, I would like to say that I consider the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which lasted three months, as a big mistake of the North Atlantic alliance. A military solution for such problems has no perspective and leads to a dead end. Besides, such actions put Europe on the brink of political and ecological catastrophe. It is beyond any manner of doubt that the NATO bombing seriously complicated U.S.-Russian cooperation in the military area. It is necessary to overcome the consequences of military intervention in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia, although it will not be easy to do that. In fact, we were thrown a few steps backwards...."
www.americanpartisan.com 9/16/99 Linda A. Prussen-Razzano "... Since 1962, America's nuclear weapons have operated under a PAL (Permissive Action Link). A specific code must be inserted into the system before a launch vehicle is released. Further, a separate code is required for detonating the nuclear warhead. Even if a weapon is accidentally launched, the warhead will not detonate without the code. America also possesses the ability to destroy the weapon before it lands on foreign soil. In September of 1991, President Bush ordered a portion of the U.S. Air Force to "stand-down," meaning they no longer had to maintain Cold-War readiness levels. The nuclear weapons on board those planes were placed in storage, instead of remaining active. "In addition, President Bush ended the alert for the strategic missiles destined to be eliminated under START I, a set composed of 450 silo-based Minuteman II rockets, along with the missiles on 10 Poseidon submarines. These important actions took only a few days."2 This selective form of de-alerting still maintains a high level of readiness. Apparently, these steps are not enough. De-alerting proponents offer the following recommendations: "the U.S. government should take the lead in a new round of voluntary actions by announcing that it will withdraw the U.S. warheads that most threaten Russia's nuclear deterrent (particularly those capable of hitting Russia's missile silos and underground command posts)....." 3 It begs the question, why? Why are we offering to strip our nuclear forces, delay our ability to counter an attack, when Russia continues to build theirs? "In May 1997, Russia announced that it would no longer adhere to a nuclear no-first-use doctrine. It continues to maintain several thousand tactical nuclear weapons at a time when NATO has made dramatic reductions in this class of nuclear forces....." 4 Are you with me? According to the President and proponents of de-alerting, we should continue to inhibit our last line of defense...in the vain hope that Russians will follow suit. That is as stupid as engaging the safety on your gun in the vain hope that a mugger will follow suit....."
New York Times Magazine 9/26/99 Peter Maass "….This is a missile factory, one of the largest in the country, a high-security complex of 80 buildings on 1,400 acres of land with 8,500 men and women who work for Raytheon Missiles Systems to design and produce armaments whose names hint at the nonpassive nature of their business — Tomahawk, Stinger, Javelin, RAM, Maverick, HARM. ……The reason for the fuss is simple: within this laboratory, Raytheon's top ballistic technicians are putting the final touches on a weapon that is supposed to protect America from Armageddon. The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle is supposed to fly through space at 4,500 miles an hour and smash into an incoming warhead. The closing velocity of missile and missile-killer would be an amazing four miles per second, and somehow, despite the velocity, despite the vacuum of space, despite the subzero temperatures, despite decoys and evasive maneuvers, the E.K.V. will, if all goes as planned, hit its target's warhead and obliterate it. This task is akin to hitting the tip of a bullet with another bullet, except that the cost of missing the target by even a fraction of an inch is the loss of a U.S. city under a mushroom cloud, or a cloud of anthrax spores or the smallpox virus. An E.K.V. costs $20 million to $25 million and, at 120 pounds, is pound for pound among the most expensive weapons ever built. It is also the crown jewel of National Missile Defense, a program that is Topic A for defense hawks in Washington who worry America is unnecessarily vulnerable to missiles tipped with weapons of mass destruction. National Missile Defense is also Topic A for Pentagon critics, as an example of another out-of-control program that has soaked up more than $50 billion in nearly two decades. Most antimissile tests have failed to score intercepts. While that dismal trend is beginning to turn, it makes the E.K.V.'s tryout, scheduled for Sept. 30, when it will soar into space to attempt to destroy a test warhead flying somewhere above the Pacific Ocean, all the more urgent, for both Raytheon and the Pentagon. Because depending on whom you believe right now, the E.K.V. is either a magic bullet for national security or just another pricey misfire from the defense industry. America is preparing for nuclear war again….."
The Center For Security Policy 10/4/99 "....In the event 34 or more Senators decline to consent to the CTBT's ratification, one reason seems likely to prove overriding: Not one of those participating in the White House pep rally -- not the Administration's luminati, not the former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the directors of the Nation's nuclear laboratories or other scientists -- can honestly say that the U.S. nuclear deterrent can be maintained in a safe, reliable and credible condition for the indefinite future without at least low-yield, periodic underground nuclear testing. To be sure, there will be a lot of talk tomorrow about how "confident" these assembled worthies are that that will be the case. The President and his cheerleaders can be expected to reiterate some variation on the line Mr. Clinton pronounced on August 14, 1995 -- the day he revealed that he would agree to a treaty banning even undetectable, low-yield nuclear tests: "I consider the maintenance of a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile to be a supreme national interest of the United States." Clinton and Company will assert their confidence that the Nation's supreme interest in preserving such a stockpile will in the future (actually ten years or so in the future) be satisfied by sophisticated computer modeling, not actual testing. Unfortunately, being "confident" is not the same thing as being certain. And no one can be certain that our arsenal of aging nuclear weapons will be viable in the future if we are unable to use the tool that every President from Truman on -- until, that is, Bill Clinton -- understood was necessary for that purpose: realistic nuclear testing. ...."
Drudge Report **Exclusive** 10/7/99 "....President Clinton will offer to share new missile defense technology with other nations, if such a system can be created, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned from government sources. Clinton's intentions will not be formally announced until next summer, after a Pentagon review of the system's feasibility, but the president told senior advisers this week that he likes the idea of sharing the technology in an effort to prevent a new global arms race. The offer could only be made in general terms, since the outcome of the research is far from clear. Clinton expressed a willingness to share the new missile defense system specifically with Russia, China and Israel. The move is bound to cause complete controversy, but a White House policy of sharing a missile defense with other supernations would not be new......"
Augusta Chronicle 10/7/99 Editorial "....`Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it'' is an adage that's haunting President Clinton this week. He has been pushing the Senate for a vote on the ancient 1992 nuclear test ban treaty, as a gambit to needle Republicans for not allowing an up or down vote on the flawed pact. Well, the ruse backfired. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., put the issue on the calendar to be debated and voted on next week. Now the White House and arms control community are in full retreat, pleading behind the scenes to postpone the vote, which Lott is unlikely to do unless the administration publicly requests the delay. The treaty has languished in the Senate for years despite propaganda by liberal pundits and politicians that it would curb nuclear weapons proliferation. That's an admirable goal, but it wouldn't happen under this treaty. ...."
The Nando Times 10/7/99 James Rosen "....Helms, backed by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, and Clinton squared off over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, summoning allies to almost simultaneous news conferences and marshalling letters of support from prominent arms experts. Signed by Clinton three years ago, the treaty would ban nuclear arms tests by participating countries, but it cannot take effect without U.S. ratification. Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other opponents say the accord would lock the United States into not testing its nuclear arms, which they say would cause the weapons to deteriorate over time. The United States voluntarily stopped testing its nuclear arms in 1992 under President George Bush. .....Helms, Warner and Kyl also released a letter signed by six former defense secretaries who oppose U.S. ratification of the pact. Clinton, in turn, distributed a letter of support signed by 31 Nobel laureates, former senators, arms-control officials and ambassadors......"
UPI 109/5/99 "....A senior Russian general Tuesday issued a stern warning that changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty by the United States, which is seeking to build a new missile defense system, could threaten the destruction of major international arms agreements and cause the nuclear powers to become ``unpredictable.'' In an interview published on the front page of Russia's Nezavisimaya Gazeta on Tuesday, Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, Russia's strategic missile forces chief, warned that implementation by the United States of a new defense system would lead to the scrapping of international agreements and a new arms race. Yakovlev accused the U.S. of moving to undermine the ABM treaty, which he called the basis for START and START-II nuclear arms reduction treaties, and a whole range of other strategic agreements. Yakovlev said: ``If the U.S. scraps the 1972 AMB treaty, they will be to blame for disrupting the process of limiting nuclear weapons. All agreements signed or in preparation -- namely START-I, START-II and consultations on START-III -- will be threatened.'' ``Russia and the United States will become unpredictable to each other,'' the general warned....."
The Calgary Sun 10/5/99 Bill Kaufmann "....A Canadian failure to become part of a fledgling U.S. anti-ballistic missile system could imperil the two nations' 41-year-old aerospace de-fence alliance, says the Canadian general who serves as NORAD's second-in command. Canadian politicians have neglected the issue of participating in a missile-based system defence being developed to shoot down incoming warheads, Lt.-Gen. George Macdonald told the Sun editorial board . ...... "
AFP 10/5/99 ".... Doing her part in Washington's drive for ratification of an apparently doomed nuclear test ban treaty, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Tuesday urged the US Senate not to miss an "historic" opportunity by rejecting it. ....... Albright is to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday in the hope of winning its approval. In the meantime President Bill Clinton and his top national security officials are fanning out for what they hope will be a last-minute victory when the treaty is voted on as early as next Tuesday. Conservatives say the treaty will hurt US interests and that its enforcement is impossible....."
TheDailyWire via Reuters 10/5/99 "....U.S. Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, raising the stakes in a face-off with the White House, predicted Tuesday that the Senate would reject a global treaty banning nuclear weapons tests and urged President Clinton to stop pressing for swift ratification. Although the treaty is set for a vote Tuesday, Lott said many senators worried that it would be difficult to verify treaty provisions relating to underground testing, the spread of nuclear weapons technology and stockpiles of armaments. ``I think it is unwise for the administration to have pushed for this treaty as they have when the timing is not right and when it's very dangerous for the future of our children and our grandchildren,'' Lott said. ``They, in effect, have forced this vote,'' the Mississippi Republican said. ``Now, they're going to have to make a decision to go forward and have the vote occur. And if the vote occurs, I hope and I believe the treaty will be defeated.'' ...."
Washington Post 10/6/99 Robert Suro Helen Dewar "....Senate Democrats and Republicans scrambled yesterday to avoid a high-stakes confrontation over a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons, as both sides appeared increasingly convinced that they would be better off politically without a vote. After delaying consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for more than two years, the Republican leadership surprised the White House last week by scheduling a quick vote on ratification for next Tuesday. While Republicans clearly have enough votes to defeat the treaty, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) started backing away yesterday, saying "the timing is not right" for a decision. Political strategists suggested that Republicans had been intimidated by a White House lobbying effort that portrayed defeat of the treaty as an invitation to proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Third World and the starting bell for a new arms race with Russia and China. Some Democratic leaders, meanwhile, concluded that they would prefer to let the issue drop rather than face certain defeat in a vote next week....."
Washington Post 10/4/99 Bradley Graham ".....For some years now, the Pentagon has insisted that the best way to defend against enemy ballistic missiles would be to fire volleys of ground-based interceptors. Space-based interceptors went out of fashion -- and the realm of affordability -- with former president Ronald Reagan. And laser devices, popular with some missile defense enthusiasts, have a long way to go before they are ready for prime time. But the ground-based interceptor approach wasn't working very well either -- until lately. After years of suffering many more misses than hits, the Pentagon has scored a string of successes in recent months shooting at mock enemy missiles using a new generation of prototype interceptors. The latest triumph came Saturday night when the most advanced of these model devices -- the one that would be used to defend all 50 U.S. states against missile attack -- flew its first intercept attempt and pulverized a dummy warhead about 140 miles above the central Pacific Ocean. The test involved higher altitudes and missile speeds at least three times faster than earlier intercepts this year by two Army prototypes -- the Patriot 3 and the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD -- meant for shorter-range battlefield systems. Together, these trial runs have provided critical validation of the "hit-to-kill" concept pitting one speeding missile against another....."
UPI 10/3/99 "....The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization said it has successfully tested the ``kill vehicle'' for its nascent National Missile Defense system. The test took place as scheduled Saturday night over the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon announced early Sunday. The test heralds the beginning of a difficult diplomatic challenge for the Clinton administration, a Pentagon official acknowledged Friday. In order to deploy an NMD system intended to protect the United States from a limited intercontinental nuclear missile attack Russia would have to agree to changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. ``Their general attitude is they prefer to sustain ABM in its current form,'' said a senior defense official on Friday. He added that U.S. and Russian officials have been discussing the possibility of changing the treaty since the summer. ``So far, their attitude is 'we'd rather stay where we are,'' he said. The U.S. position is that the treaty can be changed to accommodate the NMD system without threatening strategic stability by undermining the effectiveness of Russian missiles against America. The threat of mutually assured destruction has long formed the underpinnings of deterrence......"
National Review 10/6/99 "....With the successful test on Saturday night of an exoatmospheric kill vehicle - i.e., a missile that can shoot down another missile in outer space - the United States appears more ready than ever to develop the robust missile-defense system conservatives have craved since President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative speech in 1983..... We decided to grab Bill Gertz for a quick six questions about all of this. Gertz is perhaps America's leading intelligence and national security reporter. He writes for the Washington Times and regularly scoops the Washington Post and the New York Times. His book, Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security, was published earlier this year.
1) Are these tests real? The test Saturday of a missile interceptor and an ICBM was very real and from the Pentagon, it worked amazingly well. A test ICBM was fired from Vandenberg AFB, Calif., over the Pacific and a high-speed, high-technology interceptor missile intercepted the dummy warhead minutes later some 140 miles in space. Closing speeds for both the warhead and interceptor were something like 15,000 miles an hour and on impact the warhead was dissolved into "plasma." The test showed the hardest part of long-range missile defense - an interceptor that can maneuver and discriminate a real warhead from a decoy - works. The remaining components of the system are long-range early-warning radar, battle management command and control, and space-based sensors.
2) How long before a real system would be deployable? And will it look anything like the system Ronald Reagan envisioned? Right now the Pentagon plan for deploying an NMD - national missile defense - could be deployed as early as 2005. More likely is 2010, after the most advanced sensors are put in space: the space-based based infrared satellite system, or SBIRS. There are two versions, high and low orbit. The cost would be around $10.5 billion. The system would be designed to knock out a small number of incoming warheads, not the large number proposed under President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative; that envisioned a much larger "shield" against large numbers of Soviet ICBMs and would rely a lot on space-based weapons and equipment....
3) Opponents say that missile-defense might inspire China and Russia to start a new arms race; what do you make of that? Opponents of missile defense argue that building anti-missile systems will upset strategic stability by giving the strategic advantage to nuclear-armed states that can fire off a salvo of nukes and then protect themselves from retaliation. They fail to understand that defense is better than offense. Strategic weapons today are supposed to be "balanced" by offensive nuclear strike capabilities - ICBMs, submarine-launched missiles, bombers - poised to attack each other. It's like two people pointing guns at each others' heads.... They are stuck in Cold War "mutual-assured destruction" thinking.
4) Why does the Clinton administration cling to the ABM treaty? President Clinton has called the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty the "cornerstone" of U.S.-Russian strategic relations. The treaty bans both sides from building, or even preparing to build, nationwide defenses against missile attack. It's the central Article 1 of the treaty..... Of course, China isn't a party to it, nor is North Korea. Yet a senior Chinese general recently invoked the ABM treaty to oppose U.S. arms sales to Taiwan... .
5) Just today Russia has issued a warning about the U.S. making changes to ABM; what effect do you think that will have on the debate here? Russia is opposing any changes to the ABM treaty, even though Yeltsin agreed to hold "discussions" on such changes. The last round of negotiations with Moscow on the ABM lasted years and nearly resulted in the imposition of devastating curbs on U.S. theater missile defense systems. The talks were a covert attempt by the Clinton administration to expand the ABM treaty to cover missile defenses against short-range missiles, something the treaty was never meant to cover. The discussions on changes to the ABM treaty to allow a limited NMD system are likely to be fruitless, as the Russians have no interest in allowing the United States to defend the country from Russian missile attack.
6) Where do you think we will be on missile defense a year from now? A year from now national missile defense will be a major topic in the upcoming presidential debate. In June, the president will make a decision on whether to deploy a national missile defense system over the next five years. My guess is that a president who has said - falsely - on over 100 occasions that there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of America will not deploy. The president in July, however, signed legislation that states simply that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense as soon as the technology is available. The technology is available now and when he signed the bill, the president said he is not obligated to deploy it...."
Washington Post 10/6/99 John Deutch, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft "....While we are no fans of the CTBT, our purpose here is not to argue its merits and defects. Our point is more straightforward. The simple fact is that it is premature for the Senate to vote on the CTBT -- at least during the life of the present Congress -- because the treaty is not coming into force any time soon, whether or not the United States ratifies it. This means that few if any of the benefits envisaged by the treaty's advocates could be realized by such action. But if we act now, there could be real costs and risks to our security interests, including our nonproliferation objectives. Supporters of the CTBT claim that it will make a major contribution to limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. But even the treaty's advocates concede that for this objective to be achieved, at least the key countries that are of proliferation concern must agree to accede to the treaty. Indeed, the treaty wisely requires that each of 44 specific countries sign and ratify the document before it enters into force. But only 23 of those countries have done so thus far. For example, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria have not yet acted. Many of these countries may never join the CTBT regime, and U.S. Senate ratification, early or late, is unlikely to have any significant impact on their decisions. For example, no serious person should believe that rogue nations such as Iran or Iraq will give up their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons if only the United States ratifies the CTBT......"
New York Times 10/4/99 Richard Stevenson "....The United States military has successfully tested a crucial element of the proposed national missile shield, shooting a mock warhead out of the sky over the Pacific Ocean with an interceptor launched from thousands of miles away, Pentagon officials said Sunday. In the first major test of a revamped system intended to protect all 50 states from limited missile attacks, the 55-inch-long electronics-laden "kill vehicle" separated from a booster rocket and locked on to its target with heat-seeking technology from 1,400 miles away late on Saturday. A few minutes later it streaked into the dummy warhead, pulverizing it in a 16,000 miles-per-hour collision that lighted up supersensitive radar screens tracking the encounter, the officials said. The test was intended to try out only the kill vehicle. Other important elements of the system, including space-based sensors, ground-based radars, new rocket boosters and command centers, have yet to be tested. But the test was a big step toward deployment of the system, which has been scaled back substantially from the "Star Wars" antimissile program championed in the early 1980's by President Ronald Reagan. The goal now is not to defend the United States against an all-out nuclear barrage, but to thwart limited strikes by rogue nations like North Korea or Iran. ....."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/03/test.ban.treaty/ 10/3/99 "...The Clinton administration launched an offensive Sunday to gain support for U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. "We're about to start a great debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to end nuclear testing, something (Presidents) Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy wanted," President Bill Clinton said during a fund-raising event in Los Angeles. The White House was surprised last week when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., unexpectedly scheduled an October 12 vote on the treaty, which had languished in committee for two years. The treaty -- signed by 154 nations -- calls for an outright ban on nuclear testing. But only 23 of the 44 "nuclear capable" nations that signed the agreement have since ratified it...... Republican anxieties over the treaty stem from the CIA's inability to monitor low-level nuclear tests accurately enough to ensure compliance. The Washington Post, quoting senior U.S. officials, reported Sunday that Russia had carried out two tests last month in the Arctic, but intelligence data from seismic sensors and other monitoring equipment could not determine the exact nature of those trials....."
The Australian Financial Review 10/5/99 Geoffrey Barker "....The US has moved significantly closer to developing national missile defences with the successful weekend test of a ballistic missile "kill vehicle" above the Pacific Ocean. ..... Russia, China and arms-control advocates in the US oppose the deployment of missile defences on the grounds that it would trigger a new arms race. They say the development of anti-missile systems would speed the development of smaller, smarter, faster offensive missiles. The US says its proposed missile defence system would be limited to protecting the US from ballistic missiles fired by "rogue States", but arms-control advocates say the system could be expanded to provide much wider and deeper cover. In Saturday's test, a Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California was located and destroyed by a "kill vehicle" 224km above the earth's surface. The hit occurred 6,880km downrange from Vandenberg; the collision speed was 24,000kmh. ...... The issue is potentially contentious for US-Australian relations. Australia's Defence Science and Technology Organisation has participated in US tests to investigate early detection of ballistic missile launches. While the Coalition's defence policy backs the integrity of the ABM Treaty, it also pledges increased funding for DSTO co-operation with the US Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation. ....."
Reuters 10/5/99 Gareth Jones "....Russia said Tuesday the United States had violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and undermined arms control efforts by testing a ``kill vehicle'' designed to destroy long-range strategic weapons. ....Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Rakhmanin said the test ran against the grain of the 1972 ABM treaty, which limits the systems Russia and the United States can deploy to ward off enemy missiles. ``Such actions by the U.S. side effectively lead to the undermining of key provisions in the treaty with all the negative consequences which that entails. Responsibility for this lies with the United States,'' he told a news briefing. He said the test threatened the global arms control system including the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. ``Russia doggedly insists on the preservation and increased effectiveness of the ABM treaty as the most important element for securing strategic stability in the world and for continuing the process of nuclear disarmament,'' Rakhmanin said. ...."
Claremont Institute - Precepts 10/15/99 Larry Arnn "...The United States does not have a national missile defense. Regular readers of these Precepts know that well. The only thing preventing nuclear war at present is the deterrent capability of America's nuclear arsenal. The passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) -- and its restrictions on testing the reliability of current nuclear missiles -- would have made that next to impossible. Nuclear missiles are, after all, mechanical devices. They need to be tested to make sure their component parts work. Numerous Secretaries of Defense from both Democratic and Republican administrations advised against the CTBT for this reason. Fortunately the treaty was not ratified. We would like to make two important observations about this: First, the United States has refrained from testing since 1992, when then-President Bush decided that testing was not as important as progress on arms control agreements...... We have not merely gone slowly on building a national missile defense. We have undercut the very principle -- nuclear deterrence -- that is supposed to work in its place..... Second, it is bad constitutional practice to delay ratification of a treaty this long. The President negotiated the CTBT for two years prior to signing it in September 1996. He gave it to the Senate in 1997. Knowing it would not pass, the President did not push for a vote......It is difficult to see why the President believes he can make the rejection of the CTBT an issue or why Senate Republicans, save a few, appear reluctant to debate the point. Either the United States is worth defending -- with nuclear missiles if need be -- or it is not. If the country is worth defending, and the President and members of Congress have sworn an oath saying they would defend it, then we must make sure that we have a credible nuclear arsenal to deter our enemies. Sen. Lott, in his remarks following the defeat of the CTBT, said with no trace of irony that "Sometimes you just have to fulfill your constitutional duty." Were that they would do it more often....."
U.S. News 10/18/99 Richard Newman "....Was it 1999, or 1959? On Capitol Hill, senators gravely debated whether a treaty to ban nuclear testing would threaten America's "nuclear deterrent capability." Protesters at the Capitol agitated for a nuclear-free future. Dignitaries not heard from in years surfaced to extol or denounce arms control. Ten years after the end of the Cold War, missile politics is making a cameo appearance in Washington, with Republicans hoping to raise it to a starring role in next year's campaigns....... One reason is that arms control is hard to connect directly to U.S. security today. Perhaps the biggest benefit of the test-ban treaty, for instance, would be a breather in the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan, neither of which harbors animosity toward the United States. The treaty would probably do little to prevent Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and other potential U.S. foes from building the bomb in the first place, since crude nukes would largely suit their purposes. "They'll test them on us," says Sen. Robert Smith, chairman of a Senate committee on strategic power. Opposition has therefore centered on the arcane question of whether the U.S. can ensure the safety and reliability of its roughly 10,000 nuclear warheads by using computer simulations-as it has done voluntarily since 1992. ....."
The Washington Times 10/12/99 James Schlesinger "...Following is the text of a letter to Sens. Trent Lott, majority leader, and Tom Daschle, Democratic leader, from six former secretaries of defense........ The nuclear weapons in our nation's arsenal are sophisticated devices, whose thousands of components must function together with split-second timing and scant margin for error. A nuclear weapon contains radioactive material, which in itself decays and also changes the properties of other materials within the weapon. Over time, the components of our weapons corrode and deteriorate, and we lack experience predicting the effects of such aging on the safety and reliability of the weapons. The shelf-life of U.S. nuclear weapons was expected to be some 20 years. In the past, the constant process of replacement and testing of new designs gave some assurance that weapons in the arsenal would be both new and reliable. But under the CTBT, we would be vulnerable to the effects of aging because we could not test "fixes" of problems with existing warheads. ......We believe these considerations render a permanent, zero-yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty incompatible with the nation's international commitments and vital security interests and believe it does not deserve the Senate's advice and consent. Accordingly, we respectfully urge you and your colleagues to preserve the right of this nation to conduct nuclear tests necessary to the future of our nuclear deterrent by rejecting approval of the present CTBT. Respectfully, James R. Schlesinger Richard B. Cheney Frank C. Carlucci Caspar W. Weinberger Donald H. Rumsfeld Melvin R. Laird ...."
AP 10/12/99 Kevin Galvin ".....At the same time, Senate Democrats were floating a new proposal under which they - and not President Clinton - would promise not to try to initiate Senate action on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty during the presidential-election season. "It's a way to maturely deal with it," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Some Republicans said they might be able to accept such a deal. And Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., left open the possibility for a face-saving compromise, told reporters all he wanted was "an absolute assurance it won't come up again in this Congress." ...... "I'm perfectly comfortable having a vote," Lott said. "This treaty is fatally flawed." ....."
Associated Press 10/12/99 Terence Hunt ".....The battle over the nuclear test ban treaty turned into a political minefield of brinksmanship and miscalculation, ending with President Clinton in full retreat and trying to stave off a humiliating defeat. Lacking enough support to win after demanding that Republicans hold a vote, Clinton was forced into an eleventh-hour about-face, pleading with the Senate to delay the treaty rather than defeat it. Analysts began talking about a lame-duck president. Republicans, seething from failed battles on everything from tax cuts to Clinton's impeachment, refused to let the president off the hook easily. They toyed with him over whether to defeat the treaty outright or postpone it until after he leaves office in 2001......"
Jane's Defence Weekly 10/13/99 Greg Seigle "....Fresh after scoring an intercept in space on its first attempt, the US National Missile Defense (NMD) system is being prepared for more rigorous tests that would more realistically simulate 'real-world' conditions. Each of the 20 planned intercept tests for NMD over the next five years are expected to become sequentially more challenging, culminating in the deployment of the controversial $10.5 billion system, US Department of Defense (DoD) officials said. If political considerations over the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty are alleviated and NMD is deployed in 2005 as projected a big 'if', according to opponents of the programme the DoD plans to continue testing in a bid to boost NMD's abilities to intercept "much more" than a few incoming inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), officials said. A senior DoD official involved in the slow-moving ABM Treaty talks with Russia said: "Our conviction is that the overall system, even when it is in its projected state around 2010, [could] handle a somewhat larger threat than it can at the initial stage." ...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/08/088r-100899-idx.html 10/8/99 William Drozdiak "....The world's major powers, including America's closest allies, warned the United States today that failure to ratify the multinational nuclear test ban treaty would send a dangerous signal that could encourage other countries to spurn arms control commitments. With the Senate scheduled to begin debating the treaty Friday, envoys from nearly 100 nations at a conference here, including Russia, China, Britain and Germany, expressed alarm that the United States appears to be on the brink of rejecting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The pact, which President Clinton signed in 1996, would prohibit nuclear test explosions worldwide. Diplomats said British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac will soon make rare personal appeals to the United States to approve the accord, prior to a possible Senate vote next week....."
Associated Press 10/13/99 Tom Raum ".....Senate Democrats failed today in a last-ditch attempt to force postponement of action on the nuclear test ban treaty, losing on a party-line vote that opened the way to expected rejection of the pact. It represented a major defeat for President Clinton, who had made the 154-nation treaty a major second-term initiative. "My feeling now is the right thing to do is defeat this treaty,'' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said as the vote neared. Democrats forced a roll call vote on a motion by Lott to return to consideration of the treaty during the third, and concluding day of debate. That motion required a simple majority and Lott had it, 55-45. ...."
Associated Press 10/13/99 Tom Raum ".....The Senate rejected a landmark treaty to ban nuclear testing Wednesday, handing President Clinton a humiliating foreign policy defeat. The vote was 48 to 51, far short of the 67 votes -- or two-thirds of the Senate -- needed for ratification. As expected, the final vote closely followed party lines, with only four Republicans voting for it. ..... Republicans who voted for the treaty were Sens. John Chafee of Rhode Island, James Jeffords of Vermont, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., voted ``present.'' The treaty has been signed by 154 nations, but must be ratified by all 44 of the world's nuclear-capable countries to take effect. Thus, the Senate vote was an enormous blow....."
Washington Post 10/14/99 Steven Mufson "..... With the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty yesterday, the U.S. Senate has shattered the centerpiece of the Clinton administration's arms control strategy, and diplomats and arms experts warned that the worldwide fallout could be severe and long-lasting. The most immediate impact, experts said, might be to undermine the ability of the United States to persuade India and Pakistan to sign the test ban treaty, a campaign the Clinton administration has been waging since the two Asian foes conducted tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests early last year. The longer-term effect could be to undermine the ability of the world's leading nuclear power-the United States-to limit membership in the nuclear weapons club, stop nuclear development by Iran and North Korea, and persuade Russia and China to keep lids on their arsenals. ......"
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/101499testban-treaty.html 10/14/99 Eric Schmitt "....The Senate Wednesday rejected a treaty banning all underground nuclear testing in a 51-48 vote that crushed one of President Clinton's major foreign policy goals. The vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, was largely along party lines. It was a victory for conservative Republicans and followed a weeklong power play in which Democrats, the White House and some moderate Republicans tried to forestall the defeat of the treaty by delaying action until after President Clinton left office. In a last-ditch effort to save the treaty, Clinton called the Republican leader, Trent Lott, two hours before the vote and asked that he delay action for national security reasons. In a blunt rebuff, Lott said the President had offered too little, too late, and he pushed ahead with an action that he knew would humiliate Clinton. This was the first time the Senate had defeated a major international security pact since the Treaty of Versailles, creating the League of Nations, failed to win Senate approval in 1920...."
http://washtimes.com/ 10/14/99 Dave Boyer "....The Senate last night defeated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), resisting a bipartisan effort to delay the vote and handing President Clinton the most glaring treaty setback for a U.S. president since the end of World War I. "The next administration must be left free to establish . . . its own nuclear nonproliferation policies, not have them dictated by the Clinton administration," said Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican. "We must have a clean break." ....... It was the first arms-control treaty ever rejected by the Senate......"We intend to abide by the terms of this," White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger said in a telephone interview after the Senate's vote. Senate Democrats charged that the "far right" of the Republican Party killed the treaty to end all arms control, and said the vote imperiled world peace. They promised to make it a political issue throughout the presidential election campaign next year. "The hard right that hates arms control is driving this agenda," said Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. "Politics and spite are driving this vote." Countered Sen. Slade Gorton, Washington Republican, "That means there were 51 'hard-righters' in [the Senate], and you and I know that's a false statement." ...... "This treaty does not meet even the minimal standards of previous arms-control treaties," said Mr. Lott, a Mississippi Republican. "Had the president consulted with more senators before making the decision in 1995 to pursue an unverifiable, unlimited-duration, zero-yield ban on testing, he would have known that such a treaty could not be ratified." Republicans again argued that the treaty would encourage proliferation by preventing the United States from ensuring the reliability of its nuclear stockpile......"
Yahoo News 10/14/99 AP Shihoko Goto "....A chorus of dismay rose in Asia today after the U.S. Senate rejected a multinational treaty that would have outlawed underground nuclear tests. ``The adverse effects are inestimable, and it is of extreme concern,'' Japanese Foreign Minister Yohei Kono said. ``We had hoped for the U.S.'s leadership in nuclear disarmament and in preventing nuclear proliferation.'' ..... China, which like the United States has signed but not ratified the treaty, expressed ``profound regret.''
NY Times 10/13/99 John Broder "....The demise of the test ban treaty is a tale of fatal miscalculation by Senate Democrats, benign neglect by the White House and political intrigue by Senate Republicans and other opponents of the agreement. The result pleased Lott and his associates, but it shined a harsh light on the institution of the Senate and left American allies bewildered yet again by the nation's strange way of doing public business. The Senate action was a particularly sharp repudiation of Clinton because he had sold the treaty as a national security imperative for the United States....... Democrats did not see the opposition to the treaty hardening in large part because relations between the parties are so bad that Democrats and Republicans often do not talk to each other about pending business. The White House's legislative affairs operation likewise did not detect the looming disaster for the President, according to a senior Administration official........ A week later, in a private conversation on the Senate floor, Lott told Biden that he would bring up the test ban treaty if Democrats lifted their threat to obstruct the Senate calendar. It sounded like a good-faith offer, but in fact it was a trap. Lott intended an accelerated schedule of treaty hearings, culminating in a vote less than two weeks later. ....."The truth is the White House didn't see this coming," said a senior Administration official enlisted in the belated effort to salvage the treaty. ...... "
The Daily Republican 10/14/99 Howard Hobbs "....In a stinging defeat for President Clinton, the Senate on Wednesday rejected the global nuclear test ban treaty after a bitter Democrat offensive fight to postpone a vote they couldn't win. The defeat stunned U.S. allies and other nations who may assume they are free to restart their stalled nuclear engines and rejoin the Thermonuclear rat race. The Clinton White House is crying wolf after the Senate's rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty. The Democrat Party mantra has become overnight that the Senate's rejection of the unverifiable Clinton test ban treaty will cause a political hailstorm of reaction across the globe. The idea that President Clinton would submit such a flawed piece of work is casting into doubt the reliability of President Clinton's leadership in the international leadership and foreign policy community. Worse still, the Foreign Press reaction to Mr. Clinton's so-called Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on Wednesday as the Senate readied for hearings, Mr. Clinton hesitated, and began an appeal to the Senate not to vote on the CBT but, instead to delay. ...... Islamabad's Pakistan Observer saw it coming on Monday and wrote, "The move for postponement of a ratification vote...highlights the double standard and inherent contradictions of the U.S. policies.... Ironically, the Clinton administration is trying to impose on others what the American lawmakers don't deem appropriate for the United States. It certainly has no moral basis to woo other nations on this issue." Making matters worse, Reuters is breaking a story that the Senate's vote against ratifying the international nuclear test ban treaty, a top foreign policy goal for President Clinton, was seen by its supporters as a devastating blow to American prestige. "Our authority to set the norms in the international system has been seriously compromised," said Laurence Korb, now with the Council on Foreign Relations and once an assistant secretary of state in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan...."
AFP 10/14/99 "... "For one thing, since I signed this treaty ... I've spoken about this 30 times or more," Clinton said at a press conference after the Senate voted down ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) Wednesday. But world leaders, appalled that the United States has virtually abdicated its leadership on non-proliferation, have complained that Clinton did not work hard enough to win his case. "Clinton's administration did not do the necessary lobbying and it was caught off guard," a senior European diplomat in Washington said Thursday. US lawmakers from both parties have called Clinton's lobbying efforts insufficient..... Republicans were particularly miffed when Clinton signed the treaty in 1996 despite their security concerns and complaints they were not suffiently consulted at the time. ......"I don't think it's fair for the president to abdicate his responsibility, and say he'll only work on it when the Senate gets ready to work on it," the Democratic Senate aide said. "There were some pretty important issues there, they deserved more than lip service," he said. ....."
New York Post 10/15/99 ".....President Clinton got it right when he said that the debacle over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was "partisan politics of the worst kind." Unfortunately, by limiting his ire to Senate Republicans, he was pointing his finger at the wrong target. Point at yourself, Mr. President. In angrily excoriating the Republicans and their alleged "new wave of isolationism," which supposedly led to the treaty's rejection, Clinton failed to acknowledge that the more this treaty has been studied and evaluated, the more serious the objections that have been raised to it. In fact, there was almost no argument in favor of ratification if you consider that Clinton's own CIA said its verification depended on technology that doesn't even exist yet. Not to mention that six former secretaries of defense called it "incompatible with the nation's international commitments and vital security interests." Other experts say that it would not stop rogue states like North Korea and Iran from expanding their nuclear-development programs and warn that a total ban on testing would endanger the safety of America's nuclear stockpile. ......"
Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 "....But if indeed it is the intention of the Clinton-Gore White House to make national security an issue for the next 12 months, then we owe them nothing but thanks. With a 51-48 vote against the treaty along party lines and every GOP contender weighing in against it, this abstruse treaty (its defeat blamed even for the coup in Pakistan, discussed in the editorial below) offers an excellent opportunity to discover where our major parties stand on national defense......In rejecting the treaty, the Senate also rejected the hitherto sacrosanct notion that arms-control agreements actually work as they've been marketed to the American people. This is a mind-set that has been more dangerous to international security than any Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. The history of arms control is in fact a history of failure. Arms-control agreements have more often been a reason for inaction (which may be why they are so popular among generals). There is no better example than the 1972 ABM Treaty, which has ensured that the U.S. remains without defense of any sort against ballistic missile attack. Without the impediment of the treaty, it's hard to imagine that any American leader could have taken the position that we ought not defend the U.S. homeland against possible attack by a North Korea or a Saddam Hussein. We'd be protected today. There is ample evidence that arms-control agreements have done more to spread arms than to suppress them......Asked at his news conference yesterday if he couldn't acknowledge the possibility that his opponents had acted in good faith, Mr. Clinton offered little more response than that many of the Republicans didn't know the subject. This comment, speaking of good faith, doesn't do much credit to a public opposition that included six former defense secretaries, four former CIA directors (including two Clinton appointees), four former national security advisers, three former energy secretaries and three former directors of the national nuclear laboratories....."
New York Times 10/16/99 Michael Gordon "….In a dramatic reversal of previous policy, the United States is now offering to help Russia complete a large missile tracking radar if Moscow agrees in exchange to renegotiate what both countries long saw as a landmark arms control agreement. The confidential proposal to help the Russians finish their radar near Irkutsk, Siberia, is part of an intensive American campaign laying the groundwork for a defense against potential missile attacks from North Korea and other nations, Russian and American officials say. Such a nationwide defense is prohibited by the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, a pact viewed for more than 25 years as the bedrock of arms control. Moscow has so far refused to alter it, and announced on Friday -- two days after the Senate voted down a nuclear test ban treaty -- that it would work with China to seek broad support at the United Nations against American efforts to alter the accord. The increasingly heated dispute over antimissile defenses comes as the structure of arms control appears to be under siege……. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has held a series of high-level meetings with the Russians, including a session this week in Helsinki with Grigory Mamedov, a senior official at Russia's Foreign Ministry. By outlining their plans, the Americans are seeking to reassure the Russians that the proposed missile defense is not aimed at them……"
Freeper Czar 10/17/99 "…..treaties do not constrain the development of nuclear weapons by others. The ban on atmospheric testing prevented only atmospheric testing and did not prevent the development of nuclear weapons. With respect to the SALT and IRBM treaties, constraining quantities is not the same thing as constraining development. For proof of that, check out Russia's new nuclear missile just announced a few weeks ago. If I recall correctly, SALT II has still not been signed or ratified-nor should it be. Treaties have kept the lid on nothing. Nuclear weapon development was conducted under wraps and the bad guys will continue to do so. We don't need to worry about "more warning time" which a treaty doesn't provide anyway-highly sophisticated national means of detection is what provides the necessary intelligence information. This goes on regardless of treaties. How they react to that warning has more to do with relative military strength than with geopolitics……. Since a treaty does not limit "the opportunity for potential rivals of the US to acquire effective nuclear arsenals, the national security of the US" is not enhanced nor can it ever be by a piece of paper……. The almost unbelievable deterioration of our conventional military capability can be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration along with an unbroken string of foreign policy disasters, all of which make US nuclear superiority more important than ever…….Because there has been no "prudent planning or sufficient funding for R&D", our conventional military capability has been very severely eroded. Only clear nuclear superiority can protect the US from a nuclear attack. A treaty would do absolutely nothing to ensure that the US would retain its nuclear superiority, and certainly would do nothing to force other countries away from nuclear development and deployment….."
Washington Post 10/17/99 Steven Mufson Bradley Graham "….The Clinton administration has offered to help Russia complete a key radar site and to share more American radar data if Russia agrees to renegotiate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so that the United States could build a national missile defense system, a senior administration official said yesterday. In a project that would cost tens of millions of dollars, the United States would help Russia complete a partially constructed radar near the Siberian city of Irkutsk that is oriented eastward, covering northern Asia, including North Korea, and parts of the North Pole. Russia might also be given access to data from U.S. early-warning radars on the full trajectory of missile launches, and the two countries might collaborate on some satellite systems…."
New York Post Online 10/19/99 "....Just why the Clinton administration feels it necessary to bribe Moscow for permission to defend America from third-world ballistic-missile threats is something of a mystery - but this appears to be the gist of Washington's offer of millions to help Russia to build an anti-missile radar of its own. The world has changed utterly since the United States and the Soviet Union agreed in 1972 not to build comprehensive anti-ballistic missile systems. For one thing, the Soviet Union no longer exists. For another, the technology needed to construct an effective shield does....... There's nothing intrinsically wrong with helping Russia out with its own missile defense - always assuming that the dough isn't skimmed off- but dangling it as a quid quo pro is ridiculous. If the threat to America warrants the deployment of an anti-missile system in the first place, then it should be built, no matter what Russia may think...."
Associated Press 10/18/99 "....China has successfully conducted computer simulated tests of a new long-range ballistic missile that could hit most of the United States and Europe with nuclear warheads, a Hong Kong newspaper reported yesterday. Scientists simulated a launch of the Dongfeng-41 ICBM, a three-stage missile that could carry five to eight warheads with a range of almost 12,000 kilometres, the Hong Kong Standard said, quoting mainland Chinese sources it did not identify. ...."
Washington Post 10/18/99 Richard Burt ".....The rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is indeed a debacle for American foreign policy, but the blame lies with the Clinton administration rather than with the Republican-led Senate...... Indeed, the vote is principally the product of two major mistakes committed by Clinton and his senior advisers. The first is the administration's failure to methodically build a bipartisan consensus for the complicated and controversial treaty.....One such challenge was whether the United States, with a military strategy based on credible nuclear deterrence, could maintain a highly reliable stockpile of nuclear weapons indefinitely without testing. Another challenge was how to ensure that a test ban could be verified and enforced: Could we catch cheaters, and if so, how would they be penalized by the international community? In last week's debate, these questions were still at the forefront of the debate, and it was clear that many senators had doubts about the administration's answers...... In any arms negotiation, if you want Senate support at the landing, you had better arrange for heavy Senate involvement at the takeoff. Accordingly, bipartisan teams of Senate "observers" regularly visited key arms control negotiations during the 1980s, consulting with not only American negotiators but also with diplomats across the table. Between these visits, Reagan and Bush aides kept senators informed on the course of the talks..... The second key mistake was conceptual: The administration failed to provide a compelling rationale for a test ban in the changed circumstances of the post-Cold War era. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear competition between Washington and Moscow has ceased to be a central concern. At the same time, the spread of nuclear arms to new nations has become an increasingly worrisome trend. But it is unclear how a test ban would curb nuclear proliferation. In the bipolar international system of the Cold War, nations took their cue on nuclear matters from the two superpowers. In the increasingly fragmented and decentralized world of the 21st century, nations such as Iraq and North Korea refuse to follow Washington's lead. Pakistan and India, which have acquired nuclear arsenals despite concerted opposition by the United States and others, are cases in point....."
Associated Press 10/21/99 Edith Lederer "....Russia and China introduced a U.N. resolution Thursday demanding strict compliance with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, signaling their strong opposition to U.S. efforts to amend the agreement. The United States wants Russian consent to alter the treaty so both countries could establish limited national missile defense systems against rogue nations. In exchange, Washington has offered American help in completing a major Russian radar system. But the draft resolution presented to the General Assembly's disarmament committee opposes deployment of any anti-ballistic missile systems for national defense and warns that any violation of the ABM treaty would have ``negative consequences for world peace.'' .....The Russian-Chinese draft resolution recognizes the historic role of the ABM treaty ``as the cornerstone for maintaining international peace and security and strategic stability,'' and reaffirms ``its continued validity and relevance, especially in the current international situation.'' ...."
Chicago Sun-Times 10/17/99 Robert Novak ".....The pivotal figure in the Senate's defeat of the nuclear test ban treaty Wednesday delivered only one speech during debate: Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate's foremost advocate of arms control. Lugar would have preferred that the treaty be set aside rather than defeated, as President Clinton requested. But while speaking and voting against ratification, he did not aggressively press to avoid the vote. Had the widely respected Lugar done so, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott would have been hard put to prevent a delay. ....... "
Fort Worth Star Telegram 10/17/99 Bill Thompson ".....It is perfectly understandable that the Democratic president was ticked off when the Republican-controlled Senate rejected the treaty by a 51-48 vote. It would have been more understandable, of course, if he hadn't set the stage for his own defeat by playing politics with an issue that he would like us to believe is above politics. By all accounts, Clinton was well aware that he could never muster the two-thirds vote required to ratify the treaty -- and that his best hope for avoiding an embarrassing defeat was to reach an agreement with the Senate to delay a vote until after the 2000 elections. But he demanded a vote, gambling that the Republicans would not risk the fallout of rejecting a politically correct treaty. How ironic that Clinton would react to the Senate's action by accusing his opponents of political gamesmanship when in fact it was his political gamesmanship that tripped him up. Or maybe it wasn't ironic at all. Maybe it was exactly what we could have expected from a president whose favorite tactic is to turn reality upside down in hopes of gaining some political advantage....."
UPI 10/17/99 ".....The Clinton administration is finally admitting what has been apparent for some time: It is likely to reverse course and begin implementing a missile defense system. While the talk has been consistent for months, with officials stating no formal decision would be made until next June, developments this week prompted a more direct confirmation that the administration will proceed with development of a limited system. In the wake of this week's Senate defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, word leaked out the administration was now focusing on ways to get Russia on board for changing parts of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which would prohibit the nationwide defense system that is under consideration. ....."
weeklystandard magazine 10/25/99 Fred Barnes ".....in my 26 years of covering the White House, I've never seen a president as hysterical, cheaply partisan, and dishonest as Bill Clinton was at his October 14 press conference. Attacking Senate Republicans for killing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Clinton concocted a fantasy world about the impact of the treaty's defeat. He was also deceitful, illogical, and, worst of all from his own perspective, politically shortsighted. On arms control and national security, Clinton tossed aside all pretense that he's a New Democrat, a triangulator, or pursuer of a Third Way. Clinton is normally quite clever in tilting one way or the other on an issue, never going too far and usually giving himself plenty of political wiggle room. Not this time. He all but wrote Republicans out of the human race. Calling them reckless and partisan was the least of it. There was the claim, for instance, that out of "personal pique" Republicans would "put our children in peril and the leadership of America for a safer world in peril." And Clinton insisted that Republicans voted against a treaty they knew little about. Actually, GOP senators had been studying it for months. It was Democrats who'd paid little or no attention to it....."
weeklystandard magazine 10/25/99 Fred Barnes ".....The biggest whopper came when the president described what he thinks is the practical impact of the treaty's defeat. "What happens overseas?" he asked himself, and then answered. "Countries that could be putting money into the education and health care and development of their children . . . will be sitting there saying, "Well, you know, we'd like to lower the infant mortality rate, we'd like to lower the hunger rate, we'd like to lower the poverty rate, we'd like to raise the literacy rate, but look at what the Americans are doing, look at what our neighbors are doing, let's spend half our money on the military." Does Clinton really believe folks around the globe are making this calculation? If he does, he's totally caught up in the arms control cult......And talk about pique. Clinton jeopardized everything with his tirade. By losing his cool at a press conference, he gave up any realistic chance of a meaningful legacy, which requires compromise with Republicans...."
WorldNetDaily.com 10/18/99 J R Nyquist ".... "Why can't you accept that vote (against the treaty) as a good faith expression of conviction?" asked one journalist. Clinton answered by incorrectly suggesting that all the nation's top scientists and generals were in favor of the test ban. Clinton said the treaty provides for 300 sensors to detect treaty violations, and he said the treaty provides for on-site inspections -- even though the Russians and Chinese have blocked both monitoring efforts and on-site inspections. Glossing over the treaty's one-sided anti-American tilt, Clinton said that American security depended on America's willingness to give up nuclear testing. "There are always going to be objections from the country that is in the best position," said Clinton. From his point of view it would be wrong for America to maintain the first rank among nuclear powers. Even though America's nuclear deterrent has kept the world safe for over five decades, Clinton feels it's time for a change. The world's only superpower -- America -- must set an example.
The American Spectator 10/18/99 Wlady Pleszczynski "......As always, Clinton was projecting, as when he lamented that the Republicans have made it easier for the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and Pakistanis to resume their proliferating ways. Even Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson was ready for this one: "As for [Clinton's] suggestion that non-ratification will lead to nuclear tests in the Third World, the truth is that Russia did two nuclear tests in the Arctic just last month, and that both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests last year -- not because of the absence of any treaty, but because of this Administration's negligence in allowing the transfers of nuclear technology and in permitting espionage at the Department of Energy labs." Nicholson said this in a press release. He could have said much more. Whose fault was it that the remarks weren't picked up by the media? ......"
New York Times 10/18/99 Richard Perle "....Isolationism" and "partisanship" were the names, "reckless" and "dangerous" the characterizations with which a stunned Clinton Administration and much of the press greeted the Senate's rejection last week of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.....Having spent 11 years working for a Senator who more often voted with the opposition than with his own party on national security issues -- and who was instrumental in getting the atmospheric nuclear test ban through the Senate in 1963 -- I know partisanship when I see it. My old boss, Scoop Jackson, for four decades a leader of the now much-diminished internationalist wing of the Democratic Party, had a plaque in his office that read: "In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics." And I had that slogan posted in my Pentagon office when, as a Democrat, I served in the Reagan Administration....... I would be deeply troubled by the emergence of an isolationist, partisan bloc in either party in the Senate. But try as I might, I can't find one....."
The Center For Security Policy 10/21/99 Jesse Helms "....In an op.ed. article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 18 October 1999, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) wrote perhaps the single finest and most accurate depiction of the Senate's action published to date. It clearly demonstrates that, far from being an exercise in isolationism and partisan politics, the Senate was simply performing its constitutional duty when it rejected a defective, unverifiable and dangerous zero-yield, permanent Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.....[Jesse Helms wrote...] ... Since last week, when the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, condemnation bordering on hysteria has rung out from the capitals of the world....... With all due respect to Mr. Chirac, the last time I checked, no nation was counting on the safety and reliability of the French nuclear arsenal to guarantee its security. Many do, however, depend on the U.S. for nuclear guarantees. The Senate rejected the CTBT not to score political points against a lame-duck administration, and certainly not because we are in the grip of "neoisolationism," as President Clinton deliriously suggested. The Senate rejected the CTBT because it was a dangerous and unverifiable treaty that would have endangered the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and undermined U.S. security and the security of our allies....."
UPI 10/21/99 William Reilly "....The Russian ambassador to the United Nations said Thursday that a non-binding resolution was informally circulated at the U.N. General Assembly "about a week ago" to underscore the importance of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Sergei Lavrov called the treaty "the cornerstone of the international security system" and said changing it would threaten global non-proliferation goals.....The measure was given to members of the assembly's First Committee on disarmament and international security. It was also supported by China and Belarus. .....Lavrov, who is president of the Security Council this month, told reporters that bypassing the ABM treaty "and undermining its central provision of non-creation of national anti-missile defenses is going to have consequences, very negative consequences, for the entire global disarmament system and for global stability." He said it would "undermine existing treaties in non-proliferation and reduction of strategic armaments." ...."
Washington Times (via Drudge) 10/22/99 Bill Gertz "....The administration will decide in June whether to deploy a system of interceptor missiles, sensors and communications capable of knocking out incoming nuclear warheads....... Administration spokesmen, however, have failed to acknowledge that deploying a national missile defense will require a fundamental change in the treaty's central Article 1. That provision states that neither Russia or the United States will deploy a defense of their national territory or even make preparations for such a defense. Senate Republicans who oppose the ABM Treaty as limiting national missile defenses have made the treaty a target for defeat in an upcoming debate on modifications. Such changes would have to include naming the signatory nations to succeed the now-defunct Soviet Union....... The draft ABM resolution presented to the U.N. General Assembly disarmament panel opposes deployment of any anti-missile systems for national defense and states that ABM violations would have negative consequences for world peace......Defense experts have said China, which is not a party to the ABM Treaty, opposes U.S. regional and nationwide missile defenses because its forces rely heavily on offensive missiles that could be countered by the defenses. Russia opposes treaty changes to allow strategic defense because it believes it will upset the balance of offensive nuclear forces by giving the United States a greater strategic advantage....."
Los Angeles Times 10/21/99 Jon Kyl, Senator "....It wasn't politics; the treaty would have jeopardized U.S. security........The whole spectacle reminds me of the admonition, attributed to Sigmund Freud, about the dangers of looking too deeply for hidden meaning: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Simply put, the Senate rejected the treaty because it was a bad treaty that would have jeopardized America's security. Opponents of the treaty never appealed to senators to vote against it for reasons of party loyalty. Rather, senators were persuaded to reject the treaty based on the facts about its effect on our security. Six former secretaries of Defense, led by James R. Schlesinger, as well as many other foreign policy experts like Henry Kissinger, opposed the treaty, pointing out that it would have undermined the U.S. nuclear deterrent that has been crucial to guaranteeing America's security for more than 50 years. Our nuclear weapons are sophisticated devices with thousands of parts that must function together with split-second timing. As these weapons age, they corrode and deteriorate...... Furthermore, this treaty would not have any meaningful effect on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; 182 nations, including Iran, Iraq and North Korea, promised never to possess nuclear weapons when they ratified the nonproliferation treaty. Under the test ban treaty, these nations would have been promising not to test the weapons they already promised never to have. And finally, as many experts pointed out, the treaty was not verifiable or enforceable. Nations would have been able to cheat with little worry about being caught or punished. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), hardly a partisan or isolationist, said the treaty was "not of the same caliber as the arms control treaties that have come before the Senate in recent decades."...."
The Center For Security Policy 10/26/99 "….. as William Kristol and Robert Kagan pointed out in a thoughtful op.ed. article in yesterday's New York Times, the choice is not between isolationism and internationalism. Rather, it is a struggle between Reagan-style hard-headed realistic internationalism on the one hand and "utopian internationalism" on the other. ….. This is the debate between the internationalism of Theodore Roosevelt and that of Woodrow Wilson, between the internationalism of Ronald Reagan and that of Jimmy Carter. The Clinton Administration has placed itself squarely in the tradition of Presidents Wilson and Carter, and never more so than in Mr. Berger's speech, entitled "American Power: Hegemony, Isolationism or Engagement." Mr. Berger is opposed to American hegemony and decries Republican calls for increased defense spending. The true test of leadership, he argues, is not whether the United States remains militarily powerful, but whether it signs onto international conventions such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Climate Change Treaty, provides enough money to global poverty programs and supports the United Nations. It is on these matters, Mr. Berger argues, "that our most fundamental interests are at stake." Mr. Berger derides those who worry about the threat posed by China or Russia as "nostalgic" for the cold war. In the Clinton Administration's world, there are no enemies or even potential enemies. There are only potential partners in the search for what Mr. Berger calls an international "common good." …."
Los Angeles Times - Business Section 10/25/99 Gary Chapman "…..The argument of the Clinton administration, which supported ratification, was that advanced supercomputers will allow "virtual testing" of nuclear warheads through computer simulations, replacing the need to conduct explosive underground nuclear tests. The U.S. Department of Energy is currently implementing the largest computer research and development program in the world, the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), to develop supercomputers and software programs that can conduct such virtual testing. This argument was a "huge mistake," said Dr. Chris Payne, a senior researcher at the National Resources Defense Council in Washington and a former nuclear weapons expert for the Senate. Payne called the administration's strategy for defending the treaty "a shot in the foot, a self-inflicted wound." …. Payne said President Clinton was convinced by advisors from the Department of Energy that advanced computer simulations must replace underground explosive testing to guarantee the reliability and safety of U.S. nuclear weapons. The problem is that the Department of Energy's radically ambitious ASCI program could take 10 to 15 years to complete. When DOE officials told senators about this timetable during the treaty ratification hearings, even the Republican moderates backed off supporting the treaty, Payne said. …."
New Republic 11/1/99 "…..The early Reagan years were marked by unabashed opposition to arms control even in the face of a massive nuclear freeze movement. Challenged by Senator Paul Tsongas's assertion at one hearing that President Reagan's hard line risked forfeiting future agreements with Moscow, Secretary of State George Shultz famously responded, "So be it." The Reaganites incurred howls of derision from the foreign policy establishment for resisting a deal to remove U.S. and Soviet missiles from Europe and holding out instead for a "zero option" that would have required even greater Soviet reductions. When the shouting was over, however, Reagan's hang-tough strategy had worked. It turned out that the key to a more peaceful world--and, indeed, to smaller nuclear arsenals--was not American flexibility but dramatic political change within the Soviet Union itself. Only after the Soviets, under Mikhail Gorbachev, truly changed their foreign policy, from one of hostility toward the West to one of accommodation, was serious arms control possible. Reagan got the "zero option" after all--and his successors got the large mutual reductions of START I (and may yet get START II, if the recalcitrant Russian Duma ever ratifies it). ….."
Washington Times 11/2/99 Bill Gertz "...Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright has written foreign governments to say the United States is legally bound to observe the nuclear test-ban treaty, despite the Senate's rejection of the pact. In a letter to selected foreign officials, Mrs. Albright said the Clinton administration does not regard the Senate's refusal to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as the death of the pact, despite the convincing vote against ratification..... The secretary's letter was the administration's formal diplomatic notice that it will abide by the unratified test-ban treaty, a position made clear by President Clinton a day after the Senate's historic treaty vote. Mr. Clinton told reporters, "We will not abandon the commitment inherent in the treaty and resume testing ourselves." ...."Despite this setback, I want to assure you that the United States will continue to act in accordance with its obligations as a signatory under international law, and will seek reconsideration of the treaty at a later date when conditions are better suited for ratification," Mrs. Albright stated.....The administration believes it is still bound to legally abide by the test-ban treaty because it has not given up on ratification in the future, Mr. Rubin said in an interview. "We believe that so long as the president, in this case President Clinton, expresses his intention to seek advice and consent pending whatever time frame he chooses, customary international law applies," Mr. Rubin said......Asked about Mrs. Albright's reference in the letter to "international law," Mr. Rubin said, "other countries actually care about international law, even if some in the United States don't." ...."
Washington Times 11/2/99 Bill Gertz "...Several Republican Senate aides said they were upset by Mrs. Albright's refusal to accept that the test-ban treaty was defeated. "The president is not Louis XIV," said one aide. "He cannot declare that he is the state. The Senate has made clear by its vote that the United States intends not to be a party to the [test-ban] treaty." Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, is expected to discuss the Albright letter during a hearing today. Mr. Helms was one of the Senate's most outspoken opponents of the test-ban accord...... Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Albright might have argued that the treaty could be continued under the president's executive powers under the Constitution, Mr. Bolton said. "What is striking is that they are not asserting that but the airy fairy notion of international law," Mr. Bolton said. "If I were in the Senate, I would be treating this as an affront." ...."
Accuracy in Media 11/2/99 Reed Irvine Cliff Kincaid "....One of the major topics on the October 17th Sunday interview programs was a Clinton offer to spend U.S. taxpayer dollar to help the Russians build an anti-ballistic missile system if they would agree to changes in the ABM treaty. That treaty is supposed to prevent a national anti-missile defense. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran stories about this new development. But Russia said no, and it announced that it would work with China to seek support at the United Nations against America efforts to alter the accord. Senator Mitch McConnel indicated that he was prepared to spend that money if that meant that we could deploy our own ABM. It seems clear that Senator McConnell, his colleagues, and the major media have not grasped an essential fact: the Russians already have an ABM system. They already have an advantage over the United States. This explains why they are so opposed to changes in the treaty that would let the United States do the same. The U.S. position comes down to an offer to help the Russians improve their illegal ABM system if they would change the treaty and let us build one legally. If this sound incredible, then you are not familiar with the evidence assembled by William T. Lee, a former high-ranking DIA and CIA official who wrote the 1997 book, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion......"
Fox News/AP Barry Schweid "....Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has written Russia, China and other key governments to assure them the United States will observe the nuclear test ban treaty that the Senate declined to ratify. In a letter sent last week, Albright said the United States would not test nuclear weapons and was determined to seek approval of the accord, which the Senate rejected 51-48 on Oct. 13. The treaty needed two-thirds of the Senate for ratification...... Rubin said that since the intent still was to "seek the advice and consent of the Senate'' on the pact, which 51 nations have ratified, it is proper to adhere to the treaty's terms ......"
AP 10/31/99 "....Across the street from a museum depicting the Wright brothers' historic flights at Kitty Hawk, N.C., nearly 100 years ago, a new breed of aviation pioneer is chasing a 21st century dream: an airplane armed with speed-of-light weaponry that can destroy enemy missiles in flight. The airborne laser is a little known but potentially important part of a future defense against missile attack. The work being done at Boeing Co.'s development center is part of an effort to leap ahead of the traditional approach to missile defense......Air Force Gen. Michael Ryan sees a bright future for airborne lasers. ``We think we've got all the physics about right,'' he said recently. ``Now we need to see if we can engineer it onto the (airplane) and shoot it. That's the next test. This could be a revolutionary kind of capability.'' ...."
The Ayn Rand Institute Medialink 10/26/99 Robert Tracinski "….America's foreign policy is threatened by the return of an old evil: "isolationism." The threat, however, is not "isolationism" as a policy - but the smear tactic for which the word stands. The accusation of "isolationism" has been revived recently by President Clinton, who condemned Senate Republicans for voting against the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, calling them "new isolationists." These Senators, the argument goes, want us to withdraw from all forms of international cooperation, sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the rest of the world. This is an absurd attempt to construct a straw man. No serious opponents of the treaty believe that America can safely ignore the rest of the world. Rather, they oppose it because it is not in America's interests. They oppose it because they reject the idea of sacrificing those interests for the sake of diplomatic "cooperation." The treaty deprives the U.S. of the means to test the reliability of its nuclear weapons, while leaving no means to verify that other countries are not testing……"
Washington Post 10/28/99 "….A senior U.S. diplomat sought to ease Chinese fears about American plans for a sophisticated missile defense system, saying it would only be used to defend U.S. troops. Speaking to China's leading training school for diplomats in Beijing, Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering said no decision has been made to deploy the so-called theater missile defense "except where it is necessary to protect U.S. forces." …."
Inside the Pentagon 10/28/99 Catherine MacRae "…..The discovery late last year of arms and high explosive weapons hidden by the Soviet Union in Switzerland and Belgium confirms the existence of such arms caches in the continental United States, former KGB London Chief of Station Col. Oleg Gordievsky and Cambridge University professor Christopher Andrew told the House Armed Services military research and development subcommittee Oct. 26. And portable atomic demolition units, or "nuclear suitcases," may have been planted as well, they warned. Switzerland and Belgium officials located Soviet arms caches in December 1998 using secret archives smuggled out of Moscow by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin, who worked as an archivist for the agency…. However, despite credible evidence that pre-positioned arms caches and possibly nuclear weapons remain abandoned in U.S. territory, the Clinton administration has not asked the Russian government to provide the location and nature of any cache sites -- a fact that frustrates lawmakers and experts concerned about the danger such weapons pose to the public. "I am outraged the administration has not even asked the question of the Russians about where the specific sites are in the United States," subcommittee Chairman Curt Weldon (R-PA) said. In a meeting with FBI agents last week and in an earlier telephone conversation with bureau Director Louis Freeh, Weldon learned that the FBI is aware of the Mitrokhin file, but hasn't yet asked the Russian federal intelligence service for specifics on where and what has been planted on U.S. soil. The congressman says the FBI's comments echo public statements made by the Pentagon….."
Washington Times 10/26/99 Frank Gaffney Jr. "….What's going on here? The stinging defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - the result of 51 Republicans courageously voting their consciences rather than yielding to pressure to approve a fatally flawed treaty - is being portrayed by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats and their allies as evidence of the GOP's embrace of a "new isolationism." Don't you believe it…….. Surely, party leaders understand the Clinton record in the foreign and defense policy fields is an almost unbroken string of reverses, if not outright disasters, for America's long-term security interests. In fact, the Clinton-Gore team has squandered the strongest hand ever bequeathed to an American president in terms of U.S. prestige, military power, alliance relationships, effective use of our economic strength to shape our world and, as a result of all these, in terms of having America's foes on the run. Today's orchestrated campaign against Republicans as "new isolationists" deliberately belies this legacy, ignores the unwavering commitment of the vast majority of the GOP in Congress and elsewhere to American leadership and international engagement on the basis of the Reagan principle of "peace-through-strength" and distorts the choices before the public in the year 2000….."
The Pioneer, via News Plus 10/27/99 ".....Popularly known as Star Wars, SDI was approved by the Reagan administration in the early Eighties and was later given up because of the very high cost factor. By over-playing the dangers of North Korean missiles the Americans seem to have hoodwinked Japanese into sharing the immense cost of an astrodome defence which they believe will be the ultimate net to prevent any missiles from entering American or Japanese skies...... If the above described system would cost trillions of dollars to the Americans and Japanese and yet one cannot be certain that it will be as good as promised. But when deployed, the system will destroy the concept of deterrence. The military doctrine of assuring safety through the threat of retaliation will be substituted by the one based on defence. This outcome after phenomenal expenses does not appear to be the real reason why the Americans and the Japanese have joined hands to restart the star wars. One reason may be that the Americans have come to the conclusion that sooner or later they will be threatened by the rise of Islam in the next millennium. The clash of civilisations is not just the figment of imagination but a possibility....."
Drudge; Washington Post 10/26/99 David Hoffman "…..The Russian military on Monday hurled fighting words at the United States over her pursuit to create and implement a national anti-ballistic missile system, Tuesday's WASHINGTON POST is reporting. POSTIE David Hoffman writes that Russia's first deputy defense minister Nikolai Mikhailov "told reporters that 'our arsenal has such technical capabilities' to 'overcome' any antimissile defenses. 'This technology can realistically be used and will be used if the United States pushes us toward it.'" …."
Washington Times/Drudge 11/3/99 Bill Gertz "….Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott yesterday rejected the Clinton administration's continued observance of the defeated nuclear test- ban treaty and said the failure to ratify the pact releases the United States from any international legal obligations under the treaty. The Senate leader also warned the White House that continued adherence to the treaty provisions will severely upset relations between the president and the Senate on international affairs. ``I am deeply disturbed by the administration's most recent interpretation of the status of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,'' Mr. Lott said in response to a report in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times…… ``If the administration persists in maintaining that the United States is bound as a matter of international law to a treaty that has been rejected by the Senate, then there will be profound implications for the relationship between the president and the Senate on foreign policy matters,'' Mr. Lott said….."
Reuters via FoxNews.com 11/3/99 "…..Russia has test fired one of its short-range anti-missile rockets for the first time in six years and a general linked the test to an arms control row with the United States, Interfax news agency said Wednesday. Interfax quoted Russia's Strategic Missile Forces as saying they launched the missile from a base in Kazakhstan Tuesday. The forces' commander, Vladimir Yakovlev, said the launch could be seen in the context of possible Russian responses if the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) arms treaty. The launch came amid mounting invective over ABM, which Moscow calls the bedrock of the entire arms control process but which Washington wants changed to allow deployment of a new anti-missile defense system…..Tuesday, Russian President Boris Yeltsin sent President Clinton a warning of "extremely dangerous consequences'' if the United States proceeded with its anti-missile plans….."
DrudgeReport.Com 11/5/99 Tim Shipman "….THE US is preparing to withdraw all its nuclear bombs from Britain and the rest of Europe, it was claimed last night. An official announcement will be made at a Nato ministerial meeting in Brussels next month, said military and diplomatic sources. "It is hard to see why these US nuclear bombs are still in Europe," said one source. The withdrawal of weapons from Britain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and Turkey would mark the historic conclusion to a process of disarmament that began with Ronald Reagan's famous fireside chat with Mikhail Gorbachev...."
New York Times 11/4/99 "….In Oslo the other day, the ex-K.G.B. man who is Russia's Prime Minister of the month delivered a letter from President Yeltsin to President Clinton: "Dear Bill," I am told it began, "I would like to share with you, in confidence and with the utmost candor" -- and then a Kremlin spokesman put out, in less confidence, the guts of the letter: that if the U.S. proceeded to mount any defense of its territory against nuclear missiles, "it would have extremely dangerous consequences for the entire arms control process." That threat -- signed "Respectfully, B. Yeltsin" -- puts Clinton in a bind. He is acutely aware of the dilemma that is likely to face his successor: A rogue state invades its neighbor, threatening some vital U.S. interest. The U.S. president mobilizes a strike force to stop the aggression. The dictator responds with a threat to fire a nuclear missile at New York….."
Russia Today 11/4/99 Reuters "….The United States on Wednesday said the testing of a Russian anti-missile missile was an ironic contrast with Russian opposition to U.S. proposals for its own national defense against missiles. Russia tested the missile in Kazakhstan on Tuesday and Interfax quoted the commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces, Vladimir Yakovlev, as saying it could be seen in the context of possible Russian responses if the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. The United States wants to modify the treaty to accommodate its plans for a limited defense against missiles fired by what it calls rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea. Russia's system does not require any changes to the 1972 agreement. A senior U.S. State Department official said: "We find it distressing that Russia is raising the specter of an arms competition when what we're trying to do is work cooperatively with them to focus on rogue states." ….."
Wahington Post 11/4/99 David Hoffman "….-Russia announced today that it had tested a short-range interceptor missile for the Moscow anti-ballistic missile system in what appeared to be a symbolic warning to the United States not to go ahead with a national missile defense system now under consideration. Col. Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, commander of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, told Interfax news agency that the Tuesday launch at the Sary-Shagan testing ground in Kazakhstan was the first of its kind since 1993. Russia has been warning in recent weeks that if the United States goes ahead with a national missile defense system, Russia will take countermeasures. Today's announcement seemed to be a bit of muscle flexing. ….Russian officials recently released a list of actions they might take in response to a U.S. decision to deploy a missile defense system. Some of the measures, if undertaken, would reverse commitments made in arms control treaties in recent years, such as the ban on multiple-warhead missiles. But it is not known whether cash-strapped Russia can afford to carry out its threats. ….."
Washington Post Annie Gowen 11/4/99 "….Three months after Roth was forced to retire, the Kansas State Board of Education, spurred on by conservative Christians, voted 6-4 on new science standards that deemphasized the teaching of evolution in the public schools, a decision that sparked national debate about science and religion and was dubbed "an embarrassment" by the state's own governor. The timing of the two events was no coincidence, Roth's supporters say. They say Roth, an elder at his Presbyterian church, was a victim of the religious fervor sweeping this conservative Midwestern state. "He was a controversial teacher, and in his last years before retirement, [administrators] decided to make an example of him to appease the religious right," said Pamela McElwee, a Roth student turned Rhodes scholar who is now studying for a PhD at Yale. ….."
New York Times 11/6/99 Elizabeth Becker "…..The administration said Friday that it could go ahead with a national missile defense system, even if it meant withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty over Russian objections. "We will not permit any other country to have a veto on actions that may be needed for the defense of our nation," Walter Slocombe, undersecretary of defense for policy, said Friday in a speech at the Center for Strategic International Studies. The first deployment -- 200 missile interceptors and a radar station in Alaska -- would break the ABM treaty, which strictly limits the number, type and placement of defensive missiles in Russia and the United States. That would require renegotiating the treaty, which Moscow has been resisting……"
The Times of India 11/3/99 Reuters "…..The US-funded Arrow missile was declared operational by its Israeli manufacturer Monday after a successful test in which it struck a target missile over the Mediterranean. Israeli officials said the system would not be deployed until next year, but was already capable of intercepting and destroying an incoming ballistic missile. ``The system is complete, and is therefore operationally ready,'' said Ori Orr, board chairman of state-owned Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), main contractor of the Arrow. …..As a next step, Israel is expected to ask its patron ally Washington for aid in funding an allied project, a sophisticated Drone designed to fly into and destroy enemy missile sites. Israel rejects criticism that an operational Arrow will fuel an accelerated West Asian missile race, arguing that Syria, Iraq, and Iran, all formally at war with the Jewish state, will arm themselves at full speed regardless…."
Sacramento Bee 11/11/99 "….Russian missiles could pierce the limited defense President Clinton may approve next June, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Wednesday. The system, already being tested, is designed to protect against North Korea and other potential attackers whose arsenals are less potent than Russia's, according to the prepared text of her speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. ''A Russian defense official recently proclaimed that his nation has the ability to overwhelm the missile defense system we are planning,'' Albright said. ''That is true - and part of our point." "The missile system we are planning is not designed to defend against Russia and could not do so,'' she said…."http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpin14.htm 11/10/99 "…Russia's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that talks on nuclear arms reduction could be scrapped if the United States doesn't uphold the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, according to a news report. ``Russia will be ready for efforts for further reduction of strategic offensive armaments,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Rakhmanin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency. ``This includes cooperation in areas that ABM deals with, but only on condition that the ABM treaty remains in effect and is strictly complied with.'' …."
International Herald Tribune 11/6-7/99 Joseph Fitchett "....Western specialists are increasingly convinced that the strongest moves to counter the new U.S. emphasis on anti-missile defenses will come not from Russia, as widely forecast, but from China. The consensus is that Beijing will respond to moves in Congress to shift U.S. policy on deterrence by equipping China for the first time with a potent, potentially destabilizing nuclear force. ''The dirty little secret is that until now China has never had a serious nuclear force, but Chinese leaders seem to be deciding that they are going to need something that is more credible,'' a National Security Council official confided recently in Washington....."
Worldnetdaily 11/8/99 JR Nyquist "….As intelligence analyst William Lee has documented in his book, The ABM Treaty Charade, the Russian Federation has extensive ballistic missile defenses -- many of them disguised as Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). In fact, Russia may have as many as 12,000 ABMs currently deployed…..While it is true that President Clinton has finally accepted ABM research and development during his administration, this acceptance is bristling with hostility to the idea of actual deployment. In fact, Clinton has made no promises about deploying a national ballistic missile defense. In repeated statements, Clinton holds firm to the ABM Treaty, which Russia has been breaking from the very outset. Western Europe opposes U.S. ballistic missile defenses too. According to William Drozdiak of the Washington Post Foreign Service, America's quest for ballistic missile defense is causing alarm in Western Europe. As insane as it sounds, Russia has an ABM defense and Europe's leaders express no sense of alarm. But when America takes a few steps in this direction our friends begin to talk like enemies….."
International Herald Tribune 11/6/99 Joseph Fitchett "….A move by China to deploy a new generation of nuclear missiles - with instant launch capability and intercontinental range - would alarm Japan, pose an acute challenge to India, and, at least theoretically, threaten U.S. and European territory. Such an arms spiral in Asia was described in similar terms by many officials and experts who took part in a two-day meeting this week in Paris on the outlook for global security…….A report last week in Beijing's state-controlled media said that China had decided to step up efforts to protect its nuclear forces so that it could retaliate against a preemptive strike - giving Chinese leaders the ''second-strike capability'' that is the hallmark of a major nuclear power. The official Digest Weekly said that China would begin a $10 billion program to improve its nuclear deterrent. …."
Pittsburgh Tribune Review 11/5/99 "....In a letter dated Oct. 18 and obtained by Bill Gertz, the intrepid defense reporter for The Washington Times, Mrs. Albright has the audacity to tell the leaders of foreign governments that the United States is legally bound to observe the rejected nuclear test-ban treaty. The treaty was not defeated, the Clinton administration flatly asserts; the test-ban is not dead: ``Despite this setback, I want to assure you that the United States will continue to act in accordance with its obligations as a signatory under international law and will seek reconsideration of the treaty at a later date when conditions are better suited for ratification,'' Albright writes in one part of her cable, a communique confirmed by Albright spokesman James Rubin...... Senate aides are treating the Albright letter as the serious affront it is to the constitutional process. ``The president is not Louis XIV,'' one aide told Mr. Gertz. ``He cannot declare that he is the `state.' The Senate has made clear by its vote that the United States intends not to be a party to the (test-ban) treaty.'' ......"
Anchorage Daily News 11/6/99 Don Hunter "….A missile defense system proposed for Alaska would pair an exotic new radar at the tip of the Aleutians with interceptors housed in underground silos somewhere in the Interior, Pentagon officials told a few dozen people at a public hearing here this week. Only a handful of people spoke Thursday at the hearing - the last of four in the state on a draft environmental impact statement - and most were against the idea. Opponents largely argued that the military has a history of deceiving its neighbors in rural Alaska and leaving behind abandoned bases littered with pollutants…… Whether the missile defense system will be built in Alaska or North Dakota - or at all - has yet to be decided. Three Interior sites are under consideration. Clear Air Station near Anderson and the Yukon training area on Fort Wainwright north of Fairbanks are the other two….."
Reuters 11/5/99 Anthony Goodman "….A resolution sponsored by Russia, China and Belarus aimed at pressing the United States not to proceed with building an anti-missile defense was adopted by a U.N. committee Friday by a vote of 54 to four with 73 abstentions. The resolution, which now goes to the General Assembly for endorsement, calls for continued efforts to strengthen and preserve the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the United States and the then-Soviet Union, which Washington wants to amend. The treaty limits defense systems designed to shoot down enemy missiles, on the theory that such shields would only tempt the other side to build more missiles to overwhelm the defenses. The United States wants to amend the treaty to permit it to build a limited defense against any attack on the United States or U.S. troops stationed abroad by what it regards as "rogue states," such as North Korea and Iran, with a growing capacity to launch weapons of mass destruction….."
AP via Newsday.com 11/5/99 Robert Burns "….The Clinton administration on Friday sought to reassure Russia that a U.S. missile defense system to begin operating as early as 2005 is not a threat. Walter Slocombe, the undersecretary of defense, said President Clinton would decide by ``next summer at the earliest'' whether to order the deployment of a limited national missile defense. By then, the administration hopes to win Russian agreement to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which prohibits the kind of defensive system the Pentagon is proposing….."
Washington Post 11/6/99 William Drozdiak "….Faced with growing support in the Republican-controlled Congress and the Clinton administration for a revival of plans to build a national missile defense, European governments have stepped up their warnings that such a system could destroy the concept of shared risk that for decades has been the foundation of NATO security doctrine. The sharpening debate over missile defenses follows the almost universal condemnation of the Senate's rejection of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. It has fortified a perception among foreign governments that the United States is exploiting its global military and economic clout to lock in strategic superiority that would make it immune to future challenges from the rest of the world….."
Worldnetdaily 11/1/99 J R Nyquist "….A few weeks ago the United States successfully tested an ABM system by shooting down a missile with a missile. This remains an extraordinary accomplishment. But this accomplishment needs to be put into perspective. In March 1961 Russia successfully knocked down an SS-4 Medium Range Ballistic Missile with a missile. More than a year later Nikita Khrushchev boasted that Russia had an ABM that could "hit a fly in space." The 1961 Russian test has been forgotten by most Americans. It is high time we were reminded what happened. Russia's ABM tests of the early '60s were extremely sophisticated. In fact, the Russians even experimented with high altitude atomic explosions to see if nuclear missiles could be used to stop nuclear missiles. The Russians learned that x-ray radiation from a special type of hydrogen bomb, exploded at altitudes above 80 kilometers, could fry critical components in an incoming American warhead (up to 30 kilometers away). With this approach the Russians didn't need a system that could "hit a fly in space." To perfect their understanding of this type of defense, the Russians conducted a hurried series of tests before the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty came into effect. From these experiments, which were closed off to the United States by the Test-Ban Treaty of 1963, the Russians learned how different kinds of radiation affected the performance of radar, communications and missiles…."
Worldnetdaily 11/1/99 J R Nyquist "….As America moves toward developing its own ABM defense, we must not believe those ignorant voices which talk about how destabilizing it will be if America has a defensive system. Some of our politicians will point to the ABM Treaty. But the ABM Treaty is not being kept by Russia. According to William Lee, who also worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, "Given the relatively small number of U.S. missile and bomber warheads likely to survive a Russian preemptive strike under START II, if Russia can maintain its Triad of strategic offensive and defensive forces, it will become the preeminent nuclear superpower." Lee has meticulously documented the Russian ABM violations, and his evidence should satisfy all reasonable skeptics. As for his qualifications, Lee served as a Soviet and economic analyst at the CIA from 1951 until 1964. He also worked at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) where he headed the interdisciplinary threat analysis teams that forecasted Soviet and Chinese armament developments. Lee joined the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1981 where he worked as an analyst until his retirement in 1992. …..For those interested in Lee's book, it can be acquired by calling the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies at (202) 371-2700….."
World Net Daily 11/15/99 JR Nyquist "…. The greatest danger facing America is a possible nuclear attack from Russia. This danger is not something imaginary. Russian nuclear missiles can reach America in about 30 minutes, reducing America's cities to rubble. Unlike Russia, America has no anti-ballistic missile defenses and no national shelter system. Furthermore, political changes in Russia have not reduced the danger of nuclear war. According to former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry, there has been a five-fold increase in nuclear war scares since the collapse of Communism. What accounts for the increased danger? We have to look at Russia with an eye to previous defector warnings about Kremlin strategy. Americans need to reconsider the importance of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union several years before it happened. Golitsyn's 1984 book, "New Lies for Old," alleged that the coming Soviet collapse would be orchestrated by the KGB in order to disarm the West. Gen. Jan Sejna, a high ranking Czech defector, made a similar claim in his 1982 book, "We Will Bury You." In 1967 Sejna learned of a plan to fake the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. This plan hoped to advance the arms control process, encourage Western disarmament, and alter the balance of power in Russia's favor. …."
World Net Daily 11/15/99 JR Nyquist "…. Having explained the technique of deceptive mobilization, it is now time to list ten indicators of Russian military preparations for nuclear war:
1. Significant troop mobilizations in response to a fabricated crisis;
2. An increase in missile tests, to assure the readiness and accuracy of the Strategic Rocket Forces;
3. An increase in prohibited underground nuclear tests;
4. An increase in war exercises of all service branches;
5. Significant troop mobilizations in satellite or allied countries, especially China, North Korea, Iraq or Serbia;
6. Any attempt to create a unified nuclear command;
7. Efforts to extend the range of fighter-bomber formations by upgrading them with extra fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability;
8. An increase in high-level meetings between government and military leaders;
9. Misleading official statements about the military readiness of the armed forces;
10. The sudden distribution of a new generation of conventional weapons to the armed forces….."
World Net Daily 11/15/99 JR Nyquist "…. Therefore, the ten key economic indicators of Russian war preparations are:
1. The unusual stockpiling of nonferrous and rare metals;
2. Significant cutbacks in petroleum exports for increased military consumption and/or stockpiling;
3. Large government purchases of gold;
4. A large increase in food imports (above normal domestic consumption);
5. Large imports of agricultural machinery;
6. The creation of hardened underground sites for the relocation of war factories;
7. The sudden closing of heavy industrial plants or key scientific centers involved in aerospace research;
8. An increase in shipping assets operating along the Volga and Caspian waterways;
9. A sharp increase in rail traffic in the Ural Mountains and Far East regions;
10. A sudden rise in domestic energy consumption….."
San Diego Union Tribune 11/13/99 Stephen Green "….In 1992, Neil Abercrombie, then a graduate student in Hawaii, was 1,000 miles east of ground zero when the United States detonated a thermonuclear bomb in the middle of the night over Johnston Island. … Lights turned dark. Cars stalled. Radio stations went off the air. Telephone systems burned out. Despite more than two decades of previous experience with nuclear weapons, the events in Hawaii were the first known disruption caused by the electromagnetic pulse ensuing from a nuclear bomb. The destructive phenomenon known as an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, has worried U.S. military leaders ever since. Their concern has heightened as the nation has become more dependent on electronics. They worry that a nuclear bomb could be exploded high over the United States with the aim of disrupting the nation's electronic equipment….."
The Washington Times 11/12/99 Bill Gertz "….. The United States should deploy regional missile defenses to protect U.S. troops and allies from a growing threat of North Korean and Chinese missiles, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific says. "We've already had American men and women killed by Scuds, the almost 40 members of the Pennsylvania National Guard who were killed by a Scud in Saudi Arabia," said Adm. Dennis Blair, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. "So I think we need a theater missile defense to protect the troops that we have deployed within range of North Korean Scuds and No Dongs right now." The remarks by the admiral were the first time a senior military official has outlined U.S. regional missile-defense objectives, and doing so is likely to anger China, which has vehemently opposed U.S. missile defenses in Asia and in the United States….."
The Washington Times 11/12/99 Bill Gertz "….. In the interview with The Washington Times, Adm. Blair also said: * The United States has informed China directly and by past action that it will defend Taiwan against aggression by China. * Tensions between China and Taiwan and aircraft patrols over the Taiwan Strait have decreased as both nations look to "longer-term" issues. * North Korea has slowed its military modernization but is continuing to develop Scud, No Dong and Taepo Dong missiles as "terror weapons." * China is buying military technology and is stealing weapons know-how as part of its military modernization program. * Territorial disputes over the resource-rich islands in the South China Sea should not become a dispute between China and the United States and should be settled peacefully by the nations involved……"
The Washington Times 11/12/99 Richard Halloran "…. President Lee Teng-hui, writing in a scholarly U.S. journal, has renewed the campaign he began last summer to discourage President Clinton from cozying up to China at the expense of Taiwan's interests. The concern is that President Clinton might weaken Taiwan's case for independence in his desire for an accommodation with China. President Lee clearly is pressing Washington to take Taiwan's side in its intensifying strife with China. Conversations with Taiwanese officials, opposition politicians, scholars, and Western representatives made clear that Mr. Clinton, more than Beijing, was the target in July when Mr. Lee abandoned the 25-year-old principle of "one China" in favor of what he called "special state-to-state relations" between Taiwan and China….."
AUSTRALIAN 11/10/99 Lynne O’Donnell "…. CHINA is planning to pour billions of dollars into a high-tech upgrade of its army to prepare to fight a future war in which software beats manpower. Amid growing tensions with Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province, the new emphasis on cyber-war represents a policy U-turn, reversing decades of military planning. China's armed forces recently completed their first full-scale simulation of a virtual war, involving hundreds of officers from artillery, airborne and armoured divisions. An official report on the exercise said air and ground troops split into two teams to plan strategies and fight under extreme conditions. The computer decided the winner……."
The Economist 11/13/99 "….THE RIVER: A JOURNEY BACK TO THE SOURCE OF HIV AND AIDS. By Edward Hooper. Little, Brown; 1,104 pages; $34. Allen Lane "….IT IS a shame that the "The River" is so long, because many readers will give up before they have sieved out the extraordinary things it has to say about the origins of AIDS and the unintended consequences of medical testing. Half-buried in its more than 1,100 pages are two important questions. One is why, in different places in Africa, and apparently within the space of a couple of decades, three separate viruses emerged which each produce the symptoms of AIDS. The second question is whether an American research institute really is as reluctant as Edward Hooper implies to organise tests that might provide vital missing evidence….."
The Financial Times 11/12/99 Nancy Dunne Stephen Fidler "… The World Bank co-operated closely with the former government of Pakistan in a corruption investigation aimed at the regime's political enemies. The investigation - into alleged abuses in Pakistan's independent power sector - was ordered by Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister unseated last month in a military coup, who is facing criminal charges. Among the targets of the probe were Benazir Bhutto, Mr Sharif's predecessor; her husband, Asif Ali Zardari; Ibrahim Elwan, a former World Bank manager; and several Pakistani power officials...."
OSAMA BIN LADEN
AP 11/11/99 Kathy Gannon "….Scores of Afghan men railed against the United Nations and the United States Thursday in a second day of protests against pending economic sanctions, officials said. Bearded men shouted slogans in the capital of Herat province Thursday, condemning U.N. sanctions, which will go into effect Sunday unless the Taliban religious army turns over suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to stand trial on terrorism charges...."
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE 11/11/99 Jane Fullerton "….A federal appeals court Wednesday turned down a last-minute request by independent counsel Donald Smaltz to block a hearing and remove the judge handling the case of Tyson Foods Inc. executive Archie Schaffer…… Schaffer, who is Tyson Foods' chief spokesman, is awaiting sentencing before U.S. District Judge James Robertson on a charge that he tried to influence Agriculture Department policy by arranging for Espy to attend a birthday party for the company's former chairman, Don Tyson…."
Washington Times 11/9/99 Frank Gaffney "…. As the worm turns. In the wake of the U.S. Senate's crushing rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) last month, President Clinton and his supporters unleashed a torrent of invective against Republicans in the Senate, and their party more generally. The GOP, it was said, was in the hands of "new isolationists" who were reflexively opposed to arms control and endangering the nation's standing around the world by appearing indifferent to the will of the "international community." Now, having widely promoted this slanderous falsehood, the administration finds itself being tarred with the same brush. The president's new-found, and long-overdue, enthusiasm for deploying a limited national missile defense is causing Mr. Clinton's allies at home and abroad - and most of our potential adversaries - to portray this initiative as isolationist, a mortal threat to arms control and insensitive to the preferences of foreign governments….."
Los Angeles Times Online Edition 11/18/99 "….An independent panel appointed by the Defense Department issued warnings this week about a proposed multibillion-dollar missile defense system that should command the attention of President Clinton. The panel's recommendations suggest that there are more than a few bugs to be worked out. Citing "a legacy of over-optimism" among some of the system's proponents and a history of disappointments with earlier missile defense projects, the panel recommends delaying deployment until major technical and management problems are overcome. It's eminently sound advice, aimed at keeping billions of dollars from being squandered and at ensuring that a missile defense system, when deployed, will work. …."
Dayton daily News / COX NEWSPAPERS 11/17/99 Howard Kleinberg "….THE DEFEAT OF THE NUCLEAR test-ban treaty can be traced back to that night with Monica Lewinsky. If not that night, then the night several months later when President Bill Clinton looked us in the eye and told us he did not have sex with that woman. He was allowed off the hook not for lack of evidence but because this nation and the U.S. Senate could not handle any more gut-wrenching. He was impeached but not penalized. Once he wiggled off the hook, he should have resigned. That he didn't, in my opinion, is the reason some in the Senate voted against the test-ban treaty. Clinton needed to be punished and the Republicans (and some Democrats) have found a way to do it; just turn him down on everything. …."
Times of India 11/16/99 "….Wary of US plans in Asia, China is developing a range of missiles and laser-based weapons that can shoot down incoming missiles, media reports said. While China confirmed testing a new type of anti-ship missile, a Hong Kong newspaper recently reported that China has tested a laser weapon. Xinhua news agency said Sunday the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) tested a new anti-ship missile but did not provide details. It was tested at an offshore shooting range early this month, it added. According to a recent report in the Hong Kong Standard, China has developed state-of-the-art laser defence technology and has recently successfully conducted live tests in intercepting incoming missiles. Apart from the the S-A missile test, the PLA is also conducting laser weapons research as part of its Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) development programme, the paper reported…."
United Press International 11/24/99 Martin Sieff "….Signs of renewed tension emerged between the United States and China Wednesday in both their capitals. The head of China's disarmament agency, Sha Zukang, gave a strong warning in Beijing Wednesday that U.S. plans to press ahead with Theater Missile Defense systems would upset the global balance of power. In remarks reported in the official China Daily newspaper, Zukang also said U.S. plans for a system to shoot down ballistic missiles would destroy all efforts at strategic nuclear disarmament. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin acknowledged that the United States was watching a buildup of Chinese missiles near Taiwan and was considering selling anti-missile defenses to Taiwan to counter it. The Washington Times reported Wednesday that China soon would deploy nearly 100 advanced short-range missiles capable of hitting Taiwan….."
WorldnetDaily 11/30/99 Charles Smith "…. According to a congressional defense analyst, China is trying to acquire, and may well already possess, submarine-launched, supersonic land-attack cruise missiles -- weapons which, when deployed by Chinese navy submarines, could shower U.S. coastal cities with nuclear- tipped stealth missiles in a surprise attack that may not be detected until the first bombs are detonated. The Russian NPO Mashinostroyenya "Yahont" (NATO SS-N-26) missile "was put on sale in August during a Russian air show," said Richard D. Fisher, a defense analyst working for Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif. Fisher, who attended the air show in Moscow, told WorldNetDaily that the Russians openly bragged about having sold the weapon system to a major world power. Both Fisher and Aviation Week and Space Technology confirm that China was by far the most likely customer. The new Chinese navy missile is intended to fly at very low altitude to defeat radar detection, and strike its target at supersonic speed. No Western nation currently has such a weapon. In fact, the only similar weapon, an underwater version of the nuclear-armed U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile, has been withdrawn from service……"
South China Morning Post 11/22/99 AP "…. China's successful test of a spacecraft for manned flight had major military implications, proving that Beijing has mastered technology that could enable it to overcome US anti-missile defences, a Chinese military expert was quoted as saying on Monday. Song Yichang told the state-run China Business Times that the same low-power propulsion technology used to adjust a spacecraft's orbit in flight could also be used to alter the path of offensive missiles, helping them evade proposed US anti-missile defences known as TMD and NMD. China's development of low-momentum rocket propulsion ''is equivalent to having a trump card to counter TMD and NMD,'' the newspaper said. ''We can use this technology to change trajectories in flight, making missiles do a little dance and evade opponents' attacks.''….."
Republican National Committee 12/99 Jim Nicholson "….Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson today said the Clinton-Gore Administration is "about to break the law," and labeled "outrageous" efforts by Pentagon officials, clearly acting at the behest of the White House, to cut spending on the Navy's AEGIS missile defense system. "There are only two words to describe the Administration's efforts to slash spending on the Navy's AEGIS missile defense system," said Nicholson. "One is 'outrageous' -- and the other is 'unlawful.' "Cutting spending on the most forward-looking option for near-term deployment of a missile defense system is a dangerous, reckless mistake. Very soon, we will have the technology in hand to defend America from missile attack by rogue dictators or terrorists -- but the Pentagon is now considering cutting funding for the program, just to please their political superiors in the White House," said Nicholson….. "What's worse, this would once again make a mockery of the legislative process. The President just signed into law a defense authorization bill that mandates full funding for both the AEGIS system and the Army's THAAD system. For the Administration to cut funds for AEGIS would place it in contempt of Congress.*…."www.worldnetdaily.com 12/2/99 J R NyQuist "….Every war is terrible. Death by machine gun is terrible. Death by battle-axe is terrible. What makes nuclear war more terrible? Is it because more people would die? Josef Stalin said that one death is a tragedy, but 10-million deaths are a statistic. For the survivors and winners of a nuclear war the casualty statistics are not comprehensible. ….. Killing at a distance is so disconnected, so unreal, that normal people with normal consciences can unleash mass destruction on whole cities. This fact may seem untrue or impossible, but nonetheless it is well documented……. Using Trotsky's description of Stalin, we might say that today's Kremlin bosses were trained by a bureaucracy founded on cruelty. Stalin's system cultivated and promoted abnormal human beings. Look at Russia's leaders today. They are spreading lies that are calculated to enrage the Russian people against America. Russia's generals know perfectly well that nuclear war could be the result of any confrontation between Russia and the West. Even so, they are cultivating a confrontation. They even appear to relish it. Harry Wu, the brave and outspoken Chinese dissident, says that China's current leaders are "butchers." This description bears repeating. It should be shouted from the rooftops. Every American should have this fact etched into his or her brain. Wu says that we should not trade with China. We should not deal with murderers……. The world outside America is full of atrocity and horror. Although we are not perfect ourselves, the countries of the West stand as outposts of sanity and freedom compared with the insanity that prevails in places like China and Russia -- not to mention Angola, Afghanistan, Congo, North Korea, Iraq, Sudan, Vietnam, etc……"
Center For Security Policy, The 12/1/99 "….Published press reports indicate that the Clinton Pentagon is actively considering seven options that would remove up to $2.5 billion over the next few years from the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) anti-missile system, dramatically slowing the program, if not killing it outright.(1) A preliminary decision could emerge as early as today as the result of a meeting between the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's director, Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Jacques Gansler. BMDO's top official and the Under Secretary should be on notice, however: If they opt to cancel or otherwise prevent deployment of the NTW program at a pace that is "accelerated to the maximum extent practicable," they will not only be making a strategically disastrous mistake; they will be violating the law……."
Reuters 12/1/99 Martin Nesirky "….Big companies with an eye on fat profits rather than potential foes are the force behind U.S. plans to develop a Star Wars-style missile defense system, a Russian general said in an interview published on Wednesday. Major-General Vladimir Dvorkin, who heads Russia's strategic missile research institute, also told the military Krasnaya Zvezda that U.S. arguments why Washington should breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty simply did not wash. Dvorkin reiterated Russia would respond if the United States deployed a missile defense system against what Washington sees as a threat from so-called rogue states. But he said Moscow believed diplomacy could still rescue the ABM treaty, which Russia considers a cornerstone of arms control. …."
Reuters 12/1/99 "….The U.N. General Assembly endorsed a resolution on Wednesday aimed at pressing the United States to abandon plans to build an anti-missile defense. The vote on the resolution, recommended last month by the assembly's disarmament and international security committee, was 80-4, with 68 abstentions. Voting against the draft, together with the United States, were Albania, Israel and Micronesia. The members of the 15-nation European Union abstained, except for France and Ireland, which voted for the resolution….."
L.A. Times 11/21/99 Henry Kissinger "…. NEW YORK--The Clinton administration's reaction to the Senate's refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty threatens to erode the bipartisan approach that has sustained U.S. foreign policy even within the administration. President Bill Clinton condemned the vote as a symptom of militant isolationism, and the State Department notified foreign governments that it still considered itself legally bound by the treaty. All this has tempted some foreign leaders to question the credibility of America's international role. It is high time to put an end to name-calling. The treaty failed because the end of the Cold War has transformed global strategic conditions and the nature of arms control. No doubt, isolationists, in different guises, exist on the extremes of both parties. But it is absurd to blame the Senate vote on an isolationist cabal when six former secretaries of defense, four former national-security advisors and four former CIA directors opposed ratification, while four former secretaries of state, myself included, refused to endorse it. …."
NewsMax.com 11/22/99 Carl Limbacher "….. All the world stood in awe as we watched the video last month of a successful ABM test. The Pentagon test purported to show an interceptor missile - known as an EKV or Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle - strike and destroy an incoming "dummy" ICBM. The dummy ICBM was fired from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base and struck by the EKV as it neared its target over the mid-Pacific Ocean. For the first time it appeared the Pentagon had figured out away to "hit a bullet with a bullet." There has been growing support for an effective Anti-Ballistic Missile or ABM system - and even Clinton administration doves have been joining the chorus for one. Critics of an ABM system have contended the technology didn't exist to create an effective interceptor missile. During the Gulf War the Patriot missile was hailed as an example of how ABM technology could work. Later it was revealed the Patriot had a dismal success rate. ……"
Fox News 11/22/99 AP "…..China's first successful test of a spacecraft for manned flight also had major military implications, proving China has mastered technology that could defeat U.S. anti-missile defenses, an official Chinese newspaper reported today. The same low-power propulsion technology used to adjust a spacecraft's orbit in flight could also be used to alter the path of offensive missiles, helping them evade proposed U.S. anti-missile defense systems known as TMD and NMD, military expert Song Yichang told the state-run China Business Times. China's development of low-momentum rocket propulsion "is equivalent to having a trump card to counter TMD and NMD,'' the newspaper said. "We can use this technology to change trajectories in flight, making missiles do a little dance and evade opponents' attacks.'' TMD, shorthand for Theater Missile Defense, and NMD, or National Missile Defense, would shoot down incoming missiles. The Clinton administration, with the support of Congress, is developing a limited national missile defense that could be deployed as early as 2005. It also is carrying out research with Japan on a regional missile defense. …."
CNSNEWS.com 11/19/99 Baker Spring "….. What if President Kennedy had declared that America wanted to put the first man on the moon, but not until all the technical risks were eliminated America would very likely have lost that race. The spirit of determination and initiative that Kennedy and the country showed in that effort was clearly alive last year when Congress passed the National Missile Defense Act (P.L. 106-38) and declared that a national missile defense system would be deployed "as soon as is technologically possible." It did so despite a Defense Department panel's report alleging excessive "technical risk" in the missile defense program. This conclusion was overstated and rightly ignored by Congress. Congress and the President, who signed the Act into law on July 22, 1999, acknowledged that the ballistic threat to America is real and growing and, until such a system is deployed, Americans remain vulnerable to attack. Unfortunately, the Panel on Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Programs, chaired by former Air Force Chief of Staff Larry Welch, has issued a new report in which it essentially reaches the same conclusion. Although the report has yet to be released, the press reported that it recommends delaying the decision to deploy if the development program suffers setbacks. This is tantamount to recommending that the law enacted last year be ignored. The technical panel appears to have forgotten its mandate, which is to recommend how to achieve missile defense, as well as its responsibility to follow the law, not undermine it….."
The Drudge Report 11/19/99 "….. According to early runs of Saturday's NEW YORK TIMES, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott is in Brussels fending complaints from NATO'S European members who believe that American plans to deploy a $20-billion national missile-defense system will put their countries at risk. Of gravest concern to these countries is the possibility that America may withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to implement the system. The allies also fear the possibility of an Alaskan-based system would leave Europe unprotected. TIMES reporter Elizabeth Becker quotes a European diplomat: "This was the first time the Americans really discussed with us their plans for a missile defense that could become a big divide between us. It is very late to wait to talk to your allies." ….."
Reuters 11/28/99 "….China is close to fielding a revolutionary new antiaircraft early-warning defense system that worries U.S. intelligence analysts because it could defeat current Air Force tactics against enemy air defenses, Newsweek reported on Sunday. The technology, which could detect U.S. stealth aircraft, including the F-117 bomber and perhaps even the futuristic F-22 fighter, has so alarmed the defense community that top military and industry experts have been called to a secret meeting in December to discuss the strategic implications, the magazine said in its Dec. 6 issue hitting newsstands on Monday. "Everyone is wondering about the cost of defending Taiwan" if U.S. air power was suddenly vulnerable, Newsweek quoted an intelligence source as saying……Newsweek said China's new Passive Coherent Location (PCL) system tracked the signals of civilian radio and television broadcasts and picked up aircraft by analyzing the minute turbulence their flight caused in the commercial wavelengths. Because PCL does not transmit, its receivers cannot be detected and jammed or destroyed. The magazine said Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) had developed a similar Silent Sentry system that it was trying to sell for low-cost air defense or air traffic control….."
Congressional Quarterly Weekly 12/4/99 Pat Towell "….By agreeing to remain defenseless against each other's nuclear arsenals, the United States and the Soviet Union, and now Russia, have held each other hostage to "mutually assured destruction," an effective deterrent in a bipolar world. What neither counted on and few foresaw at the time was that smaller, militant states, such as North Korea or Iran, might one day possess missiles capable of threatening U.S. or Russian territory. Now, as U.S. scientists race to perfect a missile that can reliably knock out incoming warheads, the Clinton administration faces one of the most delicate diplomatic tasks in decades -- stretching the terms of the ABM Treaty enough to allow a small-scale, "junior star wars" defense and persuading both Russia and the Senate to go along…..Space-Based Weapons -- Former CIA director R. James Woolsey recommended to the House Armed Services Committee on Oct. 13 a network of small, orbiting satellites that could destroy a hostile missile in the first few minutes of flight by homing in on the tremendous heat of its engine. This "boost-phase" defense is needed, Woolsey contended, because the North Korean weapons might be designed to spew out in midflight a few dozen mini-warheads carrying biological toxins that would overwhelm the sort of ground-based defense the Clinton administration proposes. Such a system would be closer to the space-based network envisioned by President Ronald Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative……"
The Associated Press 12/13/99 "….Russian lawmakers today put off voting on the START II nuclear arms treaty, once again dashing prospects that it might be ratified any time soon. Leaders in parliament's lower house, the State Duma, said last week that they planned to debate START II during a special session today, which was also expected to include ratification of a union treaty with Belarus. The move raised the possibility that the Communists and their hard-line allies who dominate parliament might drop their resistance to the treaty. Russia and the United States both signed the agreement in 1993, and the U.S. Senate ratified it in 1996. …."
Defense Week 12/13/99 John Donnelly "…If President Clinton decides to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) system, it "would include" a site in Alaska, the Secretary of Defense recently said in a letter to a senator. "As you know, a deployment readiness review scheduled for next summer is expected to lead to a decision on deployment of an initial NMD architecture that would include an initial NMD interceptor site in Alaska," William Cohen told Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad. Up until now, the Pentagon has not stated so definitively that Alaska would host the first set of interceptor missiles designed to defend the U.S. from ICBM attacks. In the Nov. 30 letter, signed "Bill," Cohen said Conrad's state of North Dakota might get a second site if the United States decides to build one. Grand Forks, N.D., would be a "strong candidate for a second site," Cohen said….."
Associated Press 1/8/00 "…..Components of Scud missiles capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads were illegally smuggled into Britain and seized before their shipment to Libya, a British customs official said Saturday. A Customs and Excise official said crates carrying the missile components were found at Gatwick Airport, south of London, and were bound for Tripoli…….. According to The Sunday Times newspaper, 32 crates of missile parts were discovered Nov. 24 in an airport transit shed during a joint investigation by customs and intelligence officers. The parts included components of the jet propulsion system for Scuds with a range of up to 600 miles, the report said. Paperwork seized along with the crates indicated the shipment originated in Taiwan and that other crates had already reached Libya, the newspaper said. ….."
The Sunday Times (UK) 1/9/00 Nicholas Rufford "…..Thirty-two crates of missile parts, disguised as automotive spares, were discovered when they arrived on a British Airways flight at Gatwick bound for Tripoli via Malta. Paperwork seized with the equipment indicated other consignments had already reached Libya through Britain….. Cook endorsed the lifting of trade sanctions and the renewal of commercial flights after assurances from Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, that he had renounced terrorism and military aggression. He also handed over two Libyans suspected of bombing Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland……. A bigger punch: the missile parts smuggled through Britain give Gadaffi's existing Scuds a greater tactical reach…… It was sent to Britain from Taiwan in the name of a knitwear company called Hontex. When The Sunday Times telephoned the offices of Hontex in Yung Kang City, Taiwan, a recorded message in Mandarin said its number was no longer in service. A senior Whitehall official said the shipment was part of Libya's programme to develop a long-range Scud called "Al-Fatah", meaning "victory by holy war". "Gadaffi is trying to substantially increase his firepower," he said. ……"
Washington Times 1/6/00 James Goldgeier Ivo Daalder "….Missile defense is a tough issue. Republicans smell blood and want to paint the administration (and thus Vice President Gore) as soft on defense. The Europeans worry that we are abandoning them to a Fortress America. The Russians fear their strategic deterrent will become meaningless. And deployment of even a limited national missile defense system will violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Presidential elections in both the United States and Russia in 2000 only add to the difficulty. In short, few could have found a worse time to develop a policy that can square the circle of a serious U.S. effort to defend against rogue states and accidental launches while at the same time not causing damage to our core alliance or our important work with Moscow to ensure nuclear safety……."
Air Force Magazine 1/2000 Bill Gertz "…. Soon, the US will be within range, and the missiles will be on the world market. North Korea has embarked on a broad buildup of its ballistic missile force and is on the verge of fielding an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of reaching the United States. ….. "It is now believed that two types of North Korean Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles can strike the continental United States with weapons of mass destruction," said Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee and head of a special advisory panel on North Korea. "For the first time in our history, we are within missile range of an arguably irrational rogue regime. Regrettably, we cannot defend against that threat." The problem of North Korean missiles is made worse by the fact that Pyongyang has become a wholesaler of missiles and related technology and materials. In the words of one US defense official: "They are becoming The Home Depot for missile sales around the world." …."
Air Force Magazine 1/2000 Bill Gertz "…. In another recent report, the Air Force's National Air Intelligence Center at WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio, described North Korea's missile program as extensive. "North Korea has ambitious ballistic missile development programs and has exported missile technology to other countries, including Iran and Pakistan," the unclassified report said. "The North Koreans have already flight-tested their No Dong MRBs [Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles], and the Taepo Dong 1 MRBM booster was used in an attempt to orbit a satellite in August 1998." The test showed the two-stage booster "apparently performed successfully," the report said…… North Korea has moved quickly to a high position on the intelligence community's strategic missile threat list, ranking a notch below Russia and China. A National Intelligence Estimate--a consensus view of more than 10 US intelligence organizations--was made public in September. It warned of new dangers from North Korea's missile program. "We project that during the next 15 years the United States most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia, China, and North Korea, probably from Iran, and possibly from Iraq," the report said. The report notes that North Korea is the driver in the spread of missiles….."
Air Force Magazine 1/2000 Bill Gertz "…. The Clinton Administration has sought to highlight the positive elements of its policy toward North Korea, which was the focus of a major review by former Defense Secretary William J. Perry. Perry reported his findings to the President in September and called for continued engagement with the communist government in Pyongyang with the goal of normalizing relations that have been hostile since the end of the Korean War…..The Perry report stated that "the urgent focus of US policy toward the [Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or North Korea] must be to end its nuclear weapons and long-range missilerelated activities." As part of the new policy, President Clinton lifted some economic sanctions against North Korea, and in response Pyongyang announced it would "not launch a missile"--the Taepo Dong 2--during talks with the United States. "Pledges are important," said State Department spokesman James B. Foley of the North Korean testing moratorium. "Actions are equally or even more important, but I am not aware that we have reason to disbelieve the pledge." Within days of making the announcement, however, North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency made clear that the testing moratorium would not stop the weapons buildup. "The DPRK has built up its defense power very expensively," the agency said. "The Korean people have strengthened the defense capabilities to the maximum [by] fastening their belts." Indeed, widespread famine has killed thousands in North Korea. In 1996, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il called for a crackdown on cannibalism after three cases were reported, one US intelligence report said….."
Air Force Magazine 1/2000 Bill Gertz "….Robert D. Walpole, the CIA's national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, stated in Congressional testimony that North Korea has joined Russia and China as one of the very few nations capable of striking the United States with a strategic missile. "After Russia and China, North Korea is the most likely to develop ICBMs capable of threatening the United States during the next 15 years," Walpole said. North Korea shocked Asia and the world in August 1998 when it test fired its first three-stage Taepo Dong 1 over the Sea of Japan and into the Pacific Ocean…… The real danger, he said, is in a longer range Taepo Dong 2 that US intelligence agencies have been closely watching. The TD 2 was set for launch last summer according to CIA officials. It was delayed under frantic US diplomatic pressure and appeals to China to intervene with North Korea to put off the test. "A two-stage Taepo Dong 2 could deliver a several hundredkilogram payload to Alaska and Hawaii and a lighter payload to the western half of the United States," Walpole warned. "A three-stage Taepo Dong 2 could deliver a several hundredkilogram payload anywhere in the United States. North Korea is much more likely to weaponize the more capable Taepo Dong 2 than the Taepo Dong 1 as an ICBM." A senior US intelligence official who briefed reporters on the CIA missile threat report said that North Korea's long-range missile program will only be slowed, not stopped, by diplomatic efforts……"
Air Force Magazine 1/2000 Bill Gertz "…. In fact, the US Intelligence Community has concluded that the development of the Taepo Dong 2 is continuing, despite the pledge by North Korea not to conduct a flight test. USAF's National Air Intelligence Center, the community's premier missile monitoring center, reported that Pyongyang is "continuing development of the Taepo Dong," said one official who has seen the report. "They are still improving the TD 2 and proceeding with development," said the official. "In fact, their level of confidence in the TD 2 may be high enough to have it available [for use] without any flight test." ….."
Air Force Magazine 1/2000 Bill Gertz "…. Worries do not end with the Taepo Dong. North Korea also has developed a new 620-mile-range No Dong missile. The No Dong was flight-tested only once but is believed by military officials to be deployed and to pose a direct threat to troops not only in South Korea but at bases in Japan as well……. The Congressional panel headed by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, appeared more candid. The panel's report issued in July 1998 states: "The commission judges that the No Dong was operationally deployed long before the US government recognized that fact. There is ample evidence that North Korea has created a sizable missile production infrastructure, and therefore it is highly likely that considerable numbers of No Dongs have been produced." Because of the Intelligence Community's failure to assess both the scope and pace of the No Dong development, the Rumsfeld commission warned that "the United States may have very little warning prior to deployment of the Taepo Dong 2"--the missile that can target the United States. ….The North Koreans also have exported the No Dong to Pakistan and Iran. The No Dongs have been, as one official put it, "repainted" and named the Ghauri and Shahab 3 missiles. "Obviously, North Korea has them, and Pakistan has the No Dong derivatives as a Ghauri," the official said. "The Shahab 3 is based on it as well with some other foreign assistance. I don't expect it to stop there. ... I expect over time we're going to see more countries emerge with them." …..Pentagon intelligence agencies reported in the fall that North Korea offered to Sudan an entire factory for assembling Scud missiles, like those produced in North Korea. Also, North Korea recently supplied 10 tons of aluminum powder obtained from China to Syria, another intelligence report stated. The aluminum powder is being used by the agency of the Syrian government involved in building weapons of mass destruction and missiles, said an official who has seen the report sent to senior US policy-makers. One official said the recent intelligence reports are a clear sign the new policy is not working. "So much for the Perry approach," this official said….."
Reuters 1/22/2000 Jon Herskovitz "…. North Korea said on Saturday it may resume missile tests in response to a U.S. decision to test a missile interceptor system, raising the stakes in delicate talks between Washington and the Stalinist state. In September, the United States said it was easing its long-standing economic sanctions in exchange for North Korea's pledge to freeze long-range missile tests. But the North Korean Central News Agency on Saturday quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying the U.S. tests have ''compelled the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to take our moratorium into serious consideration.'' …."
UPI 1/22/2000 "….Work is set to begin at a Boeing facility in Kansas that will transform a Boeing 747-400 cargo jet into a laser-armed flying anti-missile weapon. Boeing said the jumbo jet flew from Everett, Wash., to a Boeing facility in Wichita, Kan., Saturday to being its 18-month transformation into the United States' first airborne anti-missile system. When completed, the Airborne Laser aircraft will begin testing its ability to knock out incoming missiles like the Scud, which are launched hundreds of miles away, with a chemical oxygen-iodine laser mounted in a turret on the plane's nose. Boeing said the ABL is scheduled to be tested against an actual Scud in 2003; Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and TRW are developing the ABL in conjunction with the Air Force. ….."
The Hindu 1/24/2000 Vladimir Radyuhin "…. Russia may go for a joint missile defence system with China and allow it to use a Russian space-based navigation system for military purposes. The two proposals, which would extend defence cooperation between the two nations to outer space, were discussed during a visit to Russia by China's Defence Minister, Mr. Chi Haotian, last week. The development of a joint regional missile shield is ``one of several possible counter-measures we can take in case the United States violates the ABM treaty,'' a senior officer at Russia's Defence Ministry told the Moscow Times daily. …… Russia fears that the U.S. is, in fact, seeking to deprive it of the capability to deliver massive retaliation. Moscow says it will abandon both START I and II nuclear arms reduction treaties if the U.S. violates the ABM accord. The threat has not impressed Washington, which thinks Russia will have to scrap much of its aging nuclear missile arsenal anyway and does not have money to replace them with new missiles. Washington has a far better reason to feel concerned over Russia's initiative to build a joint missile defence system with China and share with it its advanced space-based navigation system, GLONASS….."
Wash Times Opinion 1/21/2000 "…... How a defensive shield against missile attack from rogue nations abroad can possibly be construed as an instance of American aggression is puzzling in the extreme, but there you have it. ….. From worshippers of arms control treaties -who believe the outdated Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to be Holy Writ - to Chinese generals, opponents of this eminently good idea are gathering their forces for the fight to come. Interestingly, the American people, when asked in a reasonable fashion, think NMD is such a good idea that they believe we already have one. Our international friends and allies, who live in rough neighborhoods, next to China, for instance, or at the epicenter of conflict in the Middle East, think missile defense is a terrific concept. …."
Wall Street Journal 1/21/2000 James Hackett "…. Early indications of the results of Tuesday's test are that all elements worked well right down to the last seconds before the planned intercept. This was a much more complex test than the first one, bringing together all components of an integrated missile defense. The target ICBM launched perfectly and so did the interceptor, all stages burned correctly and separated properly, and the kill vehicle pursued the target. A great deal was learned. What caused the miss is now under investigation. Almost certainly the reason will be found and fixed. ….. Ever since Ronald Reagan's 1983 announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative, the issue of defending the nation against ballistic missiles has been politicized. Every new advance in missile defense technology has been denigrated by the coalition of professional arms controllers, academic naysayers, and defense opponents whose real agenda is to cut defense spending and put the money into social programs. But despite this persistent opposition, reasonable people have begun to appreciate the growing threat of ocean-spanning missiles in the hands of unstable or irresponsible adversaries. In 1998, a sobering report by a bipartisan commission chaired by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on this growing threat was followed by a series of flight tests of longer-range missiles by North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and India. The opposition to defending the country began to crumble, and in March 1999 the Senate voted 97-3 and the House 317-105 for a Missile Defense Act calling for the deployment of defenses as soon as technologically possible……. Then last year witnessed the success of the crucial hit-to-kill technology. A main goal of the Strategic Defense Initiative was to find a way to intercept ballistic missiles without using a nuclear weapon on the interceptor. Hit-to-kill was the answer, but it involves hitting a fast-moving target at astronomical closing speeds. After years of effort, with some successes and some failures, last year six successful hit-to-kill intercepts were achieved, two with the THAAD program, two with the new Patriot PAC-3, one with the Israeli Arrow interceptor, and the first attempt by the NMD interceptor. Still, the critics complained. Six consecutive intercepts, they said, were "lucky."…. The threat has been clearly defined. The key technologies have been demonstrated. What remains is to integrate all of the components of a complex defense and test it over and over until it works right every time. This takes time, money, and perseverance, but Congress and the Pentagon have been willing to do what is needed to get it right. Now, nearly 17 years after President Reagan started the SDI program, his goal of defending the country is finally in sight. We must ignore the critics and stay the course…."
Electronic Telegraph 1/21/2000 Stephen Robinson "….On issues ranging from defence co-operation to Iraq, the Americans regard the recent French record as unconstructive and unhelpful. These disagreements had the "potential to be quite divisive within the alliance", a senior US official said yesterday. The official blamed the French attitude on its long-standing "strategic concerns about American power". Washington has long been irritated by the French refusal to join Britain and America in isolating Saddam Hussein. Only this week, Paris aligned itself with Russia and China to block the appointment of Nato's preferred candidate to lead inspections of Iraqi weapons sites. But irritation has turned to real anger now that France is questioning the legality of the Pentagon's proposed National Missile Defence system, which is designed to protect America from attack by rogue regimes such as North Korea….."We took it very damn seriously when Europe was under threat from missiles which could not reach the United States," said the official, recalling how the Americans shipped cruise missiles to Europe in the Eighties as a deterrent to Soviet attack….."
Russia Today 1/22/2000 Reuters "….Senior American and Russian arms control experts on Friday ended three days of talks on their differences over a planned U.S. national missile defense system, diplomatic sources said. John Holum, senior arms adviser at the State Department, and his Russian counterpart Yuri Kapralov also discussed a future START-3 treaty aimed at further cutting their long-range nuclear weapons arsenals, they added…… The talks follow the failure of a critical U.S. anti-missile test last Tuesday that has been denounced by Russia and China, who say development of an anti-missile defense system would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)….."
Moscow Times 1/20/2000 Simon Saradzhyan "…. Russia and China may develop a joint missile defense system if the United States ignores their objections and goes ahead with a national anti-missile shield, a senior Russian official has said. Russia and China have both criticized U.S. proposals to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) between the United States and the Soviet Union, which sharply limits missile defenses. The United States has been testing interceptor missiles that could shoot down incoming missiles, but has not deployed the system yet. The possibility of developing a joint regional missile shield was discussed during the Jan. 16-18 visit to Moscow of Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian, according to a senior officer at Russia's Defense Ministry who declined to be identified. The officer said Chi and his Russian counterpart, Marshal Igor Sergeyev, met Monday to consider whether to jointly develop a regional shield in the Far East, among other issues….."
A Boston Herald editorial 1/20/2000 "…. Opponents of a ballistic missile defense seem to be taking the failure of the Pentagon's latest test of an interceptor missile as confirmation of their no-defense arms control theology. This shows misunderstanding of how complex technical systems are developed. This was the first test of all elements of this particular anti-missile system working together at full scale in real time - radars, computers, rockets, the whole shebang. The odds are quite high that any complex system will not work perfectly the first time it is tried. This has always been true. The first diesel locomotives worked so poorly that some were returned to their builders; the first B-29s were a danger to their crews. Engineers learned from experience and produced satisfactory models of both systems, as they usually can do….."
New York Times 1/20/2000 Elizabeth Becker Eric Schmitt "…..After an antimissile failure in a critical test on Tuesday night, supporters joined opponents today in asking the Clinton administration to postpone a decision on whether to field a complicated national missile defense system until after the November elections. President Clinton is scheduled to make this decision in late summer. But the military has only one remaining test in which it now must hit a mock warhead with a missile to provide Mr. Clinton with the required evidence that it is feasible to build the system, which is meant to protect the country against a limited ballistic missile attack. ….. The Pentagon said today that the test was not a complete failure. According to an initial assessment, the interceptor, or kill vehicle, that was shot from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific almost hit its target, a mock warhead launched on a modified Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force base in California, said a senior Pentagon official who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity. Until the final six seconds of the nearly eight-minute flight, the interceptor was on target, the Pentagon official said. But then two infrared sensors, which sense temperature differences to guide the interceptor to its target, apparently failed. Most of the rest of the test sequence performed as planned, he said….."
Newsday.com 1/22/3000 Robert Burns "….President Clinton intends to ask Congress in his 2001 budget for a $2.2 billion increase in spending for a national missile defense, mainly for an expanded arsenal of interceptor rockets to be based in Alaska or North Dakota, defense officials said Tuesday. Just a year ago the Clinton administration added $6.6 billion to the Pentagon's missile defense budget, and officials now estimate deployment of such a system will cost $12.7 billion in the next five years. Clinton's request to pour more money into missile defense is likely to meet with favor in Congress, where Republicans have pushed the administration for years to move more quickly to deploy such a system. A much more ambitious missile defense project initiated by President Reagan in 1983, called the Strategic Defense Initiative but informally known as ``Star Wars'' for its futuristic weaponry, withered after Reagan left office. The idea died early in Clinton's first term. But in the past year, the Pentagon has argued that the nation faces a growing threat from missile attack. Several countries hostile to the United States, including North Korea, Iran and Iraq, are said to be seeking a capability to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles. U.S. satellites can detect missile launchings anywhere on the globe, but the United States has no means of shooting down long-range missiles in flight…."
Chattanooga Free Press 1/10/00 "....During the most dangerous days of nuclear threats during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, our leaders made an astounding decision that seemed to border on insanity. They chose to formally declare the United States would remain defenseless against the potential of incoming Soviet nuclear ballistic missiles! In return, the Soviet Union was supposed to agree that it would be defenseless, too. This was part of the "mutual assured destruction" thinking, better known as MAD. It suggested that if both the United States and the Soviet Union realized nuclear war meant mutual destruction, neither side would initiate it. That dangerous and peculiar reasoning led to adoption of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It was a bad basic idea, made worse by the fact that the Soviets already had taken some steps for the missile defense of Moscow while we had no defense for Washington, New York or any other American city....... With the Soviet threat gone, some ask, why do we need defenses against incoming nuclear weapons? We may need protective missiles more now than we did then, when a U.S.-Soviet standoff discouraged nuclear war. Today, Russia is not about to attack us, but no one knows how many former Soviet nukes may wind up in the hands of what renegade nations or terrorist individuals..."
South China Morning Post 1/28/2000 Reuters "….Europe is closely watching US missile defence tests and there are doubts in Nato that Washington will move rapidly to deploy an anti-missile system. The US military last week failed to shoot down a missile in space in the second of three tests leading to a planned decision by President Bill Clinton in July on whether to begin a national missile defence. British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said: "There has been quite a lot of interest in the recent tests. And, you know, I think there is still in some parts of European opinion a feeling that this might not actually go ahead." …."
Washington Post 1/28/2000 Bradley Graham "….In a renewed attempt to build political support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, President Clinton has enlisted retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili to lead a task force that will explore ways of making the treaty acceptable to the Senate, administration officials said yesterday. Officials described the initiative, due to be announced today by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, as a low-key effort to address the objections and concerns raised last October, when the Senate rejected the treaty 51 to 48. The rejection marked the Clinton administration's biggest foreign policy defeat on Capitol Hill and a devastating blow to a pact that has been at the center of global efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. ….."
South China Morning Post 1/29/2000 AP "…. China attacked the United States for acting "at the expense of others" in rejecting a nuclear test-ban treaty and trying to reopen an anti-missile treaty. In a speech to the 66-nation Conference on Disarmament, Chinese Ambassador Hu Xiaodi pointed to the US Senate's refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as one of a series of "negative developments" in recent years. …."
Guardian (UK) 1/30/2000 Patrick Wintour "…..A FURIOUS row has broken out in the Ministry of Defence over Britain's decision to let the US government build a huge missile defence system in Britain, in breach of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Preparation for the nuclear shield, designed to protect the US from attack by rogue nuclear weapon states in the Middle East and North Korea, is under way at RAF Menwith Hill, near Harrogate in North Yorkshire. Some Defence Ministers are angry that the Government is being evasive in answers to Parliament about the site. Ironically, said one Minister, the US military was being far less secretive with its own public. British political sources say the construction is also causing concern in Nato and undermining Britain's efforts to lead the debate on a new European defence arm……"
The Hindu 1/26/2000 "….The Pentagon should be aware of the complexities thrown up by a missile system having to depend upon ground-based rather than space-borne systems and which should prepare those entrusted with their operations for a high failure rate. Maj. Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, Acting Director of U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative Organization, while addressing an armed services sub-committee of the U.S. Senate a few years ago, laid the emphasis squarely on the acquisition of improved ground-based missile defence. The failure of the latest missile launch could suggest that the ground-based systems have not acquired the perfection which should be built into it every time - which implies that the performance of a widespread network of vendors to whom orders for crucial components are farmed out is not wholly error-free. The Pentagon was advised to give greater attention to space-based anti-missile systems from 2000 onwards by which time it should have built more reliability on well-functioning ground-based systems. Space-based interceptors, even beyond 2004, should in fact support the ground-based interceptors. The Pentagon discovered that the U.S. casualties in Operation Desert Storm would have been less than 20 per cent of the total if it had not had to depend on a single, tactical ballistic missile. This called for a comprehensive review of the SDI programme and its relationship with the ABM treaty….."
Washington Times 1/24/2000 James Hackett "….So you thought the Cold War was over? You would never know it. Since mid-October Russia has carried out a flurry of missile flight tests and satellite launches, even while fighting a ground war in Chechnya. First came the flight test of an SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), followed by a test of one of the 100 missile interceptors that form a defensive anti-ballistic missile ring around Moscow, then the test of an SS-21 theater ballistic missile, and finally the launch of two SS-N-20 strategic missiles from a Typhoon submarine in the Barents Sea north of Murmansk. Not done yet, on Dec. 14 Moscow conducted a flight test of its new mobile ICBM, the Topol-M, with Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev and then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at the launch…… Opponents of missile defense invariably claim that if a missile lands in America "we will nuke them." But not if it is an accident or an unauthorized launch. Not if it is unclear what group launched it. And what if it means the death of millions of innocent civilians? The president deserves better alternatives. Advancing technology is providing them. Threats now can be contained and countered with a synergistic combination of missile defenses, highly accurate smart weapons, and a small nuclear deterrent in reserve.. .."
Russia Today 2/2/2000 Reuters "....Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy said on Tuesday he had expressed "some serious apprehensions" to Russia over its new national security concept which lowers the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Axworthy told a news conference that the new concept, published last month, had been among many points on reversing trends towards uncertainty over nuclear disarmament he discussed with his Russian opposite number Igor Ivanov. "I said it was the cause of some serious apprehension.... He (Ivanov) said Russia had its own security concerns and that's what led to this rearticulation," Axworthy said. "He made the point that it was not an aggressive, but defensive policy. I took the opportunity to remind him that a review had started in NATO itself." The new national security concept lowered the threshold for using nuclear arms to counter what it saw as a growing military threat. It envisages their potential use "to repel armed aggression", less specific than the previous concept reserving that right only if Russia's existence was threatened. ...."
Russia Today 2/2/2000 AFP "....U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Wednesday urged Russia to agree to "modest" changes to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) disarmament treaty to protect both countries from new nuclear powers. "I hope Russia will do more than just say 'nyet,'" Albright said in a speech before a Moscow diplomatic academy just before meeting with acting Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Russia and the United States are vulnerable to the same threats -- even if we sometimes perceive them differently -- we are prepared to cooperate with your government on missile defense," she told the academy. ....."
Excite News 2/1/2000 Tabassum Zakaria ".....The missile threat to the United States from countries other than Russia or China is "steadily emerging," CIA Director George Tenet said in a draft of testimony to be delivered to Congress on Wednesday. "Over the next 15 years ... our cities will face ballistic missile threats from a wider variety of actors -- North Korea, probably Iran, and possibly Iraq," he said in testimony obtained by Reuters. The draft could change before delivery to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. In some cases those threats will arise because of the country's internal development and in other cases because of direct foreign help mostly from Russia and China, Tenet said. Most analysts believe that Iran, following the North Korean pattern, could test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States in the "next few years," he said.
Iraq is also likely working on attaining a similar capability and could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capability "sometime in the next decade" with foreign assistance, Tenet said. Iraq is also reconstructing facilities aimed at developing weapons of mass destruction that were damaged during U.S.-British air and missile strikes in December 1998, the draft testimony said. ....."
WorldNetDaily 2/1/00 David Limbaugh "....I think I may have finally figured out why President Clinton so virulently opposes the United States developing SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative). But as with so many other things, his reasons are shortsighted, self-serving and detrimental to our national security interests....... Without question, Clinton lacks the courage to deal forcefully with real threats to this nation. His force is reserved for nations defenseless against the U.S., such as Serbia. He seeks to pacify truly dangerous nations with unilateral concessions, under the flawed notion that totalitarian regimes will return kindness for kindness...... But there's something more to Clinton's resistance to SDI. He's afraid of rocking the international boat and mucking up his legacy again....... For all these reasons, Clinton is relieved that the Pentagon's test missile failed to hit a mock warhead over the Pacific Ocean two weeks ago. That "failure" has bought him a little more time to delay his decision as to whether to break ground on a missile defense system. Publicly, Clinton pretends to support SDI. His administration is "committed to the development of a limited national missile defense system designed to counter emerging threats from rogue states." ...... Clinton's handling of this issue is reckless at best. His fear that proceeding with missile defense would jeopardize our relations with China and Russia is unwarranted and misguided.... While Clinton has been blocking SDI, they have been stealing our nuclear secrets and missile technology. That's Clinton's appeasement dividend. This is deadly serious business, folks, and should be on the front-burner in this presidential campaign. Baker Spring, of the Heritage Foundation, warns that the situation is urgent. "The expansion of the missile threat (from Russia, China and rogue nations) has outpaced the development and deployment of missile defense systems. Even under the most compressed timetables for the deployment of the missile defense systems now under development, the United States will continue to face a window of vulnerability." ...."
Inside China Today 1/28/2000 Reuters "….China, stepping up attacks on a planned U.S. anti-missile system, said on Thursday that its top priority was preventing an arms race in outer space. In his first speech to the Conference on Disarmament (CD), China's new ambassador Hu Xiaodi called for the United Nations forum to launch negotiations aimed at banning the testing, deployment and use of weapons in outer space. Major non-aligned powers - including nuclear-capable India and Pakistan - also took the floor to back starting substantive work in Geneva designed to avoid an arms race in outer space. But the United States, which is considering whether to build a national missile defense system, is the only one of the 66 member states against setting up a negotiating committee, according to diplomats. The U.S. delegation is expected to continue to block the required consensus, they add. …."
CIA Website 2/2/200 George Tenet "…. Statement by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on The Worldwide Threat in 2000: Global Realities of Our National Security ……. * First, the missile threat to the United States from states other than Russia or China is steadily emerging. The threat to US interests and forces overseas is here and now.
* Second, the development of missiles and weapons of mass destruction in South Asia has led to more-advanced systems, and both sides have begun to establish the doctrine and tactics to use these weapons.
* Third, some countries that we have earlier considered exclusively as weapons technology importers may step up their roles as "secondary suppliers," compounding the proliferation problem even further…..
Russia Today 2/6/00 Reuters "….. Defense Secretary William Cohen warned on Saturday that the United States and Europe could face nuclear blackmail from "rogue nations" and urged its allies to support a U.S. national missile defense. Cohen defended the controversial anti-missile program, suggesting at an international security meeting that the West would have thought twice about sending troops into Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War if Iraq had nuclear missiles aimed at Washington, London and Munich. He urged U.S. allies not to oppose possible deployment of a U.S. system, saying that if Washington had weapons to shoot down a limited number of missiles it would not be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail from states such as Iran and Iraq. European allies are deeply concerned about Russian threats to back away from nuclear arms control treaties if the United States deploys a missile defense. ….."
Washington Times 2/10/00 Robert Charles ".....In what seems a cascade of avoidable security breaches by the Clinton administration, a gradual fog of carelessness, dismissiveness, indignation and indifference has quietly settled over the guardianship of our national security. Gone is the new dawn. Here is a frightening disconnect between high-placed guardians of our nation's secrets and the unforgiving nature of foreign security threats. Last week, CIA Director George Tenet told a Senate committee that his predecessor, John Deutsch, was "sloppy" when Mr. Deutsch reportedly took highly classified documents home, put them on his home computer, used the same computer to access Internet (pornography) sites and received e-mail from a "former Russian scientist." In response, Mr. Tenet "stripped Mr. Deutsch of his security clearances" last August, 32 months after a CIA investigation into Mr. Deutsch's "computer practices" began in December 1996. How could a high-ranking administration official, much less the acting director of the CIA, not have known classified documents do not leave the office, in fact are routinely re-placed in a pre-approved safe? How could such an official not have known his home computer is not secure, indeed is a likely hacker target? How could he not have been briefed on the vulnerability of his hard drive to outside intrusion?….."
Freeper Spook86 2/9/00 "… This is hardly news to anyone outside of CBS. When the U.S. and Russia agreed to "detarget" their missiles, they retained the capability to reenter target coordinates and launch against each other in less than two minutes. More importantly, Russia is also continuing to upgrade its land-based ICBM force. By 2007, the Russian ICBM arsenal will consist of modern, road-mobile SS-25s, and SS-27s, deployed in both silo and road-mobile variants. Mobile missiles, as we discovered during the Gulf War, are extremely hard to detect and target. Of course, China is now developing its own mobile missiles, the first of which (DF-31) will be operational by 2005…… It's worth noting that the U.S. has no plans to upgrade its land-based ICBM force. 1970s-era Minutemen missiles will remain the backbone of our land-based deterrent for the forseeable future. Our only real advantage in this area lies in our ballistic missile submarine force. China's SSBN force is, for now, non-existent, and Russia's is in serious trouble. There have been major "gaps" in Russian SSBN coverage in recent years, periods when either the Northern or Pacific fleet didn't have a single SSBN at sea. A friend of mine in the Navy tells me Russia's Pacific Fleet won't have a single seaworthy SSBN by 2002. While Russia may maintain a nominal ballistic missile sub force, their nuclear triad may devolve into a "dyad" by the middle of this decade. Still, the 60 Minutes II piece is accurate in its basic assertion--there are still Russian ICBMs pointed at the U.S. It will be interesting to see how the folks at CBS "spin" that sobering fact to avoid giving Clinton a black eye.... "
Freeper Thanatos 2/8/00 "…..Yep, Can't believe it, 60 Minutes II tonight on CBS will be talking about how big a threat Russia's Nuclear Missiles are to the United States, How Russia can fire the Missiles at a second's notice "Without Retargeting" and how the US is still on "Trigger Alert", they will also discuss how it defies Clinton's Claim that "There are NO Nuclear Missiles pointed at America's Children".."….Freeper A+Bert reports "…. The BIG NEWS was that CBS and Dan Rather laid the blame for the Russian failure to sign a new treaty on the Bombing of Iraq and Kosovo. The Russians were apparently prepared to approve but the bombings stopped both votes. Something is wrong when CBS starts laying the blame on our bombing Iraq and Kosove……" Freeper Thanatos adds "….I saw that.. The Report itself was a very good report.. Although Dan was careful to not mention the White House (Who made the decisions) or Clinton (Other to mention the Lie he told about No missiles pointed at the US).. ….. I think here in the Free Republic Archives are the Reports of the Duma vote (Before and after) the Iraq Bombing (3 days) and Kosovo Bombing (1 day).. and the statements of the Russians that they will not ratify because of Clinton's Decision…… I also noticed that Dan focused on Russia only and did not mention the Pact for Political, Military, and Economic Alliance between Russia and China in Defiance of the United States……"
Chattanooga Free Press 2/18/00 "….. Gen. Chi Haotian is Communist China's defense minister. He was quoted recently by the Hong Kong newspaper called Cheng Ming as saying: "Seen from the changes in the world situation and the United States' hegemonic strategy for creating monopolarity, war is inevitable. "We cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war. ... We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, three years or even longer." Does that sound to you like a declaration of future war? Americans didn't believe the Japanese warlords' threats before they attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. The United States, Britain and France apparently did not believe Adolf Hitler's bombastic threats before he marched into Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. But the current policies of the Clinton administration are ignoring the reality of the Chinese Communist threats. While the Communists have been stealing U.S. nuclear secrets at Los Alamos, N.M., and have been threatening to make war, President Clinton has been collecting political campaign funds from Chinese Communist-connected visitors at the White House, and bestowing trade concessions upon the Communists...."
Wall Street Journal 2/15/00 "….. Anyone wondering just how far President Clinton will go to get Al Gore elected might consider the risks he's taking with national missile defense. It would be reassuring to believe that the NMD system the Administration is pursuing would do what it needs to do: protect the nation against a deliberate or accidental launch of a ballistic missile--and do so quickly since the threat is growing apace. Instead, the system the Administration is contemplating is aimed at meeting a higher priority: get Al Gore elected. From Mr. Clinton's standpoint, the main advantage is that the Russians will probably go for it. If he can get Moscow to agree to amend the ABM Treaty, he can claim a foreign-policy victory before the November election. Never mind that there's no way to amend the ABM Treaty to make it possible to build an effective defense. Ultimately, an effective defense will be a "layered" defense: on the sea, on the ground and in space……. The Administration's favored system, however, is the worst of both worlds: a complex ground-based system that will take years to develop and once deployed won't protect all of the country against a variety of threats. The system the Administration is looking at would link a network of ground-based radars and space-based sensors with 100 missile interceptors located at a single site. The high-profile failure of last month's interceptor test isn't the problem here. The anti-missile technology is clearly on the right track; an interceptor test last fall succeeded and no one seriously doubts that the technology can be perfected. …..Rather, the problem is the Administration's likely location of the interceptors--Alaska. This is a fine spot from which to get a good shot at a missile coming from Russia, North Korea or China, but it would be far less effective against one originating in Iraq, Libya or any ship off the East Coast. In other words, Hawaii would be well protected but not New York….."
CNN 2/10/00 Reuters "….China on Thursday formally proposed negotiations to conclude a global treaty which would ban the testing, deployment and use of weapons in outer space. Russia's Ambassador Vasily Sidorov immediately took the floor at the Conference on Disarmament to back the proposal by China's envoy Hu Xiaodi. Both China and Russia have denounced recent U.S. missile tests and argue that a proposed U.S. national defense system would violate the landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. In bilateral arms control talks, the United States is seeking amendments to the 1972 treaty, which limits the type of systems which Russia and the United States may deploy to intercept incoming missiles. Hu said negotiations on preventing an arms race in outer space should be "one of the highest priorities" on the agenda of the United Nations forum. He submitted a proposal to set up a committee to launch the talks at the 66-member state body. …."
New York Times 2/15/00 Elizabeth Becker "…..The Pentagon is facing undue pressure to meet an "artificial" deadline for recommending whether to deploy the national missile defense system, according to the project's senior weapons tester, who said the current timetable disregarded enormous technical problems. In his annual report, released today, the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation, Philip E. Coyle III, said that the speed with which the Pentagon must judge the feasibility of the multibillion-dollar system to protect the country from limited nuclear strikes was being driven more by President Clinton's summer deadline than scientific requirements. In the report, Mr. Coyle said the Pentagon was facing undue pressure "to meet an artificial decision point in the development process." "This pattern has historically resulted in a negative effect on virtually every troubled D.O.D. development program," he added, using initials for the Department of Defense. This is the first warning from a senior Pentagon official that the test schedule prevents the military from reliably telling President Clinton by the June deadline whether the system is ready to deploy. Mr. Coyle did not comment on the report today, but said through a spokesman that his report stood on its own. ……"
International Herald Tribune 2/15/00 Joseph Fitchett "…..The Clinton administration's push for an anti-missile shield to protect U.S. territory is prying apart the Western alliance and laying bare the fragility of the allied consensus on security policy that held up so well in Kosovo a few months ago. The apparent contradiction between the solidarity on Kosovo and the current strains over missile defense reflect the same simple fact, specialists say: There is a trans-Atlantic divergence in security priorities now that Soviet ground forces no longer threaten Europe. There is ''a train collision in the making,'' a U.S. official at NATO headquarters has warned. Similar assessments emerged from recent interviews with a dozen U.S. and European officials and analysts. The trans-Atlantic disagreement over the importance of missile defense reflects a gulf in perception between Europeans, who do not feel high on anyone's hit-list, and Americans, who after two decades of mounting anti-terrorist crusading, now feel that their territory could be a prime target. ……"
Inside China Today 2/15/00 Agencies AFP "…..Zhu further defended China and Russia's joint stance against the development of outer space weapons and in an apparent condemnation of the proposed US national missile defense, warned that the development of space-based weapons would lead to a new arms race. "It is noteworthy that some individual countries ... in pursuit of military advantages and strategic advantages have all along been planning and attempting actions to control outer space," Zhu said without directly naming the US. "If we don't stop them from doing so in the near future it is possible that outer space will be weaponized and even lead to an arms race in outerspace," he said. ..."
Associated Press 2/25/00 "……A top Russian security official said Friday that the anti-ballistic missile system the United States is considering deploying could be capable of intercepting Russian warheads, not just missiles from rogue states. Previously, Russian officials had strongly objected to the system but claimed their missiles could easily penetrate the proposed shield. The Clinton Administration has said it will decide in July whether to withdraw from a 1972 treaty banning national anti-ballistic missile shields and begin work on a system designed to prevent attacks from so-called rogue states such as North Korea or Iran. ……"
International Herald Tribune2/23/00 Ivo Daalder Philip Gordon "… As the Clinton administration's summer deadline for deciding whether to deploy a national missile defense approaches, Europeans are increasingly nervous, particularly as U.S. negotiators continue to come back empty-handed from arms control discussions in Moscow. Despite high-level U.S. efforts to persuade Russia that it should not feel threatened, Moscow and Washington remain at loggerheads over how, if at all, to revise the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans the sort of national missile defense that the United States now wants to deploy. Europeans worry that if Russia refuses to modify the treaty, the United States might go ahead and deploy a defensive system anyway, leading not only to a deterioration of relations with Russia and China but also to the sort of spiraling nuclear arms race that the ABM Treaty was designed to avoid……"
Inside the Missile Defense 2/23/00 Michael Sirak "….. Robert Walpole, the Central Intelligence Agency's national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, told a Senate panel earlier this month that countries like North Korea and Iran will be able to include simple countermeasures and penetration aids on initial versions of their long-range missiles. These countries, he said, have either the technological capability to develop these countermeasures or the ability to acquire them from countries like Russia and China. Although countermeasures and penetration aids add weight to a missile's payload, thereby cutting down on the size of the warhead it can carry, CIA believes these countries will opt for them in an effort to defeat the U.S. National Missile Defense system. Walpole made his comments Feb. 9 before the Senate Governmental Affairs international security, proliferation and federal services subcommittee. Walpole was testifying on the agency's September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate of the ballistic missile threat to the United States.......The assessment warns the United States will "likely" face an intercontinental ballistic missile threat from North Korea in the next 15 years, "probably" a threat from Iran, and "possibly" a threat from Iraq, in addition to the ICBM forces of Russia and China (see related story)……"
Memphis (TN) Commercial Appeal 2/14/00 James Brosnan "…… I hate to start your week on a down note, but this is important: "The probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the Cold War and will continue to grow." So said Robert Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, last week to the Senate Governmental Affairs proliferation subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). A presidential campaign offers probably the worst time in the world to talk about serious issues, observed Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), but ballistic missile proliferation deserves more attention than it's been getting. "This is a very real threat," said Cochran. "It's not something that's contrived or imagined." Walpole's unclassified summary of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate is scary enough. "Worldwide missile proliferation has continued to evolve during the past 18 months," he said. "We project that during the next 15 years the United States most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia, China and North Korea, probably from Iran and possibly from Iraq." Once armed with such missiles, a North Korea or Iraq could use the threat to bully its neighbors and deter a response by the United States……."
3/1/00 Letter "…TO: Speaker J. Dennis Hastert Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott FROM: The Congressional Policy Advisory Board …….RE: Ballistic Missile Defense …….At our quarterly meeting today, the Advisory Board extensively discussed the ballistic missile threat to the United States and our friends and allies. In the course of our discussion, we reached the following conclusions:
1. It is vital for our national security and that of our allies and friends that we develop and deploy an effective missile defense against the missile threats that are now increasingly clear to all.
2. We cannot adequately develop, test or deploy such defenses as long as we adhere to the ABM treaty, which prohibits effective missile defense.
3. The President should promptly either invoke Article XV of the treaty and give notice of withdrawal, or clearly announce that the treaty is no longer legally binding on the U.S.
4. Any further attempt to seek Russia's permission to defend ourselves and our allies and friends should be abandoned. Any new agreement with Russia on demarcation or multilateralization of the ABM treaty is a treaty amendment requiring the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate should reject any agreement containing such amendments. Any new agreement that restricts U.S. ballistic missile defense research and development, testing or deployment must be opposed by Congress.
5. U.S. research and development and testing programs for either national missile defense or theater missile defense must no longer be restricted by limitations in the name of the ABM Treaty.
These conclusions represent the unanimous view of the Board members in attendance at the meeting in Washington (and by teleconference at Stanford University)……."
3/10/00 David T. Pyne, J.D. "……The Russian and Chinese nuclear threat to the United States is rapidly growing even as US power continues to decline, threatening to pierce its self-deluding facade that it is "the sole surviving superpower." Last year, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that the Russians have built 10,000 S-300 dual-purpose SAM/ABM's. William T. Lee and other prominent intelligence analysts report these to be capable of shooting down tactical and strategic missiles. The Russians themselves have stated in their arms and military export journals that these missiles are capable of shooting down cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, "and ballistic missiles, even ICBMs." These ABMs, by all accounts, are the finest in the world, superior in all respects to US Patriot missiles. Now, they are building the S-400 Triumph SAM/ABM which is even more effective at downing US ICBMs. Armed with these anti-missile missiles, the Russians could conceivably shoot down a couple of thousand of our incoming missiles and warheads in a hypothetical US nuclear missile attack. ……"
United Press International 3/8/00 "….. Reports from a London-based think-tank say the Clinton administration may offer to slash America's nuclear arsenal and put anti-missile weapons on Russian soil if Moscow lifts a roadblock to the United States' proposed National Missile Defense system. The twin International Institute for Strategic Studies reports, written by four American scholars and released Wednesday, state that the $12.7 billion NMD plan to protect America from rogue states' missiles is almost certain to be approved by President Clinton this summer or his successor next year. "Critics of missile defense have lost the debate," say authors of the report "Deploying NMD: Not Whether But How." It concludes, "By 2010 the United States will operate at least one ground-based NMD site capable ofproviding the country with some protection against a small-scale missile attack."…."
New York Times 3/7/00 William Broad "…..A former senior engineer at TRW, a top military contractor, has charged the company with faking tests and evaluations of a key component for the proposed $27 billion antimissile system and then firing her when she protested. The engineer, Dr. Nira Schwartz, was on the company's antimissile team in 1995 and 1996 helping design computer programs meant to enable interceptors to distinguish between incoming warheads and decoys. In test after test, the interceptors failed, she has alleged, but her superiors insisted that the technology performed adequately, refused her appeals to tell industrial partners and federal patrons of its shortcomings, and then fired her. Dr. Schwartz has made her charges in interviews and in newly unsealed documents filed with a federal district court in Los Angeles, where nearly four years ago she sued TRW. She seeks to recover for the government more than a half-billion dollars, some part of which a judge could award her as compensation. …….. In 1998 the Pentagon rejected the TRW interceptor as the leading antimissile candidate in favor of a rival design by Raytheon. However, it is still a backup and could win the lead role since the Raytheon design has stumbled in recent flights. ….."
Christian Science Monitor Service 3/4/00 Joseph Cirincione "…..These are not happy days for global arms-control advocates. This summer, the Clinton administration may approve the deployment of a national missile-defense system - a move that could prompt a renewed arms race with Russia and China. Last fall, the U.S. Senate stunned the world with its rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty may be the next pact headed for the chopping block. Defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty crystallized the mantra now popular among conservatives: Distrust treaties, increase defenses, and assert American authority. Now that the era of superpower rivalry is over, critics assert, the U.S. strategy of negotiated arms reductions must change to confront "a world of terror and missiles and madmen," to borrow a phrase from presidential hopeful George W. Bush. But those who wish to reinvent arms control for the 21st century are turning their backs on history. As far back as the early 1960s, policy-makers warned that the true threat to the United States was not only that Third World despots might acquire the bomb but that advanced industrial countries might do so. ….."
Washington Post 3/4/00 "…..Russia said today that it had ruled out any discussions on changing the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) at arms talks with the United States this week and linked preservation of the agreement to other treaties. Russian and U.S. delegations held talks in Geneva from Tuesday to Thursday, the latest in several rounds of discussions between the two nuclear-armed nations. Russia sees the 1972 ABM treaty as the cornerstone of strategic stability. The two sides also discussed the START II and START III treaties on reducing nuclear arsenals……"
Reuters 2/28/00 "…..The Navy's top officer is challenging Pentagon plans to rely on land-based interceptors to shield the United States from missile attack, urging use of ship-launched interceptors too, the Washington Post reported on Monday. The newspaper quoted what it said was a confidential memo sent on Feb. 18 by Adm. Jay Johnson, the Navy's chief of operations, to Defense Secretary William Cohen, arguing that ships would make a proposed antimissile system more effective through a mobile layer of added protection. The appeal by the four-star admiral marked the first time a Navy leader has formally pushed for a role in national missile defense, a huge defense program budgeted at $12.7 billion over the next six years, the Post said. It noted that Navy authorities had argued privately for some time that ships would provide a cost-effective substitute for basing interceptors on land -- or at least an adjunct. ….."
South China Morning Post 3/19/00 Jasper Becker "…… The main Communist Party newspapers only noted the election result briefly on their front pages. But a PLA-sponsored publication sold on every street corner detailed strategies to "liberate" Taiwan, even engaging the United States in a nuclear war. A 16-page publication devoted exclusively to the Taiwan issue, the Haowangjiao Weekly, outlined a series of strategies being considered to conquer Taiwan by force, including sending an armada of 200,000 fishing vessels carrying an invasion force of two million men. The Haowangjiao Weekly, printed by the Science and Technology Digest, pointed out that such a flotilla had already proved successful when communist forces crossed the Yangtze during the civil war. The publication was packed with photographs of military hardware and said China had an arsenal of secret weapons, "the most advanced in the world - including laser weapons to disable the laser guidance systems of America's F-17s". ……… "
South China Morning Post 3/19/00 Jasper Becker "…… It said the PLA had been working on a new generation of nuclear weaponry for the past 10 years based on a new theory of nuclear physics and it gave a step-by-step strategy on how China would escalate a conflict and threaten America with nuclear war. China would first try to sway public opinion in the US by making economic concessions, stepping up arms purchases from Russia and organising public demonstrations in Beijing…….."The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese and eventually they are going to back down," it said……"
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 3/16/00 Bill Gertz "…….China's military has a new battle management system that will boost its ability to fight wars with combined army, navy and air forces, The Washington Times has learned. Details of the new system were contained in a classified Defense Intelligence Agency report sent to senior officials recently. The report said Beijing's newest satellite, launched in January, is a military communications satellite and a major component of the first integrated command, control, communications, computer and intelligence system (C4I). The new system, called Qu Dian by China, gives the Chinese military new capabilities for coordinating and supporting its growing force of modern aircraft, ships, submarines and ground forces. "This is a major force multiplier," said one official. A Defense Intelligence Agency spokeswoman declined to comment…….Officials also said the military satellite was launched atop a Long March rocket booster - the same system that was improved as a result of two U.S. companies improperly sharing space technology in 1996…….."
Asiaweek 3/24/00 Anthony Davis "……. If you were unlucky enough to be on the receiving end, the only good news is that you would probably never know what hit you. With a reach exceeding 120 km, it closes in at more than twice the speed of sound, skimming the waves. If you did know what was coming, you would have at most 25 panic-filled seconds to take counter-measures. Meet Moskit, the world's fastest anti-ship missile - and the newest, deadliest weapon in China's naval arsenal. Better known in the West as Sunburn, the projectile recently arrived in the Taiwan Strait aboard the first of two Russian-built Sovremenny-class destroyers bought by Beijing. Besides eight Moskits, the ship carries state-of-the-art Grizzly anti-aircraft missiles. And it is armed with a modern anti-submarine warfare capability that will cause sailors on Taiwan's four aging submarines sleepless nights. "The Sovremennys give the Chinese navy a punch it has been lacking," says Robert Karniol, Jane's Defense Weekly's Asia-Pacific editor. "The Taiwan navy has had the balance of power in its favor, particularly after its acquisitions in the past decade. But the Sovremennys are a match for, if not superior to, anything Taiwan has acquired." They will also give the U.S. navy some pause. ….."
Newsday 3/21/00 Robert Burns "……Despite a new delay in testing, the Pentagon said Tuesday it still will be able to tell President Clinton this summer whether its anti-missile system is technically ready to be deployed. The White House, however, said Clinton may wait as late as autumn before deciding to commit the country to deploying missile defenses. That would give him more time to work with Moscow on arms control issues. Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, told a Pentagon news conference that the next test of the anti-missile system will be June 26, two months later than originally planned. The delay gives the Pentagon time to fix a problem that caused a January test to fail. Until now, the Pentagon had said it would make an assessment in June of the system's readiness to deploy. Because the next test has been delayed until June, the assessment will be done in July, Kadish said……"
Reuters 3/13/00 Jonathan Wright "….. Retired General John Shalikashvili made his debut appearance on Monday as special adviser to President Bill Clinton on an attempt to persuade senators to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). But Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told a news conference the administration did not plan to seek another Senate vote before Clinton's term ends in January. The Senate rejected the treaty last October on a vote of 48 to 51 after a debate which the administration said was too brief and too partisan. It needed 67 votes to be ratified. It was the most important treaty rejected by the Senate since the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, and the vote was a major blow to Clinton's international prestige. ….."
LAWRENCE SPOHN 4/6/00 Scripps Howard News Service "……Most Americans support a strong nuclear weapons arsenal - increasingly so over the last several years, say two University of New Mexico researchers who have surveyed public attitudes on the subject. In back-to-back presentations at the recent Nuclear Security Decision-makers Forum in Albuquerque, the researchers said their surveys also show China has replaced Russia as the nation perceived by Americans to be the most threatening to the United States. "We've found that the public values nuclear weapons quite highly," said Kerry G. Herron, associate director for security studies at UNM's Institute for Public Policy. Institute director Hank Jenkins-Smith said that while Americans in surveys in 1993, 1995 and 1997 generally supported stable funding of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program, last year's survey revealed much stronger support for increasing that funding. …."
Associated Press 3/30/00 Anne Gearan "……President Clinton accused Republican congressional leaders of sabotaging his hopes of securing a nuclear weapons pact with India and Pakistan. ``They have no guilt and no shame,'' he said. During a trip to South Asia last week, Clinton failed to make any arms control deals. India and Pakistan both refused to reverse their nuclear weapons programs, and Pakistan's military leaders refused even to promise a quick return to democracy. In part because of the nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan, Clinton has called that region among the world's most dangerous……"
Sydney Morning Herald 3/30/00 Patrick Wintour "…… Britain's Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, is willing to proceed with the first stage of a United States-led national missile protective shield despite fears that it could lead to a new escalation of the nuclear arms race. Cabinet sources, who said ministers were also worried the move could revive mass anti-nuclear protests across Europe, said Mr Blair was ready to allow the US to base a key part of its proposed $US50 billion ($81 billion) anti-missile shield in Britain. Mr Blair is willing to house a listening station for the defence system, which would identify and destroy hostile missiles heading for America, the sources said. Mr Blair had already spoken to President Bill Clinton about the missile system, dubbed "son of Star Wars", and given assurances of his support. ….."
Albuquerque Tribune 4/5/00 Lawrence Spohn "…… Most Americans support a strong nuclear weapons arsenal -- increasingly so over the last several years, say two University of New Mexico researchers who have surveyed public attitudes on the subject. In back-to-back presentations at the Nuclear Security Decisionmakers Forum in Albuquerque, the public policy researchers said their surveys also show China has replaced Russia as the nation perceived by Americans to be the most threatening to the United States. "We've found that the public values nuclear weapons quite highly," said Kerry G. Herron, associate director for security studies at UNM's Institute for Public Policy. Institute Director Hank Jenkins-Smith said that while Americans in surveys in 1993, 1995 and 1997 generally supported stable funding of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, last year's survey revealed much stronger support for increasing that funding. ….."
SpaceDaily 4/11/00 AFP "…….A panel of scientists urged the United States to shelve its plans to deploy a new National Missile Defense system, saying it would be ineffective. "This so-called national missile defense system won't do the job," said Andrew Sessler, chairman of the committee comprising 10 other independent senior physicists and engineers that drew up the report. "The United States should shelve its NMD plans and rethink its options for countering missile threats," Sessler said. The report claimed that the defense system, which had been envisaged to be ready by 2005, would be defeated by "simple responses from new missile states." The NMD system is intended to defend US territory from attacks by tens of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles armed with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. However, biological or chemical weapons could be carried in the form of many small bomblets on the missile warhead and released early in flight, overwhelming the defense with too many targets. ……"
The Times of India 4/15/00 Reuters "…..Beijing Friday warned the US it may review its policies on arms control and non-proliferation due to the latter's plans to build missile defence systems over the US and northeast Asia. China was willing to participate in arms control talks and treaties only on the condition that they did not undermine the global strategic balance or Beijing's own security interests, the China Daily quoted a senior foreign ministry official as saying. Beijing would not sit back and watch its legitimate security interests be undermined without taking countermeasures, it quoted Sha Zukang, head of the foreign ministry's department of arms control and disarmament, as saying. The warning comes after China said it would consider resuming a dialogue on nuclear non-proliferation with the US this year if bilateral relations developed smoothly. ….."
Yahoo 4/12/00 "……BEIJING is prepared for a nuclear war against the United States if Washington ``would dare to stand in the way'' of China's reunification, a military-backed weekly has warned. In such a possible Sino-US war over Taiwan, Washington would be subject to tremendous losses in human casualties as well as in its global and regional interests, warned an article in the latest issue of the Military Review weekly. The magazine is an official publication with retired People's Liberation Army generals _ including former Chief of General Staff Yang Chengwu _ operating as its honorary publishers or advisers. The article quoted unnamed military experts as saying that China would use nuclear weapons if the US ``dared to stand in the way'' of the country's reunification. ``China, to safeguard its national interests, has prepared for a nuclear war against the United States,'' it said. Although China's weaponry in general could not match Washington's, it had its strong points, the paper said. ……… China had world-class spy satellites and its space ship-launching technology would enable its missiles to break through the US' National Missile Defence system (NMD) to strike US territory. China also leads the world in miniaturisation of the neutron bomb. Such bombs would be very difficult for US aircraft carriers to defend against, the article said. ….."
Associated Press 4/14/00 Anna Dolgov "…….After years of delay, Russian lawmakers today approved the START II treaty to scrap thousands of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads, clearing the way for further arms reductions. Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the treaty vote but warned the United States not to breach a separate pact on anti-ballistic missiles, saying Russia would abandon all nuclear and conventional arms control agreements if it did. ……..START II would halve U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to about 3,000-3,500 warheads each by the end of 2007 and enable both nations to step up efforts to work out an additional treaty, START III, for even deeper cuts. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on a visit to Kiev, the capital of neighboring Ukraine, welcomed the vote. ``I congratulate the Russian people on the Duma's decisive ratification of the START II treaty. This is a big step forward,'' she said.........."
Jane's Intelligence Review 4/00 Steven Zaloga "……WHILE CONSIDERABLE effort has been made in the development of weapon systems for ballistic missile defence at tactical, theatre and national levels, cruise missile defence has remained of marginal concern. These efforts have been undermined by the ambiguity of the evidence of the threat posed by cruise missiles. Have these threats been exaggerated to promote the development of unnecessary systems? Or has the threat been announced prematurely, with the prospect for cruise missile proliferation only now beginning to emerge? ……… The two primary barriers to cruise missiles are guidance difficulties and vulnerability to air defence…….. "
CNN/Time 4/14/00 Tony Karon "…….Even Russia's hawks had good reason to ratify the START II missile treaty, but the real battle lies ahead over the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. The Duma on Friday ratified START II, which the U.S. Senate had ratified in 1996, committing both sides to slash their nuclear arsenals almost in half by the year 2007. But President Vladimir Putin pointedly warned before the vote that any attempt by the U.S. to abandon the 1972 ABM treaty would prompt Moscow to withdraw from all arms control agreements. And that's a problem for Washington: "The proposed U.S. National Missile Defense system can't be built the way it's envisaged under the existing ABM treaty," says TIME Pentagon correspondent Mark Thompson. "That leaves Washington facing the stark choice of either renegotiating the treaty or pulling out of it. So far, Moscow has been fiercely opposed to altering the ABM treaty, although it remains to be seen how far Russia will push that opposition." …….President Putin may dine out on his hawkish nationalist credentials, but even under those terms he had good reason for frog-marching START II through the Duma. "Russia simply can't afford to keep its entire nuclear missile arsenal, much of which was scheduled to be decommissioned by 2007 anyway," says TIME Moscow correspondent Yuri Zarakhovich….."
Center for Security Policy 4/4/00 "……..In its lead editorial in yesterday's editions, the New York Times appears to have departed from its longstanding opposition to national missile defenses so as to endorse a treaty the Clinton-Gore Administration hopes to conclude with Vladimir Putin's Russia. There is probably less to this change of heart than meets the eye, however -- just as there is less than Messrs. Clinton and Gore would have us believe to their administration's professed intention to protect the American people against missile attack……… Sincere or not, the Times' apostasy does not come easy. The relevant section of the editorial starts with a characteristic paean to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which it describes as "an integral part of the arms-control architecture Washington has developed with Moscow. Defense planners on both sides have felt comfortable with lower levels of offensive missiles knowing that they would not have to penetrate a defensive missile shield." ……… The moment of truth has arrived. In light of the emerging danger, as the New York Times put it, of "countries like North Korea threatening to unleash a handful of poorly aimed but highly destructive nuclear missiles" at this country and/or its forces or allies overseas, there is no more time for idle or misleading talk about deploying national anti-missile capabilities. It must be done. And to be done, the United States must announce its determination to proceed with the steps necessary to put into place, as quickly as possible, the sort of layered, comprehensive missile defenses Gen. Kadish correctly believes will likely be needed. ……….There is, in particular, no more time for Russian objections, threats or obstructionism. The Kremlin will adjust to the new reality of an American commitment to defend itself against third parties once that commitment is expressed at the highest levels. Until that step is taken, however, the Russians will exercise whatever veto over U.S. missile defenses that we grant them. That outcome may fulfill the hidden agenda of the New York Times, the Clinton-Gore Administration and their comrades in disarmament. It will not satisfy, however, the legitimate defensive needs and expectations of the American people. ……."
Washington Post 4/19/0 Robert Suro ".....For the first time in more than a decade, the specter of nuclear war will haunt a U.S. presidential campaign as the leading candidates duel over markedly different plans for protecting the United States from a missile attack. The role of America's foe now is played by so-called rogue states, chiefly North Korea and Iran, that allegedly are developing missiles capable of hitting the United States. But otherwise the issues have not changed substantially since the Soviet Union collapsed. As they did repeatedly from the 1960s to the 1980s, voters again will hear warnings about the missile threat and arguments over the feasibility and costs of erecting a high-tech shield against incoming warheads. "Missile defense is the wedge issue in the foreign policy arena because Bush and Gore have taken very different positions and because the potential threat is right here on American soil, instead of someplace overseas, and so the public might very well get engaged with it," said Peter Feaver, a professor of political science at Duke University who studies the relationship between civilians and the military......"
US Defense 5/8/00 "……. In its first ever real world test, the Tactical High Energy Laser [THEL], developed jointly by the U.S. and Israel, hit a stationary target at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, officials said last week. The THEL system currently undergoing field tests will reportedly be first deployed by Israel on its northern border with Lebanon as Israeli Defense Forces withdraw from the region as part of a peace agreement. If all goes according to plan, it would be the first fully operational laser weapon system ever deployed. …….. "To my knowledge, no nation has ever deployed an antimissile system based on a laser,'' said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization at the Pentagon. ……. The system is being build for Israel and the U.S. Army by California-based TRW. …… The next test, Costello said, would likely come later this month against a moving target -- a Katyusha rocket of the type used by Lebanese guerillas to attack Israeli targets. If that test is successful, he said, the system will be shipped to Israel for further testing and deployment. ……"
ABCNEWS.com 5/2/00 Gary Langer "……. A narrow majority of Americans finds the downside of a $60 billion missile defense system more persuasive than the potential benefits, mirroring initial public opinion on the more extensive Star Wars proposal of the mid-1980s. Forty-four percent say today's planned system would be worth its cost to protect the United States from a limited nuclear attack. But 53 percent side with opponents who say the plan wouldn't work, would cost too much and could initiate a new arms race. ….."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 5/3/00 Dave Boyer "…….Congressional Republicans told Russian leaders yesterday the United States will build a national missile defense system, despite a Communist's warning that deploying the missile shield could provoke "a new kind of Cold War." But U.S. and Russian lawmakers did agree on at least one facet of arms control yesterday: No new deals should be struck under lame-duck President Clinton. "I completely agree with my American colleagues that we should never hurry in this matter," said Konstantin Kosachev, deputy chairman of the Russian parliament's foreign relations committee. In a rare meeting with members of the Duma on Capitol Hill, Sen. Jon Kyl disabused the Russian legislators of their notion that they could disrupt deployment of America's missile defense as a condition of the 1993 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II)…….."
New York Times 5/2/00 Jane Perlez "……If Europe is not protected by the missile shield, such a system could lead to "decoupling," a splintering in military ties, between the United States and its NATO allies, Mr. Solana said. "If we were not to be defended by the United States, that may risk the beginning of 'decoupling,' " he told reporters here. Mr. Solana, the former secretary general of NATO who is leading the European Union efforts to build a defense force that would complement NATO, said if the American system moved ahead it must not "strain trans-Atlantic links" or provoke a "a major crisis with Russia." ….."
Yahoo News (Reuters) 5/1/00 Evelyn Leopold "……Faced with mounting criticism that their nuclear arsenals are too large, the five main nuclear powers pledged on Monday ``unequivocal commitment'' to eliminate atomic weapons, without setting a timetable. In a 23-point statement, the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China also called for preserving the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and obliquely refer to Israel's refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The statement, presented at the current NPT conference by France, is aimed at deflecting criticism that the five powers, particularly the United States and Russia, are moving far too slowly in reducing their strategic and tactical nuclear arms, estimated at more than 20,000 warheads between them. The five, promised ``our unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international controls.'' But no timetable or specific commitments were given. ……"
Reuters 4/25/00 Anthony Goodman "……U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said the threat of nuclear war "remains a very real, and very terrifying possibility" at the beginning of the 21st century. Without mentioning Washington by name, he also cautioned against plans to develop a "star wars"-type National Missile Defence (NMD), saying this could lead to a new arms race. Annan was welcoming delegates on Monday at the start of a month-long conference to review implementation of the key Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the treaty, which entered into force in 1970, the five original nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, China and France -- are permitted to retain their nuclear weapons in exchange for a pledge to move towards nuclear disarmament. ….."
Reuters 4/26/00 Evelyn Leopold "….. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov dashed U.S. hopes again on Tuesday of amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and instead asked the world to promote a curb on missile technology. In a speech to a conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Ivanov opposed any changes to the ABM treaty Washington might propose so it can develop a missile defense system to protect itself against rockets from ``rogue'' states. And he said Russia would only consider further reductions in strategic offensive weapons if the ABM treaty is preserved without modifications. ….."
WorldNetDaily 4/27/00 J R Nyquist "….. In this column, and in my book "The Origins of the Fourth World War," I sometimes paint a dark picture. This is not to frighten people, but to sober them up. Certain facts have been swept under the rug by a culture that is drunk on false optimism. It is an optimism that refuses to apprehend treason and enmity. It is an optimism that refuses to acknowledge that our nation has adversaries -- in China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and others. These adversaries are building (or striving to build) intercontinental rockets. …… I ask the question: Why should they build such weapons, and which country would they fire them at? Decades pass and our nation does nothing to defend itself from enemy rockets. We laugh at the idea of bomb shelters. We mock or ignore those who show concern for the nation's survival. Our leaders, knowing the public mood, seek a solution through a series of arms reduction treaties. False optimism says that Moscow's gangsters will uphold their end of the bargain. Since 1972 we have drifted from one dangerous acquiescence to another. ……"
WorldNetDaily 4/27/00 J R Nyquist "….. So I write these columns as a corrective. And yet, the corrective bounces off the optimists only to injure those already demoralized, already paralyzed by America's retreat from virtue. And that is not my intention. Instead, I wish to remind those in despar that the danger of false optimism lies in its falseness. On the other hand, pessimism is dangerous in and of itself. Stonewall Jackson said we should not take counsel of our fears. Just as optimism can be dangerous, pessimism can be dangerous. Nothing is possible for a pessimist. To such a person all doors are shut, all defeats are final, every court of appeal is hostile. …….. It is true; we have a corrupt leadership in Washington. Our liberty is in danger and our national survival is at stake. People cast about for solutions. But I think we've been looking for an easy way out. "We are not at the end of our struggle, nor near it," wrote Burke. "Let us not deceive ourselves: we are at the beginning of great troubles." If this is true today, as it was in Burke's time, let us look for courage instead of an easy way out. This is the attitude of perseverance. Never say die……"
Reuters 4/26/00 "…..In a broadside against President Clinton's arms control initiatives, a key U.S. senator said on Wednesday he would block any treaty changes agreed with Russia during Clinton's remaining time in office. ``This administration's time for grand treaties is clearly at an end,'' Sen. Jesse Helms, the conservative North Carolina Republican who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, said on the Senate floor. ``We will not consider any new, last-minute arms control measures that this administration negotiates in its final closing months in office.'' In particular, Helms, one of Clinton's harshest critics in the Senate, said any agreement with Russia to alter the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that might limit the United States' ability to build a national missile defense system, would be ``dead on arrival'' at his committee. ``The Russian government should not be under any illusion whatsoever that any commitments made by this lame-duck administration will be binding on the next administration.'' ……"
"As a result of our engagement Russian missiles no longer target American cities or citizens." ANTHONY LAKE National Security Advisor 12/5/94
"This is the first State of the Union address ever delivered since the beginning of the Cold War when not a single Russian missile is pointed at the children of America." BILL CLINTON State of the Union Address 1/24/95
"There are no Russian missiles pointed at America now for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age." BILL CLINTON Interview with Tom Brokaw NBC Nightly News 1/26/95
"there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the United States. We are destroying parts of our nuclear arsenal and so are the Russians." BILL CLINTON Response to question from Colorado Springs Gazette Reporter 5/30/95
"We are dramatically reducing the nuclear threat. For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at the people of the United States." BILL CLINTON U.S. Air Force Academy Commencement Ceremony 5/31/95
"I have made reducing the nuclear threat one of my highest priorities. As a result, for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at our people." BILL CLINTON Statement on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 6/28/96
"Of the administration's 147 claims, the President and Vice President have stated unequivocally, at least 33 times, that no nuclear missiles at all are targeted against the United States" http://www.afpc.org/issues/waller1.htmStatement of J. Michael Waller, Ph.D.
"The President and Commander-in-Chief says all is well, so all must be well. There are no more problems coming out of Russia. That impression has had an unfortunate impact on my colleagues and the American people. When I go back to my district, people say to me, "Why, Curt, are you so concerned about this. The President says everything's okay. Don't you trust the President?" But the President knows we can't verify their targeting practices. Even if we could, we could re-target a long-range ICBM in 30 seconds. In fact, if they were indeed detargeted, they would automatically retarget back into the original position for which they were headed if activated." Representative Curt Weldon Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Research and Development Transcript of Remarks 10/24/97
Russia Today (BBC) 4/26/00 "……. Over the past few days questions of defense and security have been in the center of attention of the Russian political elite. After long debates the State Duma ratified two very important treaties - on banning nuclear testing and START-2 on limiting strategic armaments. The decisive argument for the deputies was the assurance from the Russian military that the implementation of international obligations would not damage the reliability of the country's nuclear missile shield. Today our correspondent Yuriy Vybornov visited that most sacred place - the central command point [CCP] of the strategic missile troops [SMT]. He witnessed a noteworthy event: the commander in chief of the SMT personally went on combat duty. ……"
Russia Today 4/27/00 "……. The Air Force commander-in-chief and the commander of the long-range aviation have decided to test missiles with non-nuclear warheads in the course of the military exercises that are now being held in the south of Russia. It is the first time that X-55 missiles will carry non-nuclear warheads. The strategic missile-carriers will be targeted at one of the testing areas. Being aware of the combat capacity of X-55 missiles, Russian military experts are saying that Russia's arsenals will be filled with non-nuclear strategic high precision weapons. Initially, X-55 and X-55CM missiles were built to be launched from Tu-160 and Tu-95 MS strategic missile carriers. According to strategic aviation pilots, this sharply diminished the combat capacities of the missiles, since they used to carry only nuclear warheads. The choice was not wide: either to attack the enemy with a nuclear missile, or to use dozens of tons of conventional bombs. ….."
New York Times 4/22/00 Patrick Tyler "…..In an unusual display of political unity, the Russian Parliament today handed President-elect Vladimir V. Putin his third overwhelming vote in a week ratifying a major arms control accord. The vote set the stage for a diplomatic campaign to put the United States on the defensive in nuclear disarmament talks. By a vote of 298 to 74, the lower house of Parliament ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that the United States Senate rejected last October. In the last seven days, Mr. Putin won ratification in both the upper and lower houses of a strategic arms reduction accord that calls for halving the American and Russian arsenals to no more than 3,500 warheads each. At the same time, Russia's military and civilian leaders warned of a resumption of the nuclear arms race should Washington go ahead with plans to erect a national antimissile defense shield in violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the development or deployment of such defenses. ……. Though it was not clear whether Russia had the means to carry out the threat, Mr. Putin's maneuvers still left President Clinton in a political squeeze. On one side, Moscow is putting ever stronger pressure on the United States to seek even greater cuts in nuclear arms. On the other, political opponents in Congress want to block any deals with Moscow that might limit America's ability to develop the antimissile shield. ……"
New York Times 4/22/00 Elizabeth Becker Eric Schmitt "…..Senior Republican senators told President Clinton this week that they opposed his efforts to renegotiate an arms control treaty with Russia and to build only a limited antimissile defense system. The senators -- including the majority leader, Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms -- favor a full, robust defense system against missiles, and many of them prefer to scrap the treaty altogether. They worry that Mr. Clinton will be too willing to compromise in order to conclude a strategic arms agreement with Russia before he leaves office. The president has promised a decision this summer on whether he will proceed to build an antimissile defense system, which would violate the treaty unless it is amended. In a letter to Mr. Clinton, 25 senators complained that his proposal would tie the hands of a future administration by letting Russia dictate changes in the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. That accord prohibits any national antimissile defense system. "Without significant changes to your approach, we do not believe an agreement submitted to the Senate for consideration should be ratified," the Republicans said in a letter sent to the White House on Monday. ……."
Washington Post 4/21/00 Charles Krauthammer "……… While the country is fighting over a 6-year-old boy in Florida, the big geopolitical news is buried on Page 20. President Clinton has quietly added Russia to a planned European trip. On June 4, he will go to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. This is no mere "how do you do." Frantic negotiations are going on for an immense arms control agreement--the so-called Grand Compromise--in time for Clinton to leave a legacy. Why is this big news? Because the deal Clinton is angling for would both decimate our offensive nuclear deterrent and cripple any future president's ability to build an effective missile defense. It promises to be the worst arms control agreement in American history. The story is this. The Russians, going back to Gorbachev's days, don't want us to build a missile defense. They don't have the technology to build one. We do. Why do we care what Russia thinks? Russia's hold on us is the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which essentially prohibits building defensive weapons. But the ABM treaty was signed in 1972 with the now defunct Soviet Union. Quite arguably, it is legally dead. Inarguably, it is logically absurd. ……… It was intended to prevent an arms race in a radically bipolar world. The world is not bipolar today. And there is no arms race. Yet the treaty prevents the United States from building adequate defenses against the likes of Iran, Iraq and North Korea. ……"
The New York Times Company 5/19/00 William Broad "…… A prominent antimissile critic has found what he says is a major flaw in the Pentagon's antimissile plan and is calling on the White House to appoint a high-level scientific panel to investigate what he says were fraudulent efforts to cover it up. If the critic is correct, the flaw may cripple or even kill the proposed weapon system, the cost of which is estimated at up to $60 billion. ….. He made his new accusations in a May 11 letter to John D. Podesta, the White House chief of staff, after reviewing Pentagon data gathered by an antimissile whistle-blower. …….Dr. Postol's critique centers on the hardest part of the missile defense challenge, distinguishing incoming weapons from decoys and destroying them. In the letter, a copy of which he gave to The New York Times, Dr. Postol said Pentagon sensor data he had obtained from the first antimissile test flight in June 1997 showed that the ground-based interceptor was inherently unable to make the distinction and that the Pentagon and its contractors had tried to hide this failure. The coverup, he said, was "like rolling a pair of dice and throwing away all outcomes that did not give snake eyes." ......"
Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism 5/15/00 Joe Schembrie "……The system was called Safeguard. Development of Safeguard was approved in 1969, and on October 1, 1975, the system was made operational. Relatively inexpensive by today's standards, Safeguard's Sprint and Spartan missiles were successfully tested, scoring 58 intercepts out of 70 attempted. With four missiles dedicated toward each target, there was less than one chance in a thousand that an incoming warhead would get through. ……Contrast that with today's still-experimental National Missile Defense (NMD) ABM system. After over fifty billion dollars spent on sophisticated 'Star Wars' technology, NMD anti-missile tests fail more often than they succeed. And high-tech doesn't come cheap; it will cost at least thirty billion dollars more to deploy NMD……..To be fair, the NMD system faces greater technical challenges than Safeguard. NMD relies on sophisticated computer technology to directly strike one missile payload with another - a task called 'kinetic kill,' which is comparable to stopping a bullet by shooting another bullet at it. The old Safeguard system used the brute force method: the anti-missiles each carried a nuclear warhead. Hitting an atomic bomb with an atomic bomb is not hard, and even the crude microchips of the 1970s were up to the computational job……"
New American 5/8/00 Sam Cohen "….. The United States is following a dangerous path: Reducing tactical and strategic nuclear capabilities while potential enemies are doing just the opposite.
News flash: "The People's Republic of China, using neutron weapons against Taiwan's defenses, has destroyed an entire U.S. carrier group in the Taiwan Straits and is poised to unleash battlefield nuclear weapons against the 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in Korea and Japan."
News flash: "The Russian Army, armed with neutron weapons, has annihilated the conventionally armed U.S./NATO forces in Yugoslavia and has announced that it will do the same to all remaining NATO forces in Europe unless we comply with Moscow's demands."……..
Imagine the dumbfounded shock and disbelief of the American people on learning that either of these terrible scenarios had become reality. Worse yet, consider the prospect of both of these scenarios (or any number of equally horrific possibilities) occurring at the same time, as part of a coordinated Beijing-Moscow strategy………… Impossible? By no means. In fact, it is very probable that one day the U.S., which has unilaterally divested itself of battlefield nuclear weapons, will be confronted by Russia and/or Red China brandishing these same weapons. In which case, we will lose - utterly and ignominiously……."
Washington Times 5/11/00 Bill Gertz "…… The Joint Chiefs of Staff are opposing a Russian plan favored by the White House to cut the number of U.S. nuclear warheads by 1,000 in time for President Clinton's summit meeting in Moscow later this month……… Administration officials said yesterday the chiefs and the U.S. Strategic Command favor keeping the number of warheads at the figure agreed upon at the1997 summit……"
US Defense 5/10/00 "…… National Defense | If the U.S. deploys a national missile defense shield, Russia and China may jointly develop a missile defense shield, as well as engage in other joint defense projects, the Interfax news agency reported this week. Both Moscow and Beijing, who vehemently oppose any U.S. National Missile Defense [NMD] initiative, have for months signed a number of cooperative "strategic" agreements to thwart what both view as increasing U.S. hegemony in their respective regions. According to Institute of the USA and Canada Director Sergei Rogov, "This possibility in the face of a common threat cannot be ruled out." If the U.S. moves ahead with missile defense, "the world will be a very unpleasant place to live in," he added. ……"
Drudge – NYTimes 5/10/00 "…….. CHINA SAYS U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM COULD ACCELERATE ARMS RACE... MORE.. China's chief arms negotiator tells Thursday's NY TIMES that the U.S. proposal to build an anti-missile defensive shield posed "an unacceptable threat to China's security and could force it to significantly expand its own nuclear forces in response." ……"
Washington Post 6/1/00 David Hoffman "….To understand Russia's anxiety over the national missile defense system being considered by the United States, consider the lonely wanderings of a military satellite named Cosmos-2224…... But according to a source, the latest data available, for February, located Cosmos-2224 outside the eight points of space reserved by Russia for these satellites. Although it is believed to be functioning, Cosmos-2224 is no longer part of the "operational constellation" that keeps an eye out for missile launches, the source said. Russia's only other geostationary satellite, Cosmos-2345, apparently failed sometime last year or late in 1998……..Moreover, Russia also has difficulties with another part of its early warning network. The satellites that move in what are called high-elliptical orbits and scan for launches of U.S. land-based missiles but cannot see those launched at sea, now number four on duty instead of the nine originally planned……The deterioration of Russia's satellite network has contributed to "blind spots" in its early warning system against missile attacks, specialists say, especially in detecting possible ocean launches from super-accurate U.S. Trident submarines……"
AP 5/31/00 Tom Raum "……President Clinton assured Europeans today he is willing to share missile defense technology with "civilized nations" and said he will carry that message to Moscow this weekend. If the technology is available for such a system, Clinton said in advance of his first direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, "it would be unethical," for the United States not to share it. Putin has recently reiterated longstanding Russian opposition to such a system, which would require amending the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to permit such a missile defense. Skepticism over a national missile defense - a scaled down version of the shield against incoming ballistic missiles once championed by President Reagan in the 1980s - is widespread among European allies. ……But Clinton, after a meeting with European Union leaders in Lisbon that focused on trade and security issues, declined to back away from a process that will result in a decision on such a system this summer or fall. ……."
ABC News 5/31/00 Ann Compton "…..George W. Bush declares he doesn't need any classified briefings from the Pentagon as he escalates his criticism of the Clinton-Gore military policy. As the issue of missile defenses heats up in the presidential campaign and on the agenda of President Clinton's Moscow summit this weekend, Republican presidential candidate Bush has rejected the offer of military briefings extended by Defense Secretary William Cohen, a fellow Republican serving in the current Democratic administration. "I think the briefing I got from Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and Henry Kissinger was substantial," the Texas governor said, citing advice he's gotten from the three former officials who served during the last four Republican administrations. ……"
Reuters 5/28/00 David Storey "……When President Clinton heads for a summit in Moscow this week, he leaves Washington gripped by a divisive, impassioned Cold War-style debate over the best way to defend America from missile attack. The discussion centers on U.S. proposals to build a missile shield to protect the United States, an idea opposed by Clinton in his early days in the White House but which has come to haunt him in his last months in office. Russia staunchly opposes the proposal. …..Interfax news agency in Moscow on Friday quoted the first deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, Gen. Valery Manilov, as saying proposed changes were unacceptable and Russia wanted ``to have this issue struck off the agenda.'' ……Clinton set aside funds for the project and is stuck in a process in which he promised to make a decision on whether to implement it this year. His advisers say he has no intention of putting it off for his successor. ……. But that is exactly what many Clinton opponents, supporters and analysts advocate, from Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush (news - web sites) to veteran former national security advisers like Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and Zbigniew Brzezinski. ……``It looked like a done deal in January but there is now a rising chorus for delay,'' said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International peace. ……"
New York Times 5/29/00 Steven Lee Myers "……Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today invited Gov. George W. Bush of Texas and his national security advisers to the Pentagon for a briefing on the state of the nation's strategic nuclear arsenal after criticizing Mr. Bush's recent pledge to reduce the number of American nuclear warheads. Mr. Bush's campaign aides responded by pointing to the military credentials of his advisers and suggesting that the campaign of Vice President Al Gore was playing politics with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ……. Mr. Cohen extended the invitation after Mr. Bush proposed last week to consider making unilateral reductions in nuclear weapons, possibly deeper than those now being negotiated between the United States and Russia. Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, also pledged to construct a far larger antiballistic missile defense than the one now contemplated by the Clinton administration. ……"
Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism 5/29/00 Charles Bloomer "……At a recent Non-Proliferation Treaty conference at the United Nations, the five major nuclear powers pledged an "unequivocal commitment" to eliminate their nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia, France, Britain, and China issued a statement that expressed their "commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons", but stopped short of any specific commitments or timetables……. This statement reflects the sort of feel-good, utopian nonsense that comes out of the United Nations. No one really believes that any of the major nuclear powers in the world are going to do away with their nuclear weapons, at least not anytime soon. …….. The 187 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) needed to show something for the time and money they spent gathering in New York. Evidently, posturing and beating up on the nuclear powers by the non-nuclear nations wasn't enough. There needed to be a significant piece of paper to enhance the illusion of importance and to show the world what vital work is being done…….."
New York Times 5/26/00 John Broder "…..Gov. George W. Bush's proposal this week to consider unilateral reductions in the American nuclear arsenal was a break with decades of strategic doctrine, a break that may foretell the end of traditional theories of arms control. In Mr. Bush's vision, still lacking in many details, the threat of global annihilation -- or "mutual assured destruction" -- would no longer govern relations between the United States and other powers.......And the defensive shield against nuclear weapons that he proposes to build -- significantly larger than that envisioned by the Clinton administration -- would be shared with American allies and, perhaps one day, with Russia or even China. ……"
Congressional Record-Senate S15694 10/31/91 Jesse Helms "……There is a little history behind this article. Last summer I sent Bill [Triplett] out to the Far East with instructions to find out what could be disclosed about this murder-for-profit business. He did a lot of digging, spoke to a great number of people, and asked a lot of questions. The results were startling. What is clear is that the Communist Chinese and the ruling elite know that the end is coming. Perhaps that is why we have what amounts to a fire sale of weapons of mass destruction to the Middle East. It seems as if almost anybody with the requisite cash can have his own nuclear weapons and delivery systems, courtesy of the Communist Chinese aristocratic clans. .........Mr. President, we have the leverage to stop this activity. We can tell the Communist elite clans that there will be no sanctuary in the West for those who sell nuclear arms to the Middle Eastern dictators. We can make them understand that when the domestic revolution comes, the arms dealers will be turned over to the justice of the Chinese people. We can make them understand that their secret bank accounts will be frozen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article `China's Weapons Mafia' and an associated article, both by Mr. William C. Triplett II, from the Washington Post of October 27 be printed in the Record. ….[FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, OCT. 27, 1991] China's Weapons Mafia (BY WILLIAM C. TRIPLETT II) ……..
……..Polytechnologies. Rainbow Development Corp. Kaili Corp. (a/k/a Carrie Enterprises.) The Lantian Corp. The China Great Wall Industry Corp. NORINCO. Nondescript, yet slightly romantic-sounding, the names are familiar in the global arms bazaar, where billions of dollars of weapons and lethal technology are bought, sold and transported each year in a booming trade that shows little sign of diminishing despite the end of the Cold War. ……… Seemingly nondescript corporations engage in everything from export of space launch services (Great Wall), to building armored cars (NORINCO), to advising on nuclear power development (Rainbow). All are key export-inport components of China's aggressive and highly profitable defense industry. This network of front companies and secretive international trading firms have one other thing in common: They are run for profit by China's ruling clans, the dynastic families that were disgraced in the Cultural Revolution but survived and thrive today. ………In the 1980s, China emerged as a leading arms supplier to the Third World, signing agreements between 1983 and 1990 (worth more than $16 billion. Much of China's business was with Iran; Beijing became Tehran's biggest weapons supplier during the 1981-88 Iran-Iraq War, selling $4.8 billion in weapons and munitions to Iran in 1983-90. With that war over and Iran's economy in deep trouble, China must look elsewhere for major sales. But the clan-affiliated firms have shown a willingness to sell advanced weapons to some of the world's most ruthless rulers. ……. The Chinese also have admitted that this year they transferred M-11 ballistic missiles to Pakistan; the number is unknown. The M-11 is a modern, mobile, nuclear-capable missile with a shorter range but heavier payload than the M-9. The Arab press claims that China will make M-9 and M-11 missiles in Iran, perhaps as part of a 10-year military technology-transfer agreement Beijing and Tehran signed in January 1990……..U.S. experts have found the Chinese contributed significant nuclear technology to at least one of Saddam Hussein's clandestine nuclear weapons programs. Earlier this year it was revealed that the Chinese are constructing a nuclear facility in Algeria. British experts rate the facility at an estimated 40 mega-watts, enough to produce five atomic bombs per year when it begins operation. …….. In light of these and other sales in the Middle East, Washington proliferation specialists are stepping up analysis of the Chinese arms export system. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has identified 23 Chinese government-owned or -controlled firms through which nearly all arms sales are made.
Congressional Record-Senate S15694 10/31/91 Jesse Helms "……According to the DIA account, the import-export complex is divided into `two main hierarchies . . . the uniformed services of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the defense-related ministries under direction of the State Council.' There are 10 PLA-run companies and 12 affiliated with the ruling State Council. Coordinating both hierarchies is the Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND), which also operates its own advanced technology firm, the China New Era Corp., which engages in scientific exchanges and exhibitions and scouts for advanced technology. …… According to a Hong Kong source with detailed knowledge of China's weapons sales policies, until recently, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was the bank of choice for the arms exporters. With its extensive Mideast operations and reputed money-laundering proclivities, BCCI would have been a natural fit for the Chinese. BCCI also operated in Beijing, the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone outside Hong Kong and in 27 branches in Hong Kong itself through what BCCI called the Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong (BCCHK). Of a reported $400 million of Chinese government money in BCCHK accounts, several million dollars reportedly belonged to the Ministry of Aerospace Industry, the parent of the Chinese ballistic missile producers, the Chinese Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp. ……….What is clear is that China reaps huge profits from its foreign sales. According to three experts on China's defense establishment who wrote recently in International Security magazine, Polytechnologies alone made a net profit of $2 billion selling nuclear-capable CSS-2 ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia. Even if the firm kept only 5 percent of the profit for itself and returned 95 percent to the PLA to develop the next generation of missiles, the company still would have garnered $100 million. Presumably, much of this would be available for the ruling clans. ………
Ramesh Ponnuru John Miller 5/27/00 National Review "……Al Gore's presidential campaign headquarters in Nashville, Tenn., is vulnerable to attack by at least 15 different types of missiles from locations in China, Russia, and at sea. This is according to the Coalition to Protect Americans Now, a pro-missile-defense advocacy organization with a web site that allows visitors to enter a zip code and learn about the missile threats they personally face in the absence of an operational missile-defense system. You know, the sort of thing the Clinton-Gore administration has hobbled for the last seven years. ……… "
NEW YORK TIMES 5/27/00 "…….China could have more than 100 warheads by 2015 -- and it might even deploy more than 200 warheads if the United States continues to expand its missile shield, according to a report set for release on Sunday. …..the U.S. intelligence community is warning the White House how such a system could set off a "Cold War-style arms race among China, India and Pakistan." ….."
Reuters 5/24/00 Jonathan Wright "…..The United States on Wednesday asked its NATO allies to provide more international police for Kosovo, as proof to the U.S. Congress that the Europeans are pulling their weight in Balkan peacekeeping. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright also announced to a meeting of NATO foreign ministers a package of U.S. proposals that would encourage cooperation between U.S. and European defense industries. …..She promised that U.S. plans for a system to defend against missiles would not undermine Washington's ties to its European allies and that the United States remains committed to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which bans missile defenses. ……"
Omaha World-Herald 5/24/00 Jake Thompson "…..In a show of unity Tuesday, U.S. military leaders, including StratCom commander Adm. Richard Mies, discouraged efforts to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal below 2,000 warheads. They spoke at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing reviewing American nuclear policy. It came before the June 4 and 5 summit between President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two presidents are expected to discuss arms control and possibly Russia's proposal to slash each country's stockpile to 1,500 warheads, a controversial matter among arms-control experts, members of Congress, military leaders and the Clinton administration. Currently, the United States has 7,200 strategic nuclear warheads, and Russia has 6,000. ……"
Chattanooga Free Press 5/23/00 "…… The news story from the U.N. said the five big nuclear powers on the Security Council have agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. The first reaction should be one of disbelief -- and the second should be that the United States surely should not be a party to any such agreement even if the others were telling the truth. ……. Everyone, of course, is against any nuclear war. But to think that Communist China, for just one example, is going to give up its nuclear weapons is ridiculous. And it is supremely foolish to think that the United States should do away with its nuclear deterrent power while too many other nations possess nukes, and while several renegade nations and terrorist factions long to develop them. …….Israel has nuclear weapons -- and sensibly is not about to give them up. …..India and Pakistan dangerously own nuclear weapons, each threatening the other as they squabble over territory in Kashmir. There are several other nations that either have nuclear weapons or might develop them. Can you imagine the situation if, for example, Iraq and/or Iran developed nuclear weapons while the United States had given up its nuclear arsenal? …… Libya's Moammar Gadhafi and Islamic terrorist Osama bin Laden are examples of the kind of vicious criminals who would love to possess nuclear weapons with which to commit mass murder or to blackmail the world. ….."
Philadelphia Inquirer 5/24/00 Jonathan S. Landay and Steven Thomma "……The nation's top military leaders, testifying on Capitol Hill yesterday before next month's U.S.-Russia summit in Moscow, expressed opposition to a Russian proposal to cut the two countries' nuclear arsenals to 1,500 warheads each. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said they could not support reductions below a previously agreed-on limit of 2,000 to 2,500 warheads each without analyzing the impact on national security. "We would not feel comfortable short of a comprehensive review of the strategy," the Joint Chiefs' chairman, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a rare public hearing on U.S. nuclear policy……"
newsmax.com 5/23/00 "…… In a startling proposal of unilateral disarmament, George W. Bush today said he would slash America's nuclear arsenal to its "lowest possible number" - regardless of whether Russia did the same. Bush, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said he wanted "to demonstrate to Russia that we are no longer enemies." He gave no details about the extent of nuclear cuts. "I will pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national security. It should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II without compromising our security in any way,'' he said in Washington. ……"
NEWSMAX.COM 5/21/00 "…..The United States agreed, for the first time since the explosion of the first atomic weapon in 1945, to totally eliminate its nuclear arsenal. The sweeping U.S. policy was made Saturday when the U.S. agreed with all other members of the U.N. Security Council to the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. The agreement had the full backing of the Clinton administration, and was endorsed by all five admitted nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. ……. No date or schedule for the disarmament plans have been set. But the Clinton administration has committed the U.S. to the new agreement, a continuation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. ……. Other protocols will require the U.S. to: --make full disclosure of the nation's nuclear arsenal.
--begin lowering the ``the operational status'' of weapons.
--destroy nuclear warheads by first extracting plutonium and uranium from them.
--agree to another treaty prohibiting the making of fissile materials for weapons.
. …….During the past eight years almost the entire U.S. tactical nuclear stockpile - which was estimated at approximately 10,000 weapons - has been destroyed. ……The administration has sought to greatly reduce the U.S. strategic nuclear stockpile, currently with 6000 warheads, to a modest 1500 warheads. …….Such moves have met with some resistance from the Pentagon. Previous Clinton administration directives, according to some critics, have increased U.S. vulnerability to a Russian nuclear strike. …..One Clinton directive ended the U.S. policy of "launch on warning" to one of "launch on destruction" - the U.S. can only launch a retaliatory strike against Russia or China if it confirms nuclear detonations on American soil. …..Other Clinton administration proposals have called for welding shut the missile hatch doors on nuclear submarines, and the removal of computer programs from land-based silos to locations 150 miles from the missile sites. ……"
CNN 5/20/00 "……More than 180 countries approved a new nuclear arms agenda Saturday in which the nuclear powers for the first time made an "unequivocal" commitment to eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals. The agreement by the 187 signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was reached after all night deliberations and intense pressure on Iraq and the United States to settle a dispute over Baghdad's nuclear compliance. ……"
New York Times 5/20/00 William Broad "…The Pentagon has classified as secret an antimissile critic's letter to the White House, and the censored expert is crying foul. The critic, Theodore A. Postol, professor of science and national security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, first wrote the White House on May 11 to report what he described as a major flaw in the Pentagon's antimissile plan and efforts to cover it up. Yesterday, Dr. Postol wrote the White House again, this time to say that the Pentagon had classified his letter secret and to condemn what he said was probably a bid to curb the high-stakes dispute. The antimissile system under consideration is estimated to cost as much as $60 billion. In his latest letter, Dr. Postol said the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, which ordered the imposition of secrecy, "is most likely attempting to illegally use the security and classification system to hide waste, fraud, and abuse." ……"
World Net Daily 5/19/00 Paul Sperry "……On April 30, 1999, Clinton issued a secret Presidential Decision Directive -- PDD 68 -- ordering the creation of the International Public Information group. IPI is a new propaganda organ designed to "influence foreign audiences" and gain control over "international military information." Clinton put Halperin, who favors unilateral nuclear disarmament, in charge of setting up IPI.. …….. After earning a masters and Ph.D. from Yale University, he taught at Harvard throughout much of the '60s. From 1975 to 1992, he headed the Center for National Security Studies in Washington. CNSS is a spinoff of the Institute for Policy Studies, a pro-Marxist think tank that has supported Soviet and Cuban operations in Third World countries. IPS was founded in 1963 with seed money from the Samuel Rubin Foundation. Rubin was a member of the Communist Party. In 1977, Halperin flew to London to help defend CIA agent Philip Agee when he was being deported from Britain as a security risk for collaborating with Cuban and Soviet intelligence. Halperin, 61, was also director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office from 1985 to 1992. From 1994 to 1996, he worked in the White House as Clinton's National Security Council adviser on "human rights." Halperin, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, became State's policy planner in 1998. ….."
Los Angeles Times 5/19/00 Bob Drogin Tyler Marshall "…..The U.S. intelligence community is writing a secret report warning the Clinton administration that construction of a national missile defense could trigger a wave of destabilizing events around the world and possibly endanger relations with European allies, a U.S. intelligence official said Thursday. The new National Intelligence Estimate will sketch an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects from the proposed U.S. deployment that would include a sharp buildup of strategic and medium-range nuclear missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of missile technology in the Middle East…….. The White House requested the intelligence estimate as part of its decision-making review.. ..."
WORLD TRIBUNE.COM 5/17/00 "……On Tuesday, the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists released what it termed new high resolution satellite photos of Indian and Pakistani primary nuclear weapons and ballistic missile facilities. The group will also release declassified photos of Israeli nuclear and missile facilities, Middle East Newsline reported. The photographs were taken by a Space Imaging Corporation IKONOS satellite. The FAS, regarded as a prominent scientific group, said the photographs point to "an expensive and highly-integrated network of military institutions geared towards deployment of nuclear weapons." ……. Meanwhile, the United States is preparing for another inspection of a North Korean site thought to be producing nuclear weapons. Officials said a U.S team will begin the inspection of the site at Kumchang-ni on May 23. An inspection last year of the underground site found no evidence that nuclear weapons were being stored or production was proceeding. ……"
Center for Security Policy 5/17/00 "……A growing consensus is emerging across the American political spectrum: The fastest, least expensive and most effective means of providing the United States with a near-term missile defense system is by utilizing sea-based assets. This conclusion is not only sharply at odds with the Clinton-Gore Administration's programmatic plans, such as they are, for deploying national anti-missile systems. It is also diametrically opposed to the arms control proposal that Mr. Clinton hopes to get Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept in Moscow on 4 June. …….. According to today's Washington Post, the latest converts to sea-based deployment of boost-phase missile defenses are three individuals who served Democratic presidents in senior Pentagon positions -- former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, former Deputy Secretary of Defense (and CIA Director) John Deutch and former Deputy Secretary of Defense John White. Their critique of President Clinton's plan to deploy only a limited ground-based missile defense in Alaska will reportedly appear in an article in the June edition of the journal Foreign Policy. ….."
Indian-Express 5/17/00 "……. China went nuclear because the US threatened it at least in five specific instances, a non-proliferation official has said and warned that countries like Japan will go nuclear once they are convinced that nuclear powers are not interested in disarmament at an earlier date. ......Joseph Cirincione, director of the Carnegie Endowment's non-proliferation project, has mentioned one such incident in the latest `Foreign Policy' issue and said that these instances have been listed by historians. ......"
WorldNetDaily 6/5/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "…..WorldNetDaily has obtained exclusive video footage of the SS-23s, that was acquired clandestinely by U.S. intelligence agencies. The Soviet-era tapes show the missiles on operational deployment in Eastern Europe with the Red army. ......... During the Cold War, the SS-23 missiles were equipped with a 100-kiloton nuclear warhead and were fired from wheeled launchers, making them virtually impossible to destroy once they were deployed from their underground storage sites. ……. The Soviets secretly deployed the SS-23s in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria in 1986. In the event of war in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, they would have given the Soviets a clear military advantage by allowing them to launch a surprise nuclear strike at the heart of NATO forces in Germany. ......... "
WorldNetDaily 6/5/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "…..Under the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Agreement signed in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 8, 1987, President Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to destroy all existing theater nuclear missiles in Europe, including all SS-23s. …….. While the Soviets allowed U.S. inspectors to witness the destruction of the longer-range SS-20 missiles, which constituted the bulk of their force, they secretly rushed several batteries of the shorter-range SS-23s to East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria just prior to signing the Treaty, and never declared them or destroyed them. "This is a clear violation of the INF Treaty," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., "and raises disturbing questions about the commitment of the Russian government to arms control agreements." …….Weldon and other members of the House Armed Services Committee are planning to visit the current storage site of the SS-23s in Martin, Slovakia, since the United States is footing the bill for dismantling the missiles, a process set to begin later this month. ...... .. Weldon and Maryland Republican Roscoe Bartlett are concerned that Russia may be hiding much larger reserves of nuclear weapons in a vast underground site built into the Ural Mountains, known as Yamantau. ......"
WorldNetDaily 6/5/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "…..When the United States received the first reports about the existence of a secret SS-23 force in September 1991, "it sent an electric shock through the intelligence community," a former intelligence analyst told WND. "The realization that the Soviets had a secret nuclear missile force undermined all our premises about arms control." ...... The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated in 1986 that the Soviet Union had a clandestine strategic "reserve" force of several thousand weapons, as large as Russia's current declared force, making a mockery of arms control commitments with the United States. ...... Weldon agrees. "If arms control agreements are not upheld by both parties they are meaningless pieces of paper." ..."
WorldNetDaily 6/5/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "…..The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which was recently subsumed within the State Department, quietly accused the Soviets of "bad faith." It equated the secret deployment of the SS-23s in Eastern Europe to other arms-control violations, notably the construction of a phased array radar system at Krasnoyarsk. Russian officials later admitted that the Krasnoyarsk radar was built on the orders of the Soviet Politburo as a battle-management system, in conscious violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. ...... The first public mention that undeclared missiles still existed in former Warsaw Pact countries dates from August 1997, when State Department spokesman James Rubin told reporters in Washington that negotiations were underway with both Slovakia and Bulgaria to dismantle the missiles. ….."
Augusta Chronicle 6/4/00 "…….President Clinton wants to level the military playing field between the United States and other nations. Because of resistance from allies to the proposed National Missile Defense system, Clinton's latest move is to share missile technology with Europe and other ``friendly'' nations. He has been noncommittal on whether Russia will be one those countries, but newly installed Russian President Vladimir Putin isn't. On Clinton's visit to Moscow, Putin urged that both the U.S. and his nation jointly develop a missile shield to protect against nuclear attacks by ``rogue states.'' ……. Americans should be deeply skeptical about sharing missile defense technology with other nations, because, as history shows, they can be friendly one year and unfriendly the next. The jury is still out, for instance, on Putin. ….."
New York Times 6/5/00 Eric Schmitt Steven Lee Myers "…..Administration lawyers have advised President Clinton that, in their view, he could begin building the first piece of a national missile defense system without violating a 1972 arms control treaty with Russia, senior officials said. The lawyers' interpretations, which were drafted at the White House's request, are likely to be rejected by Russia, and the president has not made a decision on them. But they offer Mr. Clinton a way to announce that the United States would go ahead with missile defenses while letting the next administration decide whether to break the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. The prospect of withdrawing from the treaty has already threatened to undermine relations with Russia, as well as with European allies who view the pact as a foundation of nuclear arms control. But a delay in construction of a missile defense could leave Mr. Clinton, and especially Vice President Al Gore, vulnerable to Republican criticism in the middle of the presidential campaign. ……"
New American magazine 5/8/00 Sam Cohen inventor of the neutron bomb "…..The United States is following a dangerous path: Reducing tactical and strategic nuclear capabilities while potential enemies are doing just the opposite. News flash: "The People's Republic of China, using neutron weapons against Taiwan's defenses, has destroyed an entire U.S. carrier group in the Taiwan Straits and is poised to unleash battlefield nuclear weapons against the 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in Korea and Japan." News flash: "The Russian Army, armed with neutron weapons, has annihilated the conventionally armed U.S./NATO forces in Yugoslavia and has announced that it will do the same to all remaining NATO forces in Europe unless we comply with Moscow's demands." Imagine the dumbfounded shock and disbelief of the American people on learning that either of these terrible scenarios had become reality. Worse yet, consider the prospect of both of these scenarios (or any number of equally horrific possibilities) occurring at the same time, as part of a coordinated Beijing-Moscow strategy. Impossible? By no means. In fact, it is very probable that one day the U.S., which has unilaterally divested itself of battlefield nuclear weapons, will be confronted by Russia and/or Red China brandishing these same weapons. In which case, we will lose - utterly and ignominiously. ......"
New American magazine 5/8/00 Sam Cohen inventor of the neutron bomb "…..Several years ago official statements began emanating from Russia describing the development of a new class of low-yield, discriminate, "Third Generation" nuclear weapons which offered great promise for a credible Russian battlefield nuclear capability. In January 1995, nine months before the U.S. government officially renounced the development and stockpiling of these weapons, the Russian government was openly espousing these weapons as essential to their military program. At this time, a Russian publication ran an interview with Vikto Mikhaylov, the Russian Minister of Atomic Energy. Mikhaylov, a renowned nuclear physicist and former ranking nuclear weapons official, made it very plain that Russia had an essential need for nuclear battlefield capabilities and was developing new weapons based on technologies drastically different from those associated with the fission and thermonuclear warheads of the past. According to Mikhaylov, "A constant process of upgrading nuclear weapons and creating new models goes on in the nuclear weapons process...." Mikhaylov went on to say: Work is now being done in the world on third generation weapons. While atomic munitions using the effect of fission of heavy nuclei can be included in the first generation and thermonuclear weapons operating on the fusion of light nuclei in the second, the third generation consists of weapons with a selective effect, which act as a superpowerful electromagnetic pulse, superpowerful nuclear-pumped lasers, an intense neutron flux [the so-called neutron bomb] and so on. An electromagnetic pulse is capable of damaging or disabling armament and command and control and communications systems. Third generation nuclear weapons realistically can appear in the next century. They should possess a significantly lesser damage effect on the environment, but a greater selective effect. They probably will replace first and second generation nuclear weapons. What was being referred to here by Mikhaylov was the fruition of a Soviet nuclear explosive program initiated as far back as the 1950s aimed at producing devices totally devoid of fissionable elements. Known as "pure fusion" weapons, they used the lightest elements, with the greatest accent on heavy hydrogen - deuterium and tritium. What Mikhaylov did not mention was that such devices, used as military warheads, would have yields in the sub-kiloton region (as low as 10 tons, or less) and have sizes and weights far below the lightest fission warheads produced thus far. They would be highly portable (carried by even one man), making them ideal as nuclear terrorist weapons, as well as very cheap, mobile, effective battlefield weapons. Also not mentioned by Minister Mikhaylov was that the development of these devices is perfectly legal within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1967. Developed under the auspices of the United Nations, the NPT covered only explosives using fissionable material - i.e., uranium and plutonium. Under the terms of the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), there is nothing standing in the way of building and testing these devices. This may sound perverse indeed - and it is; but then, in general, this has been the history of arms control. The much acclaimed NPT, signed by most countries, including the major nuclear powers at the time, paid no serious attention to pure-fusion explosives because they seemed unachievable in the foreseeable future. This unwarranted assumption was backed up by some of the world's most prestigious scientists, including quite a few Nobel laureates, whose scientific integrity on nuclear arms control was dubious at best, and whose predictive record of weapons technologies to come was abominable. ......"
Sacrament Bee 6/11/00 George Will "…..Al Gore may be assuming that the country's complacency about peace in our (and our children's and grandchildren's) time, and the administration's charade concerning defense against ballistic missiles, will prevent this from becoming an important campaign issue. To understand why it should be a central issue, consider two hypotheticals: After Congress approves normalized trade relations with China, Beijing moves militarily against Taiwan. China invokes the possibility of a nuclear response if the United States interferes, and the U.S. president, governing a nation incapable of defending itself from even a single ballistic missile, is militarily paralyzed. ……."
The Guardian 6/16/00 Bruce Blair "……Senior American military officers insist that current nuclear policy prevents them shrinking the US nuclear arsenal to fewer than 2,000 to 2,500 strategic weapons - and that going lower would threaten national security. Their calculations are buried in the nation's strategic war plan and ultimately linked to presidential guidance. …….. Defence officials do not talk openly about the nuclear targets in the strategic plan. But my estimates lead inexorably to a conclusion that US leaders are clinging to outdated planning that helps keep an unnecessarily large number of American and Russian missiles pointed at one another on hair-trigger alert…….Oddly, the target list has been growing instead of contracting since the last strategic arms reduction treaty, Start II, was signed in 1993. The sites the Pentagon says the US must be ready to destroy has grown by 20% in the last five years alone - to 3,000 now from 2,500 in 1995 - according to top military and former administration officials....... The vast bulk of the targets are in Russia. …."
Los Angeles Times 6/16/00 Robert Scheer "…… Truth is, there haven't been any really good nuclear secrets to steal for some time, not since the Soviets exploded their first bomb half a century ago. After they, and the Chinese soon after, proved that they could play catch-up in the city-buster business, there really hasn't been much that's new. Once you can blow up a few million civilians, what else is a nuclear weapon to do? The only legitimate work of the labs now is to make certain that the existing nuclear stockpiles throughout the world are safe, and that is information that the U.S. should be sharing freely with other nations that have such weapons. ......,, That there are no secrets is hard for the weapons labs to admit to the public because it threatens their cachet not to mention their funding. And as long as the Cold War was on, the Pentagon could sustain the notion of a nuclear war-fighting scenario. Better weapons and delivery systems were needed to withstand an enemy first-strike with a survivable retaliatory power. ..... But that scenario is absurd in an era when our nuclear predominance is such that an effective first-strike against this nation simply is not plausible. …..The nuclear weapons, labs should be shut down, for they serve no other purpose than to alarm Congress and distract it from the serious purpose of stopping the proliferation of nuclear material throughout the world; We no longer have any need for advanced nuclear weaponry, and the secrets of their design have become tokens of power useful only to excite us when some evil tribe is presumed to have stolen them. ……"
Center for Security Policy 6/15/00 "…..No. 00-F 37…… Periodically, some news item comes along that offers fresh insights into the depths of cynicism the Clinton-Gore Administration is prepared to plumb in the service of its political agenda. The New York Times presents one of these in a front-page, above-the-fold article in today's editions. It describes a new legal analysis -- what might be called a "broad interpretation" of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty -- that has just been conjured up by Administration lawyers for the purpose of affording Vice President Gore the cover he needs on the question of deploying national missile defenses, without having to violate the ABM Treaty that explicitly prohibits them. …..Administration lawyers have advised President Clinton that, in their view, he could begin building the first piece of a national missile defense system without violating a 1972 arms control treaty with Russia, senior officials said..…."
SACRAMENTO BEE 6/11/00 "…..How does the Pentagon make a limited national missile defense system look technically feasible? The sad answer, it appears, is by rigging the tests of the system to make it look capable of dealing with the technical challenge that independent experts say it can't meet: distinguishing warheads from harmless decoys. The rigging of the tests was revealed last week by Professor Theodore A. Postol, a former Reagan administration antimissile expert and now professor at MIT. He obtained and analyzed the Pentagon's own testing plan, which showed that military officials had stopped testing the proposed antimissile system against realistic threats when, in initial test in 1997, it had failed to tell a warhead from a dummy. His analysis was confirmed by other scientists and by a senior administration official who told The New York Times that "none of the tests address the reasonable range of countermeasures" that an adversary would use to evade a missile defense……."
Associated Press 6/14/00 Tom Raum "…..Despite President Clinton's efforts to build a legacy in his remaining days in office, he seems likely to become the first president in decades to fail to negotiate a major agreement with Moscow on strategic arms.. …..This week's disclosure of missing computer hard drives containing nuclear weapons data at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico has only further hardened GOP animosity toward the Clinton administration's national security policy. …..After opposing Republican plans for a missile defense for most of the first six years of his presidency, Clinton did an about-face in late 1998 and agreed to support such a concept. His condition was that the system be designed to stop a limited missile attack from what the United States considers ``rogue'' states like North Korea, Iran or Iraq. ``The world changed very vividly when the North Koreans fired that missile,'' Clinton's top adviser on Russia, Strobe Talbott, said recently, referring to North Korea's August 1998 launch of a multistage missile over Japan……."
Russia Today 6/12/00 AFP "….Russian President Vladimir Putin denied Sunday there was nuclear threat from potential "rogue states" in the Middle East or Asia whose existence the U.S. has invoked to justify its controversial plan for an anti-missile shield. In an interview with the newspaper Welt am Sonntag, Putin reiterated Moscow's opposition to the U.S. national missile defense system, saying it was a grave strategic miscalculation. "The threat of missiles from 'problem countries' in the Middle East or in the Asian region invoked by the U.S. does not exist in principle, neither today nor in the near future," Putin said. ….."
Chicago Tribune 6/10/00 John Diamond "…..Russia's foray into the field of missile defense has the Clinton administration on the defensive. U.S. officials were caught off-guard this week when Russia floated the idea of a new kind of defensive shield, one that would not undermine the viability of Russia's nuclear forces. The idea is to intercept missiles shortly after takeoff. At a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels on Friday, Clinton administration officials dismissed the Russian proposal as impractical and suggested it might be a Russian gambit to divide the United States from its European allies. …….If Washington rejects Russia outright, however, President Clinton or his successor in the White House will have a difficult time arguing that the United States means Russia no harm by going forward with the U.S. version of national missile defense. Accepting Russia's proposal, on the other hand, shifts the missile defense and arms-control initiative to Moscow and could force the Pentagon to scrap its current missile defense design. ……"
Detroit News 6/11/00 Leo Rennert "…..The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, founded soon after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has featured a "doomsday clock" for more than half a century -- a graphic snapshot of how close the world may be to nuclear Armageddon. At its outset, the clock was set at seven minutes to midnight. Its most perilous setting -- two till -- came in 1953 after the United States and the Soviet Union tested their first hydrogen bombs. ………. By 1989, when George Bush took office, the clock stood at six till. Four years later, with the end of the Cold War and more arms agreements, it registered at 17 till -- its safest setting ever -- as Clinton began his first term. …….Since then, however, it has swung around to more ominous settings as India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club with a series of test explosions, and efforts to slash nuclear arsenals faltered. …..With the clock now at nine till, the world has moved almost halfway toward nuclear catastrophe on Clinton's watch -- not exactly an enviable legacy for a president who started with high hopes for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals and a permanent global ban on all nuclear tests. ….."
US Defense 6/12/00 "……A new Senate bill would require the Energy Department to assist the Pentagon in studying a new type of nuclear weapon designed to penetrate deep into the earth before exploding. The new weapon, which has a lower yield than most ICBMs, is designed to destroy enemy command and control bunkers buried deep inside mountains or well below the earth's surface. The purpose of the study is to develop "a deep penetrator that could hold at risk a rogue state's deeply buried weapons or Saddam Hussein's bunker without torching Baghdad," said one former senior Pentagon official who is still involved in government military and intelligence research, the Washington Post reported on Monday. …….The weapon, designated B-61, was most recently modernized in the 1990s. At that time the bomb, which has a variety of yields above 50 kilotons (or 50,000 tons of TNT, more than three times the power of the Hiroshima bomb), was given an earth-penetrating capability great enough to destroy "a garden variety underground bunker, 100 meters into solid rock," the former official said. "What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population," the official told the newspaper. ......"
Washington Times 6/9/00 Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough "…… U.S. defense and intelligence officials privately confirmed to us Thursday that China is preparing for a second flight test of its newest missile, the truck-mounted DF-31 intercontinental ballistic missile. "They're making preparations for a future test," one official told us. However, the timing of any flight test is uncertain and will be based - as always in the communist dictatorship - on a "political decision" by top leaders, the official said. A test is expected in the not-too-distant future based on satellite photographs showing preparations under way at the Wuzhai missile and space test facility in central China. The Chinese last test-fired a DF-31 on Aug. 2, 1999. The road-mobile ICBM is believed by the CIA to incorporate stolen U.S. nuclear warhead design technology obtained by Beijing's spies……."
Chinatimes 6/9/00 "…..A senior Chinese disarmament official has warned of an arms race in space if the United States went ahead with plans to develop an anti-missile defense system, state media reported. Sha Zukang, director general of the department of arms control disarmament in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said if Washington succeeded in its attempt to build the anti-missile shield, an arms race would be inevitable. Under the US plan, part of its missile defense system will be deployed in space and be targeted at space objects; and the other part of the system will be based in space for providing target and navigational information for ground weapons systems, the official Xinhua news agency said. ……"
Washington Post 6/9/00 William Drozdiak "…..The United States sought today to head off Russia's suggestion that it create a joint missile defense system with NATO, insisting that any cooperative venture should only serve as "a supplement, and not a substitute" for a proposed U.S. missile shield. While leaving the door open for possible collaboration, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned NATO defense ministers gathered here that the vague initiative put forth by Russian President Vladimir Putin during a visit to Italy Monday requires close scrutiny to determine if it is serious or simply an attempt to divide the alliance. "It's very unclear exactly what the Russians have in mind," Cohen said. The idea for a cooperative system, he said, "was not really raised" by Putin last weekend when he met with President Clinton in Moscow……"
Dallas Morning News 6/11/00 Charles Krauthammer "…… As President Clinton sends envoys to the Middle East in a desperate search of a legacy, he seems unaware that his lasting foreign policy legacy already is established. He established it last week in Moscow, despite himself. The summit, which the world rated as inconclusive, actually sealed Mr. Clinton's legacy as the president who made an American missile defense a reality. Ronald Reagan was the father of the idea. But Mr. Clinton - with the invaluable and unwitting assistance of Vladimir Putin - became its midwife. For the first time in American history, a missile defense now is inevitable. As in the case of Mr. Clinton's great domestic legacy - the abolition of welfare - the initiation of an American anti-ballistic missile system isn't exactly what Mr. Clinton intended to do as president. Nor is it the way he would prefer to be remembered. ……. Both acts were undertaken with little conviction and much political calculation. Mr. Clinton signed welfare reform in 1996 on the election-year advice of Dick Morris and against the deeply held convictions of his liberal supporters (such as Peter Edelman, who then resigned from the administration). ……"
Associated Press 6/7/00 Tom Raum "……The Republican-led Senate voted Wednesday to prohibit President Clinton from making deep unilateral cuts in the nation's nuclear arsenal, but agreed to ease that prohibition for the next president. With Senate Democrats crying foul, the Senate voted 51-47 -- largely along party lines -- to reject an effort to lift the five-year old prohibition completely. Instead, the Senate went along with a proposal by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., to allow the president to make such warhead cuts only after a Pentagon review every four years. That review is not set to be done until December 2001, after Clinton has left office……."
WorldNetDaily 6/6/00 Charles Smith "…. WorldNetDaily has learned that a multi-billion-dollar anti-missile system proposed by the Clinton administration and intended to protect America against a nuclear missile strike is vulnerable to attack from Russian-made supersonic cruise missiles. "The Aegis ABM interceptor is not designed to deal with the supersonic cruise missile threat," explains Baker Spring, a defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation. "It is designed for exo-atmospheric (outside the earth's atmosphere) intercept only." "The supersonic cruise missile threat is a Navy problem," stated Spring. "The Navy will have to deal with the cruise missile threat no matter what the mission -- whether it's ABM defense or sea control." The U.S. Navy Aegis warships are reported to be unable to defend themselves against the latest Russian supersonic cruise missiles, the Raduga Moskit and the Mashinostroyenya Yahont. ……"
Associated Press 6/6/00"…… China warned on Tuesday of a new arms race if U.S.-requested amendments are made to a landmark treaty that bans national missile defenses. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty "conforms with the strategic balance and stability." "Any efforts to amend the ABM treaty or to withdraw from the ABM treaty would not only threaten the nuclear disarmament process but would also shatter the basis for nuclear nonproliferation and will give rise to a new arms race, including an arms race in outer space," Zhang said at a regular briefing for reporters. Her comments came after President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a document issued Sunday after a summit meeting, left open the possibility for changing the ABM treaty. ……."
Defense Daily 6/6/00 Kerry Gildea "….. President Clinton's failure at the Moscow summit to broker a deal to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty keeps the United States locked into an agreement that Russia used in the 1970s as leverage to build up its nuclear arsenal rather than to meet an assumed mutual goal of ensuring global stability, former military and intelligence community officials and defense analysts warn. Soon after the United States and the former Soviet Union signed onto the ABM Treaty in 1972, the Pentagon and intelligence community realized the two nations agreed to the treaty for very different purposes, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officials told Defense Daily in a series of interviews. …….. With the ABM Treaty, Russia no longer had to spend money on a defensive ABM system to keep pace with the United States technologically and poured its resources into development of ICBMs and surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites, former U.S. intelligence officials said. While the intentions of Russia soon became clear through intelligence and surveillance data that only senior government officials were privy to, it would have been political suicide for the United States to walk away from the treaty at that point because of the huge public support for arms control, they said......."
newsmax.com 6/6/00 Senator Jesse Helms "…… President Clinton wants, in his final months in office, to strike a major arms control deal with Russia, including a new ABM Treaty that would limit the United States' ability to defend itself against ballistic missile attack. White House officials have openly stated their concern that Mr. Clinton faces the prospect of leaving office without a major arms control agreement to his credit - the first president in memory to do so. So, Mr. Clinton wants an agreement, a signing ceremony, a picture shaking hands with the President Putin, broad smiles on their faces, large ornately bound treaties under their arms, as the cameras click for perhaps the last time - a final curtain call of sorts. If the price of that final curtain call is a resurrection of the defunct U.S.-Soviet ABM Treaty that would prevent the United States from protecting itself against missile attack, then that price is far too high. ……For nearly eight years, while North Korea and Iran raced forward with their nuclear programs, and while China stole the most advanced nuclear secrets of the United States, and while Iraq escaped international inspections, President Clinton did everything in his power to stand in the way of deploying a national missile defense. ...... Within three years of taking office, Mr. Clinton had completely gutted the U.S. national missile defense program, slashing the national missile defense budget by more than 80 percent. ......In 1997, he signed two agreements to revive and expand the U.S.-Soviet ABM Treaty (then, heeding some of his advisors, refused to honor his legal commitment to submit those agreements to the U.S. Senate, for fear that the Senate would reject them). Mr. Clinton repeatedly blocked enactment missile defense legislation approved by Congress, and only grudgingly signed a missile defense law in 1999 - but only after it passed both houses of Congress by a veto-proof majority, and only after the independent "Rumsfeld Commission" had issued a stinging, bipartisan report declaring that the Clinton administration had dramatically underestimated the ballistic missile threat to the United States. ……This administration has long had its chance to adopt a new security approach to meet the new threats and challenges of the post-Cold War era. The administration chose not to do so. Now, this administration's time for grand treaty initiatives is at an end. For the remainder of this year, the Foreign Relations Committee will continue its routine work - we will consider tax treaties, extradition treaties, and other already negotiated treaties. But we will not consider any new, last minute arms control measures that this administration negotiates in its final, closing months in office. And, as chairman of this committee, I should make it clear that the Foreign Relations Committee will not consider the next administration bound by any treaties this administration may try to negotiate in the coming months. The Russian government should not be under any illusion whatsoever that any commitments made by this lame-duck administration, will be binding on the next administration. America has waited eight years for a commitment to build and deploy a national missile defense. We can wait a few more months for a President committed to doing it and doing it right - to protect the American people. ……."
BBC 6/6/00 "….. Vladimir Putin at a ceremony to commemorate the Russian poet Pushkin Nato has welcomed a proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin for a joint European and Nato anti-missile defence system. A Nato statement said: "They show a spirit of co-operation on arms control issues and concerning the threat of weapons of mass destruction." American Defence Secretary William Cohen gave the proposal a more cautious response, saying Moscow's recognition of the nuclear threat from states such as North Korea and Iran was a positive step. Mr Putin has outlined a scheme for a joint European system as an alternative to the Americans' plan for a national anti-missile shield. Russia fears that US plan could neutralise its own nuclear deterrent. ……"
WorldNetDaily.com 6/6/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "……Deep in the Urals, in the region of Beloretsk, rises a mountain called Yamantau. It is believed to conceal one of Russia's darkest nuclear secrets -- a secret President Clinton, members of Congress and the U.S. military top brass have raised repeatedly with Russia's leaders, without ever receiving a response. Some U.S. analysts believe the secret underground complex beneath Yamantau Mountain betrays a lingering belief among top Russian leaders that they must continue to prepare to fight and win a nuclear war. Russians say they still fear the U.S. ………. Today, Russia may be conducting nuclear deception on a far vaster scale beneath Yamantau Mountain, where it has dug out a gigantic underground military complex designed to withstand a sustained nuclear assault. U.S. intelligence sources tell WorldNetDaily that the Yamantau complex is but one of some 200 secret deep underground nuclear war-fighting sites in Russia, many of which have been significantly upgraded over the past six years at a cost of billions of dollars. …….. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, U.S. intelligence sources believe the Russian government has pumped more than $6 billion into Yamantau alone, to construct a sprawling underground complex that spans an area as large as Washington, D.C., inside the Beltway -- some 400 square miles. ……… In 1998, in a rare public comment, then-Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Gen. Eugene Habinger, called Yamantau "a very large complex -- we estimate that it has millions of square feet available for underground facilities. We don't have a clue as to what they're doing there." ……."
WorldNetDaily.com 6/6/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "……"Yamantau Mountain is the largest nuclear-secure project in the world," said Rep. Bartlett. "They have very large train tracks running in and out of it, with enormous rooms carved inside the mountain. It has been built to resist a half dozen direct nuclear hits, one after the other in a direct hole. It's very disquieting that the Russians are doing this when they don't have $200 million to build the service module on the international space station and can't pay housing for their own military people," he said. The Russians have constructed two entire cities over the site, known as Beloretsk 15 & 16, which are closed to the public, each with 30,000 workers. No foreigner has ever set foot near the site. A U.S. military attaché stationed in Moscow was turned back when he attempted to visit the region a few years ago. …….Neither the Central Intelligence Agency nor the Defense Intelligence Agency would comment on what the Russians were doing at Yamantau Mountain. ……"
WorldNetDaily.com 6/6/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "……Weldon twice asked Gen. Sergeyev, commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces about Yamantau. "He said it was a command center, and that we had the same kind of thing in our country at Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. He suggested that eventually we could be allowed to come visit it. Despite his promise, that has never happened. Clearly, this is a project that is so secret that only the upper level of the government know about it." The work at the Yamantau complex is only part of Russia's current efforts to modernize and reinforce some 200 deep underground command posts, nuclear warhead repositories and clandestine missile sites. Some CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff analysts believe these assets will give Russia a strategic advantage over the U.S. in the event of nuclear war. ….."
WorldNetDaily.com 6/6/00 Kenneth R. Timmerman "……Among these Russian sites is the Sherapovo command and control center, south of Moscow. This site, which is large enough to house 30,000 people, is the civilian command center the Russian government can use in time of war. It is connected to a network of deep underground bunkers built beneath the Kremlin, and linked to Moscow by a secret subway line. Russia's general staff has a similar facility some 20 kilometers away from Sherapovo, known as Checkov, which can also accommodate an estimated 30,000 people. A separate facility, located 850 miles east of Moscow at Kosvinsky Mountain in the Urals, has been designed as the Russian equivalent of the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado, where the United States can track incoming ballistic missiles.and command U.S. forces to counter-attack. ……."
SpaceDaily 6/7/00 "……. TRW, the U.S. Army and the Israel Ministry of Defence (IMoD) have blazed a new trail in the history of defensive warfare by using the Army's Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (THEL/ACTD), the world's first high-energy laser weapon system designed for operational use, to shoot down a rocket carrying a live warhead. The successful intercept and destruction of a Katyusha rocket occurred on June 6 at approximately 3:48 p.m. EDT at the Army's High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF), White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The shoot-down was achieved during a high-power laser tracking test conducted as part of the ongoing THEL/ACTD integration process. "We've just turned science fiction into reality," said Lt. Gen. John Costello, Commanding General, U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command. "This compelling demonstration of THEL's defensive capabilities proves that directed energy weapon systems have the potential to play a significant role in defending U.S. national security interests worldwide." ……"
Reuters 6/8/00 "……Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev will present a plan for joint anti-ballistic missile defense when he meets NATO defense chiefs in Brussels this week, Russia's Interfax news agency said on Wednesday. The agency quoted unnamed sources as saying Sergeyev would "give an explanation and put forward concrete proposals on this question, expanding on the initiative earlier proposed by President Vladimir Putin"...."
Reuters 6/7/00 Jim Wolf "…..A powerful laser developed jointly by the United States and Israel has shot down a rocket in a breakthrough test of defense technology, the Army said on Wednesday. The test was the first in a series before the high-energy laser, designed by a team led by TRW Corp., is to be handed over to Israel to help protect its northern border with Lebanon against short-range rocket attack. ``We've just turned science fiction into reality,'' Lt. Gen. John Costello, head of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said in a statement released by his headquarters in Huntsville, Alabama. He said the shoot-down, Tuesday at the Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, showed ``directed energy'' weapons systems like lasers ``have the potential to play a significant role in defending U.S. national security interests worldwide.'' …….The ground-based, short-range, air defense system, which cost $186 million to develop, is formally known as the Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (THEL/ACTD). ...... For the first test of THEL's defensive capabilities, a single Katyusha rocket carrying a high-explosive warhead was fired from a rocket launcher inside the test range. Seconds later, the laser system, located several miles away, detected the launch with its Israeli-built fire control radar, tracked the streaking target and locked on to it with its high-energy beam. ``Within seconds, the 10-foot-long, 5-inch diameter rocket exploded,'' TRW said. ``Basically, it fries the explosive in the warhead until it explodes harmlessly in the air,'' added Thomas Romesser, deputy general manager for laser programs at TRW's Space & Laser Programs Division in Redondo Beach, California. ...... Highly focused energy can cross great distances at the speed of light with minimal loss of intensity. Even a moving target may be heated to temperatures like those on the surface of the sun, Romesser said in a telephone interview. Theoretically, such a beam could knock out missiles at distances up to thousands of miles. That was the idea behind the space-based missile defense shield like the ``Star Wars'' system first suggested by President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983. …….. THEL is a ``transportable'' system contained in several truck-sized shipping containers. The system stems in part from a commitment made in April 1996 by President Clinton to then Prime Minister of Israel Shimon Peres to aid Israel in developing a defense against Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah guerrillas from southern Lebanon. Clinton is due to decide by November whether to begin deploying a ground-based national missile defense against what U.S. intelligence says are potential threats from countries like North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Lasers are not due to play any role in the initial phase of any such deployment. Instead, the targets would be smashed by ``kill vehicles'' atop ground-based interceptor missiles…….. "
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 6/9/00 Bill Gertz "…… Congress is adding up to $92 million to the Pentagon budget to fully fund an aircraft-mounted laser gun that will shoot down short-range missiles fired at U.S. forces. The money for the Airborne Laser was cut by the Air Force in its latest budget request to pay bills owed by the service for its flight operations and for the new F-22 fighter, according to defense and congressional officials……. The futuristic weapon is being developed by the Air Force as a unique gun that fires light beams powerful enough to pierce the steel of missile frames and destroy them. "We're really happy with the way the program is going," said Rich Garcia, director of public affairs for the laser program. "It's on budget and from a technical standpoint everything is right on time or ahead of schedule."…… The large chemical laser gun is being developed by TRW Inc. of California and will be mounted aboard a militarized Boeing 747 jumbo jet………."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 6/9/00 Bill Gertz "…… A Senate aide said the funding cut, if it is not restored, will delay plans for the first test of intercepting a missile with the laser now set for 2003. If all goes well, the first Airborne Laser aircraft could be deployed in 2007. Both the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee have added $92 million to the program to keep it on track for at least the first intercept test, the aide said…….. The Airborne Laser will be outfitted with several lasers. In addition to the blast laser that will actually attack missiles, it will contain range-finding lasers......."
FAS 3/31/98 Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey "…..Statement by Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey Before the US Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces……….. Today I wish to make three points that urge caution in making further deep reductions in our nuclear forces or in making our nuclear deterrent less effective:
· Extant and emerging nuclear, chemical, and biological threats require an effective US nuclear deterrent.
· Russia has a large, functioning nuclear weapons production complex; the United States does not. And, we have no way to verify that there are no undeclared stockpiles in Russia.
· De-alerting would profoundly undermine deterrence, would generate serious instabilities, and, in some cases, introduce safety uncertainties………
Although our relations with Russia are now relaxed, we must continue to take Russia's weapons capabilities, not just its intent, into account. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been important indicators that Russia is increasing its reliance on nuclear deterrence and is improving its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems. In May 1997 Russia announced that it would no longer adhere to a nuclear no-first-use doctrine. It continues to maintain several thousand tactical nuclear weapons at a time when NATO has made dramatic reductions in this class of nuclear forces. Giant, deeply buried, underground nuclear-related complexes in Yamantau and Kos'vinskiy Mountains, as well as shelters, continue to be constructed at great cost. Russia conducted some sort of nuclear or nuclear-related tests at Novaya Zemlya in 1996, and perhaps others since. Russia is not only remanufacturing existing warheads, but also building new designs. Initial units of the SS-X-27, a highly accurate and reliable mobile ICBM, have already been deployed. A new SSBN and SLBM are under development.......
China has not been a highly salient threat to the United States, principally because China had few warheads and delivery systems relative to those of the United States. However, the relative threat presented by the Chinese arsenal is increasing. China is estimated to have 300-400 nuclear warheads and is making progress on miniaturization and reliability. The threat from its current arsenal is mostly on missiles with ranges that cannot reach the US mainland, but it also has some silo-based 12,000-km DF-5 missiles that can. China is modernizing its ballistic missiles. In this, it is reported to have received help from Russian scientists as well as from Ukraine, which has SS-25 mobile missile technology. China has been developing the mobile DF-31 ICBM missile with a range of about 8000 km……….
India is an emerging secondary nuclear power whose new government advocates making India a declared nuclear weapons state. India has had nuclear explosives capabilities since its 1974 test and has steadily been producing fissile materials since. Some estimates say that India could have more than 200 nuclear warheads. India has also developed impressive ballistic missile delivery capability; its Agni missile can carry a 1000 kg payload to a range of 2500 km. India successfully tested a low-earth and a polar satellite launch vehicle, the latter of which could be used as an ICBM with a 1000 kg payload.......,,
Iraq surprised the United States with the advanced state of its nuclear weapons program and its intermediate range Scud missile derivatives. Iraqi scientists were well on the way to having a workable nuclear weapons design. Although the United Nations has destroyed much of Iraq's infrastructure for making weapons of mass destruction and longer range missiles, Iraq has preserved much of its technology has continued to acquire and stockpile key items……..
North Korea poses another potential threat, particularly since there is a US-South Korea defense treaty and 32,000 Americans are stationed in the South. North Korea secretly separated plutonium for nuclear weapons, and still retains that fissile material, thus remaining in noncompliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, North Korea may have undeclared plutonium production facilities out of view in one of its myriad tunnels or underground facilities. North Korea also has nuclear-capable Scud missiles that can reach South Korea, and has developed a missile based on the Scud, the Nodong 1, a missile with a range of 1000 to 1300 km. North Korea is developing longer range missiles, the Taepodong 1 and Taepodong 2. The former is estimated to have a range of 2000 km and the latter has been estimated to have a range up to 10,000 km, making it capable of reaching the United States, and could be operational by the year 2000.......
In addition to nuclear threats, there are chemical and biological weapons programs worldwide. Moscow has broken its political pledges to discontinue its chemical and biological weapons programs. While the United States ceased its biological weapons program in 1972, Moscow continued its own program unabated, as was admitted by President Yeltsin in 1992. In the early 1990's, Vladimir Pasechnik, a senior biologist who defected to Britain in 1989, provided convincing evidence that extremely potent biological weapons were developed, including a plague bacterium that is impervious to Western drug treatments. Similarly, a Russian dissident revealed that Moscow secretly continued its chemical weapons program, developing nerve agents that are more toxic than any substance known in the West. Against these weapons, the United States has no in-kind retaliatory capability. US biological weapons were destroyed and the program ended; the US chemical weapons modernization program was abandoned and the remaining arsenal is aging, increasingly undeliverable.
Chemical and biological weapons are much less expensive and technologically easier to develop and produce than nuclear weapons. Because they are virtually impossible to detect, we may not know all of the countries that could conceivably deliver such weapons against the United States. However, we do know that North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and others have chemical and/or biological weapons capabilities……."
The United States does not know how many nuclear weapons or warheads the Soviets built, nor the size of Russia's current stockpile. If Russia were to hide some of its stockpile and declare a lesser number, there are no existing technical means that would enable us to detect the discrepancy or locate the hidden nuclear warheads. The wide range of error possible in estimating Russian warhead inventories was highlighted in 1993, when Minatom director Viktor Mikhailov stated that the Russian arsenal peaked at 45,000 warheads in the mid 1980s. This was 12,000 more than generally believed in the West……."
newsmax.com 6/1/00 "…… Russia's new president, Vladimir Putin, has once again thumbed his nose at the West, decreeing that Russia will sell sensitive nuclear materials, even to nations that have failed to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The Russian government, Putin says, will "in exceptional circumstances" export nuclear materials to a country that has no nuclear weapons but that has not placed all its nuclear activity under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny. ……"
New York Times 6/3/00 Michael Gordon "…..In a bid to recast a security debate just before his summit meeting with President Clinton, President Vladimir V. Putin has suggested an alternative to the proposed American defense against missile attack by nations like North Korea. Agreeing with the American assessment that so-called rogue states pose a nuclear threat, Mr. Putin hinted that the United States and Russia could collaborate on new ways to shoot down enemy missiles soon after they were launched, rather than in space. The Russian proposal is intended to replace the plan for a nationwide shield to protect the United States against incoming warheads that the Clinton administration has proposed. Mr. Putin's alternative approach seems to resemble the plan known in the United States as "boost phase defense," which has been proposed by a number of arms control advocates. Russian officials have been talking privately to American negotiators about the idea in recent weeks. ...... Such a system would be of little use against the Russian nuclear force. That would make it far more acceptable to the Russian military, which fears that a solely American missile defense would be used to gain a strategic edge. ….."
Washington Post 6/3/00 David Hoffman "….. President Vladimir Putin's suggestion that Russia would be willing to cooperate with the United States on some kind of missile defense system was described by analysts today as not specific and possibly quite different from plans envisioned by America. In an interview Thursday night on the eve of President Clinton's arrival in Moscow Saturday, Putin seemed to be shifting toward a more conciliatory approach after months of holding firm against U.S. plans to build a limited missile defense system. However, several experts speculated that Putin was talking about joint activity in short-range, nonstrategic missile defenses, which are far different from the plan now igniting debate in the United States………"
Electronic Telegraph 6/4/00 David Wastell in Washington, Guy Chazan in Moscow and Philip Sherwell "….. THE Government has urged President Clinton to abandon his offer to share "Star Wars" missile defence technology at today's Moscow summit because it fears it will end Britain's independent Trident nuclear deterrent against Russia. The appeal was made amid disclosures that Russia's early-warning satellite system is so dilapidated that it may be blind to an American nuclear missile attack - thus raising the likelihood of false alarms in Moscow. There is concern in Washington that a breakdown in Russia's ageing early-warning network could trigger an accidental nuclear war. If Moscow mistakenly suspects that it is under attack it might launch an automatic nuclear response against America and Britain. ….."
U.S. News & World Report 6/12/00 Kevin Whitelaw and Richard J. Newman "…… President Clinton offered a carrot to allies last week when he announced that the United States would share the technology for a national missile shield with "civilized nations." But U.S. News has learned that the Pentagon has already gone a step further in describing to some NATO partners how a missile shield could be expanded to cover Europe. ..... In meetings with European diplomats over the past three weeks, Pentagon officials have described a system that could shield most of the continent from missiles fired by nations like Iran or Iraq, with a set of interceptors based in central Europe, possibly in the Czech Republic. Fully protecting Turkey-the NATO ally closest to the Middle East-would most likely require a supplemental missile defense system that could be based on land or at sea. Other configurations might work as well. ……"
ExciteNews (AP) 6/4/00 Barry Schweid "…..President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a second day of summit talks aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear weapons Sunday, agreeing to dispose of 34 tons each of weapons-grade plutonium and to provide early warning of missile and space launches. The plutonium would have been enough to build tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. The deal calls for the "safe, transparent and irreversible disposition" of the material. Details of the agreement had been worked out in advance of the weekend meeting. ...... The 10-year agreement on early-warning cooperation calls for completion of a center in Moscow in the fall of 2001, to be manned around the clock. Within a minute of launch, the other side is to be notified in order to allay "uncertainties" about the intention of the launch. …….Information about launches by other countries also will be provided, but only if the missile or spacecraft crosses the territory of the United States or Russia, a senior U.S. official said. ……."
CNN 6/4/00 John King "……The United States and Russia have agreed to permanently dispose of 68 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium -- enough to make 8,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs, U.S. officials said Sunday. The plutonium deal, details of which were first reported by CNN on Friday, is one of several agreements U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin will announce after their Sunday summit meeting. The two countries have worked out the final details of an unprecedented agreement to build, in Moscow, a new high-tech center that will share information on global missile launches, according to several administration officials. ......The center will provide what is known in arms-control circles as shared early warning data to minimize confusion about missile launches. This agreement is a follow-up to a prior US-Russia deal to share information on missile launches. ……"
Washington Post 6/5/00 David Hoffman and Charles Babington "….. President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin fell short of agreement on antimissile defenses today but acknowledged the emergence of a missile threat from third countries and promised to continue discussing ways to counter it. At a Kremlin news conference that concluded a two-day summit meeting, Clinton said he and Putin had agreed on a joint statement that "makes clear that there is an emerging ballistic missile threat that must be addressed, but we have not agreed on how best to do so." ……… As planned, the two leaders signed agreements establishing a permanent joint early-warning center in Moscow to prevent miscalculations about missile launches, and to reduce their stockpiles of military-grade plutonium by 34 tons each. Clinton criticized Putin's prosecution of the war in Chechnya but said he was "encouraged" by the Russian president's economic plan……."
newsmax.com 6/5/00 UPI "……. MOSCOW - Failure to achieve progress on issues surrounding Russia's opposition to U.S. plans for a national missile defense system overshadowed the signing of two nuclear arms agreements that call for the destruction of weapons-grade plutonium and cooperation on early warning radar as the first official summit talks between President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended Sunday. At a press conference in Moscow, Clinton and Putin acknowledged that the deadlock on the issue continues despite intense U.S. diplomatic efforts to soften Russia's stance against amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. ......"
newsmax.com 6/4/00 Carl Limbacher "…… Apparently President Clinton is getting ready to give away the store when it comes to U.S. anti-missile defense plans. At least that's what reports coming out of Moscow after two days of negotiations between Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin seem to indicate. If those reports are true, the most anti-military president in U.S. history is suddenly warming to a plan that would severely limit American strategic defense, a proposal that would guard against attacks only from so-called rogue states, leaving America vulnerable to attacks from major nuclear powers Russia and China. ……."
Chuck Baldwin's "Food for Thought from the Chuck Wagon" for 5/31/2000 Chuck Baldwin "……. According to News Max, "The United States agreed, for the first time since the explosion of the first atomic weapon in 1945, to totally eliminate its nuclear arsenal. The sweeping U.S. policy was made Saturday (May 20) when the U.S. agreed with all other members of the UN Security Council to the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. The agreement had the full backing of the Clinton administration and was endorsed by all five admitted nuclear powers - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China." The report went on to say, "No date or schedule for the disarmament plans have been set. But the Clinton administration has committed the U.S. to the new agreement...." Not to be upstaged, Republican presidential candidate, G.W. Bush, offered his own disarmament plans. News Max reports, "In a startling proposal of unilateral disarmament, George W. Bush today (Tuesday, May 23) said he would slash America's nuclear arsenal to its 'lowest possible number" - regardless of whether Russia did the same. Bush, the presumptive Republican nominee, said he wanted 'to demonstrate to Russia that we are no longer enemies.'" ……… To think that any socialist or communist state is not America's enemy is naïve. To believe that America can trust the word of atheists is stupid. To lead the American people to the notion that we are more secure with a weaker defense is irresponsible! ……"
Washington Post 6/17/00 Roberto Suro and Steven Mufson "……A new report to Congress warns that the Clinton administration's plan for a national missile defense system is based on uncertain assessments of the potential threats and is vulnerable to delays and escalating costs. The General Accounting Office, in a report that circulated on Capitol Hill this week but has yet to be made public, also concluded that it will be difficult to know whether the missile shield will function properly during an attack because of strict limitations on the Pentagon's ability to test the system of powerful targeting radars, interceptor missiles and high-speed computers……."The GAO report raises serious concerns," said Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), who requested the report. "As a longtime supporter of national missile defense, I believe that the increase in performance risks because of flight-test restrictions and uncertainties regarding the nature of the threat need to be addressed sooner rather than later in the testing phase."……"
Yahoo News 6/29/00 Nicole Vole "…….International Business Machines Corp on Thursday unveiled the fastest computer in the world, which the U.S. government will use to simulate nuclear weapons tests. The supercomputer, able to process more in a second than one person with a calculator could do in 10 million years, was made for the Department of Energy's Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI). The system could ease congressional opposition to the United States signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, banning all actual nuclear weapons testing worldwide……."
Daily Telegraph 7/2/00 David Cracknell David Wastell "…… CABINET divisions over Britain's nuclear defence policy will be exposed this week when final trials of the American "Star Wars" missile defence shield are expected to lead to the system's go-ahead. Click to enlarge Bill Clinton, the American President, will give the programme a cautious green light following the test on Friday, forcing British ministers to state whether they will back the programme. The US administration has already put heavy pressure on Britain to sign up, and whoever succeeds President Clinton after November's presidential elections will continue to press for British involvement in the project...."
Defense News 7/3/00 Philip Finnegan "…….The gradual U.S. shift toward allowing the release of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) to new areas of Asia is coming under fire from critics on both sides of the arms control spectrum. …… During the past several months, the U.S. government decided to allow AMRAAM sales to Singapore and Taiwan, but requires that any missiles purchased remain in the United States until a comparable capability comes into the region from elsewhere. …… U.S. officials say the new policy is necessary because comparable Russian missiles such as the R-77 (NATO code name AA-12 Adder) may be provided to China and Malaysia, opening both areas to beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles. Malaysia MiG-29 pilots already are trained to use the missiles, according to U.S. industry and Pentagon officials. ……."
Reuters 6/29/00 "….A group of 45 U.S. China experts on Thursday joined a chorus of analysts and former officials urging President Clinton to delay a decision on whether to deploy a national missile defense system. The academics and diplomats said in a letter to Clinton they were concerned that deploying the system, aimed at blocking attacks by emerging hostile powers, would damage U.S. security and economic relations with Beijing. ``Current plans for NMD deployment are likely to serve as a catalyst for China to accelerate nuclear weapons modernization, since it believes that even a simple missile defense configuration will leave its nuclear arsenal vulnerable,'' they said. ``A deployment decision at this time may also make U.S. cooperation with China on a range of issues more difficult, particularly with respect to Taiwan and regional security questions. ……"
UPI 6/29/00 "…..Russia and the United States plan to resume joint exercises regarding defenses against short- and medium-range missiles, it was reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing a senior U.S. official, reported that the program could resume as soon as this fall at Fort Bliss in Texas. The newspaper said Russian and U.S. military officers would develop procedures needed to track suspect missiles and coordinate their countries' antimissile defenses to intercept the missiles. According to the Times, personnel, from the United States and Russia participated in exercises in 1996 in Moscow and in 1998 in Colorado Springs, Colo., but those events were basically computer simulations. ……."
Washington Post 6/28/00 Thomas Ricks Steve Mufson "….. If a crucial flight test goes well next week, President Clinton is likely to give a "limited green light" for a national missile defense system, a middle course that the United States would argue does not violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and that would leave the toughest decisions to his successor, according to administration officials. "That's the direction we're heading in," said a senior Pentagon official involved in discussions of the presidential decision, scheduled to be made by late October. He characterized the most likely outcome as "a handoff of this option to the succeeding administration." "We are not irrevocably committing the country to either going ahead or not," explained another senior administration official. "All we're talking about is some very long-lead construction work. The issue will be open for the next president to decide either way."….."
U.S. News & World Report 7/3/00 Richard Newman "……. The missile gap is growing-at least between the left and the right. As the fall elections approach, Republicans have been hammering the Clinton administration for a "flawed" national missile defense plan, as George W. Bush called it last month. Bush and others say the Clinton plan would not go far enough to protect America and its allies from Third World missiles. Liberal groups, meanwhile, have been urging the president to bag his planned missile shield to preserve arms-control deals with Moscow and save the money for other projects. They have also piled up a lot of technical evidence suggesting that even today's best missile-killing interceptors could be foiled by warheads with modest countermeasures.......... Despite the harangues from right and left, a quiet consensus is forming on one front. Republicans and Democrats have recently called for using Navy ships, deployed near unfriendly nations such as North Korea or Iran, to shoot down long-range missiles in the "boost phase," shortly after launch. Bush has said that policy- makers should consider "all options" as part of a missile defense shield, meaning ground-based systems like those Clinton and Al Gore advocate, as well as shipboard defenses. ….."
AFP 6/21/00 "…..US President Bill Clinton is to make a decision on whether to build a national missile defense system (NMD) by the fall, a White House spokesman said Wednesday. "He will make his decision on deployment later this year after receiving a recommendation from the secretary of defense," spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters. Clinton will base his decision of four criteria, "threat, cost, technical feasibility and overall impact on our national security, including arms control," Crowley added. The national missile defense system under development by the United States is designed to hit a missile with a missile in space by using early warning satellites, radars and computers to guide the interceptor missile to its target. The spokesman's statements countered a New York Times report Wednesday that Clinton was manoeuvring to avoid deciding whether to build the NMD, hoping to leave the controversial decision to the next administration. ……..Citing unnamed officials, the Times said the Clinton administration and military officials had begun emphasizing that the president in coming months needs only to decide whether an NMD was feasible -- not whether to go forward with deployment and break the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972. ……"
New York Times 7/9/00 Michael Gordon "……With the failure today of the Pentagon's antimissile test, the Clinton administration has reaped all of the diplomatic disadvantages of its program to build a national missile defense and none of the potential rewards. The program has led to an arms stalemate with Moscow. It has strained relations with Bejing. And it has raised alarms in Western Europe, where American allies fear the antimissile program could spur a new arms race and reflects a penchant to go it alone on security policy. ……… The administration had been hoping the test would demonstrate that a new defensive system was virtually at hand and give it more negotiating leverage with the Russians, who have been adamantly opposed to the antimissile plan. Now, as the Clinton administration's days wind down, it has little to show for its efforts. …….."
ABCNEWS 7/8/00 David Ruppe "….. It was the second miss in three tries. At around 12:19 a.m. EDT a modified Minuteman II missile carrying a mock warhead - a cone-shaped object about 5 feet long - was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif……. About 20 minutes later, another missile carrying a complex machine called a "kill vehicle" - roughly the size of several breadboxes laid end-to-end - was launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the southern Pacific and guided by sophisticated radar……. But the kill vehicle appeared to fail to separate from the second stage rocket motor, or booster, of its missile, said Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, who heads the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Kadish, speaking to reporters after the test. He said the kill vehicle failed to receive a signal from the booster to separate……Asked whether the failure suggests the system may never work as hoped, as critics charge, Kadish said, "What it tells me is that we have more engineering work to do."......... But he added, "it appears [the error] happened in an area that has little to do with the functionality of the key component of the system that we're testing," apparently referring to the kill vehicle……… "
TBO.com 7/8/00 AP "…..The missile interceptor the Pentagon is developing as the key component of a national missile defense not only missed its intended target over the Pacific Ocean early Saturday, it didn't even try to hit it. ……… In a new twist for the Pentagon's oft-criticized missile defense program, the "kill vehicle" that was supposed to guide itself into the path of a dummy warhead in space - destroying it by the force of impact - never separated from the booster. So it never activated its sensors to hunt for the approaching target. ………. Kadish said he had never had a concern about the booster properly releasing the "kill vehicle." "It wasn't even on my list" of potential problems, he said, adding that it had been used successfully on earlier tests. He said the kill vehicle did not separate from the booster because it did not receive the necessary electronic signal. It may take days for officials to understand why the signal was not received, he said. ……"
Reuters 7/9/00 Arshad Mohammed "……Lawmakers urged President Clinton on Sunday to let his successor decide whether to build a missile defense system after Saturday's failed test left him little wiser about whether the system will work. Clinton is under some domestic pressure to take steps to construct a National Missile Defense System (NMD) at a cost of up to $60 billion to shield the United States from attacks from so-called ``rogue'' states like North Korea, Iran and Iraq. But Russia and China have both weighed in against such a system, with Moscow arguing that it will undermine the deterrent force of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and Beijing saying it will trigger a new global arms race. …….Republican and Democratic lawmakers urged the president on Sunday to press ahead with the project despite the fact that two out of three Pentagon tests, including Saturday's botched effort, failed to prove that the system will definitely work. Ultimately, they said, this would allow the president who takes office when Clinton steps down on Jan. 20, 2001 to make the final decision with the benefit of more test data. ……"
Scripps Howard News Service 7/10/00 Lawrence Spohn "……"We fly at 480 mph and we make 6,000 readings per second," said Capt. Pat Kelly, an Argus flight-test engineer. The readings, which include temperature, air speed and atmospheric distortion, are considered crucial to national defense, specifically to ensuring the success of a leading anti-missile defense system, the Air Force's Airborne Laser Aircraft. ……… Being developed at Kirtland Air Force Base here, the $1.2 billion Airborne Laser is being outfitted with a powerful laser, computers and optics that the Air Force says will make it a deadly adversary for tactical missiles that might be launched by rogue nations, such as North Korea or Iraq. ...... Not surprisingly, Argus has made its atmospheric measurements for the Airborne Laser in the vicinity of those countries. The Airborne Laser is scheduled to conduct its first missile tests in 2003 and could be battle-ready shortly thereafter. ......... Although its proponents see it as the weapon of the future, officially the Air Force advertises it as part of a national, multi-service, anti-missile defense umbrella. Eventually, the Air Force wants Congress to fund a fleet of Airborne Laser missile killers at an estimated cost of $11 billion. ……"
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 7/10/00 Joyce Howard Price "….. Democratic and Republican senators yesterday urged President Clinton to press ahead with a missile defense system and let his successor decide whether to deploy it……. The advice came one day after a test in which a "hit-to-kill" missile did not separate from the second stage of its liftoff rocket and failed to intercept and destroy a dummy warhead in space over the Pacific Ocean…….."President Clinton, notwithstanding this disappointment on Saturday morning, ought to decide to at least keep the process moving forward," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, told interviewers on "Fox News Sunday."…..Mr. Lieberman, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said the president should at least authorize the beginning of the construction of radar facilities on Shemya Island in the Aleutians……."
Washington Times 7/12/00 Helle Bering "…..That was a collective sigh of relief you heard last week, when the American missile defense test fell, well, a bit short of the desired result. It was the third such test and the second to fail. Not that the failure proved that the advanced technology involved in "hitting a bullet with a bullet" was unworkable. What happened was that the high-speed interceptor fired from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, which was supposed to destroy a dummy warhead deployed on a rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, failed to separate from the booster rocket. This is pretty basic stuff. It was embarrassing perhaps, but certainly not devastating to the concept of national missile defense (NMD). Nonetheless, political leaders from Europe to Beijing, who had been having fits of the vapors en masse, were pleased at the failure all as one. Governments all over Europe were said to be "greatly relieved." The weeks leading up to the test had been filled with increasingly hysterical rhetoric from abroad. ….."
Washington Times 7/12/00 Helle Bering "….. What we are talking about here is defensive weapons capability, so what accounts for the virulence of the reaction? It is, of course, reminiscent of the chorus of denunciation and ridicule that greeted President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Back then, in Cold War days, it would clearly have affected the balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union, which made the reaction more understandable. When it comes right down to it, an argument could be made that balance of power is still the real issue. Indeed, it seems that the rest of the world wants to preserve the arms control regimes to tie down the United States itself. …..Now, there is broad bipartisan support here in Washington in favor of proceeding with NMD. Even The Washington Post editorial page has warmed to NMD, in an interesting reversal……"
Reuters 7/4/00 Mike Collett-White "……Russia said Tuesday it was boosting efforts to carve out a strategic partnership with China amid concerns about how a proposed U.S. missile defense system could upset the global balance of power. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, in Tajikistan for a regional security summit to be attended by the leaders of China, Russia and four Central Asian states, said Moscow and Beijing had a common position on Washington's plans. "We are preparing for the visit by Russia's president to China, and we have joint documents on the development of a strategic partnership in the 21st century," Ivanov said after a meeting of regional foreign ministers. "The process is not only continuing, but the practical content is increasing." ……."
newsmax.com 7/5/00 "……. Fading into history, the Clinton-Gore administration still cannot make up its mind how seriously to take the threat of a rogue-nation nuclear attack. In an Independence Day special report, the New York Times found that: • "Intelligence officials, military officers and policy experts ... are deeply divided over the seriousness of missile threats posed by countries like North Korea, Iran and Iraq, even as the administration says the United States needs to build a national missile defense system."
• The Pentagon looks mainly at technical capability. ……..Its experts are convinced that North Korea has the know-how and ability to launch a nuclear-missile strike by 2005. They give Iran until 2010 to achieve the same technical proficiency. They're not worried about a missile coming from Iraq, so long as international sanctions remain in place. ……..• The White House, State Department and Central Intelligence Agency tend to believe political, economic and social factors at work in the rogue states make a missile threat less likely. ……Those officials believe there is a more-immediate threat from terrorists entering the United States with "suitcase" nuclear devices and from short-range weapons being fired from ships lying offshore. ……"
New York Times.com 7/5/00 Elaine Sciolino Steven Lee Myers "….. Intelligence officials, military officers and policy experts in the Clinton administration are deeply divided over the seriousness of missile threats posed by countries like North Korea, Iran and Iraq, even as the administration says the United States needs to build a national missile defense system. Officials at the State Department dissented from an intelligence report last fall that stated that North Korea could soon develop a ballistic missile that could threaten the United States. They are also quite likely to dissent again as intelligence agencies prepare a new assessment for the president, administration officials said. Some officials in the White House, State Department, Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency argue that the threat has been almost exclusively defined by technological abilities and that the emerging analysis discounts political, economic and social factors that could make a threat less likely……."
Manchester (UK) Guardian 7/7/00 Julian Borger "……. Senior officials in the state department, the Pentagon and the White House itself are opposed to a planned $60bn missile defence system and are privately hoping that a crucial test planned for late tonight will end in failure. ……"
The Hindu 7/10/00 UNI "…..The United States' National Missile Defence (NMD) system can force Moscow to equip its modernised Topol intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with several warheads instead of just one, a top Russian official said, adding that ``we can also revive the intermediate range ballistic missile programme.'' ….."
Newsmax 7/10/00 Stephan Archer "……Bilateral safeguards regarding Russian and American nuclear weapons will be compromised and unofficial nuclear states will plunge into nuclear anarchy if the United States abandons the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, warns Colonel-General Vladimir Yakovlev, commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Force. ......In an interview with Nikolai Poroskov of the Russian Information Agency Novosti, the colonel-general stated that if the United States develops a national missile defense system and leaves the 1972 ABM Treaty, the move will violate all major agreements between the two countries on nuclear weapons. The undermined treaties would include SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks), SALT II, START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), START II and possibly START III. …..…"
Washington Times 7/11/00 Bill Gertz "……Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said yesterday that Saturday's failed test of a missile-defense shield was not a major setback, and that he could still recommend going ahead with the project. "The test itself was a disappointment, but it was one of those failures that was least expected. . . . That happens from time to time -that you have a failure of something that's fairly routine."……… Even though there are plans for 12 to 15 more flight tests before the system would be ready, Mr. Cohen acknowledged that the failed test -the last before he makes his recommendation to President Clinton -was disappointing. "It would have been helpful to have had this test succeed," he said...."
Newsmax.com 7/12/00 "…….On July 2, Dr. Lowell Wood made a presentation before a group of scientists in California. The program was broadcast last Saturday on CSPAN. Dr. Wood, a scientist at Lawrence Livernmore National Laboratory, may know more about ballistic missile defense than any other American. He is also the protege of Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the Hydrogen Bomb, who in the early 1980s convinced President Reagan that a missile defense system was not only imperative, it was technically feasible. ……..The Clinton administration raised the bar on missile defense so high, success was very difficult to achieve. The Clinton administration demanded not mply a system that was practical and effective, but one that was technically the most difficult to make work. ………. A ground-launched, direct-hit interceptor is the most difficult method of destroying an incoming ICBM. Hence the saying, "hitting a bullet with a bullet." Other approaches, Wood said, may have been more technically viable: using space-launched interceptors instead of ones located on the ground; using interceptors that did not rely on ground radar; and using interceptors that could destroy their target without making a direct kinetic hit. ……Perhaps the most astounding statements made by Wood related to Russia. He said that indeed Russia has a national missile defense system that employs a "robust" system of interceptor rockets that carry nuclear devices. Such devices can be exploded in space, destroying any incoming warheads. With such a large explosion there is no need for great accuracy and the problem of hitting a bullet with a bullet doesn't exist. …..If Wood's comments are true, Russia has a sophisticated missile defense shield, in violation of the ABM Treaty. Such a system would give Russia a decisive edge in a full-blown war. ……..The Clinton Administration has worked overtime to ensure that these missile tests fail. By choosing to test the most expensive and ineffective missile defense system imaginable they have rigged the game and ensured that one will never be built and that even if it is built it will be incapable of shooting down intercontinental-range missiles as Clinton has assured the Russians on many occaisions. …."
Cnn 6/19/00 Robert Burns AP "……The Pentagon said Monday it is encouraged that an independent panel of experts says it is feasible to build and begin operating by 2005 a reliable defense against long-range ballistic missiles, despite some potential setbacks. The panel of former military officers and weapons scientists, headed by retired Air Force Gen. Larry Welch, has presented its conclusions in a classified report to Defense Secretary William Cohen. The conclusions, first reported Sunday by The Washington Post, carry considerable weight with Pentagon decision-makers. "We regard this as an encouraging report because it says we're on the right technical path to meet the planned 2005 deployment date," even though there is high risk that the schedule will not be met, said Kenneth Bacon, spokesman for Cohen. ……"
Indian Express 7/13/00 Chidanand Rajghatta "…….In the latest twist to complex strategic developments unfolding in Asia, China and North Korea have indicated that they will play the proliferation game by their rules if the United States goes ahead and builds a missile defence system. In as many words, they have said they will continue to supply Pakistan, and possible other Middle East countries, with advanced missile technology if the US does not call off its missile defence plan. …….. The US has exacerbated the situation by suggesting that it may consider providing Taiwan, which China regards as a renegade province, with a limited missile defence shield. ……"
Reuters 7/16/00 Belinda Goldsmith "…..Defense Secretary William Cohen said on Sunday that he viewed building a new national missile defense system as necessary given the current range of technology. Cohen has not yet made public his views on whether the National Missile Defense (NMD) system should be deployed but is expected to forward his recommendation to President Clinton in the next month or so, as is Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. ``It is something I think is quite necessary given today's spread of technology,'' Cohen told Channel Nine's Sunday program during a two-day visit to Australia. ….."
New York Times 8/10/00 Steven Lee Myers "..... A highly classified intelligence report warns that deploying an American national missile defense could prompt China to expand its nuclear arsenal tenfold and lead Russia to place multiple warheads on ballistic missiles that now carry only one, according to officials who have reviewed it.
Although the report reaffirms what China and Russia have publicly said in opposition to the system, it offers a detailed analysis of how those two nations are likely to respond and suggests that the effects of an American decision to build a nuclear defense would ripple around the globe from Europe to South Asia, the officials said.
It warns that China would expand its relatively small arsenal of roughly 20 long-range nuclear missiles to a quantity large enough to overwhelm the limited defensive system that the Clinton administration is considering. One person who has seen the report said it estimated that China could deploy up to 200 warheads by 2015, prompting India and Pakistan to respond with their own buildups. .......Although Russia's economy is unlikely to support a large buildup of its missile forces, officials said the report found that it could again deploy shorter-range missiles along its borders and resume adding multiple warheads to its ballistic missiles. That is something Russia agreed to stop as part of the second strategic arms control treaty, or Start 2, which it ratified this year. ......The report, "Foreign Responses to U.S. National Missile Defense Deployment," underscores warnings by opponents here and abroad that the administration's proposal to build a limited defensive system could lead to a new arms race with Russia and, to a lesser extent, in Asia. ......"
Newsday.com 8/7/00 Robert Burns AP "….The Pentagon's assessment of how and when to move forward with a national missile defense will take several weeks long than planned, Defense Secretary William Cohen said Monday. As a result, Cohen is unlikely to recommend a course of action to President Clinton until early September, officials said. That still would give Clinton time to decide before leaving office whether to authorize initial steps toward building a new missile-tracking radar in Alaska -- a key first step to eventually deploying a national missile defense. Cohen previously had indicated he expected to make his recommendation to Clinton by mid-August following an internal Pentagon study, called a deployment readiness review, to assess technical progress and other factors. ….."
Telegraph/U.K. 8/7/00 Carey Schofield "……THE National Missile Defence system planned by American is technologically feasible, but would prove ineffective because "the shield is always weaker than the sword", the commander of Russia's strategic rocket forces has said. Gen Vladimir Yakovlev, in charge of his country's main nuclear strike force, said the "Son of Star Wars" network, intended to destroy incoming missiles, would merely launch a new arms race. He predicted that technology would soon make such a system feasible, but said developing new weapons would always be far cheaper for existing and aspiring regional powers. ……. Whenever anybody invented a defensive measure, others would look for a way to circumvent it. He said: "The shield is always weaker than the sword. Developing new weapons is likely to give much better value for money than the National Missile Defence system. But this would lead to a new version of the Cold War, and that is not in anybody's interests." ……"
Yahoo New/ Reuters 7/22/00 Charles Aldinger "…..- The United States shot down a cruise missile with a Patriot PAC-3 missile over New Mexico on Saturday in a successful test of its ``theater'' defense program to protect troops and bases from attack, the Pentagon said. It was the fourth successful ``hit-to-kill'' intercept in a row and the first against a low-flying cruise missile for the upgraded version of the Patriot, which was used against Iraqi Scud missiles in the Gulf War. The PAC-3 had earlier hit three Hera ballistic missiles at the edge of space. ``We had a successful intercept,'' Jen Canaff, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, told Reuters after the Patriot tracked and shattered an MQM-107 cruise missile over White Sands Missile Test range in New Mexico. ……"
Dept of State Washington file 7/25/00 "……. The intelligence community estimates that "over the next 15 years the United States most likely will face ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) threats from North Korea, probably Iran, and possibly Iraq in addition to long-standing missile capabilities of Russia and China," Defense Secretary William Cohen said July 25. Testifying on the proposed National Missile Defense system (NMD) before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Cohen said the earliest target deployment date of NMD is 2005, but that "deployment decisions will be made in a sequential process, geared to successful accomplishment of successive stages in the development process." …….. Iraq, he said, "if freed from international sanctions. . . would almost certainly restart its own long-range missile development program. Libya has chemical weapons capabilities and has sought longer-range missiles for years." Cohen also noted Iran's test of the Shahab-3, a medium-range ballistic missile, saying that it is "essentially a derivative of the North Korean NoDong missile." ……."
Far Eastern Economic Review 7/27/00 Murray Hiebert Susan Lawrence "……THE DECISION BY the United States to deploy a missile defence system is all but made, leaving Americans to ponder life under a protective umbrella that could track and destroy incoming missiles. Despite the embarrassment of failed tests and public scrutiny, the only significant debate in Washington--where domestic politics rather than foreign policy is driving the process--is over the size of the system to deploy, and whether President Bill Clinton should initiate construction or pass deployment on to his successor. ......While the programme is expected to cost at least $60 billion, for Asia the cost could be far greater. Although U.S. officials insist that missile defence isn't targeted at China, the system would be designed to protect American troops in Asia as well as shield the continental United States. America's allies and U.S. analysts warn that its deployment would likely send U.S.-China relations into a tailspin and unleash a new Asian arms race. …….."
The Sydney Morning Herald 7/28/00 Gay Alcorn "……Congressional figures are now openly saying the real reason behind the United States' proposed missile defence shield is a perceived threat from China. For several years the US has maintained that the shield is a response to unpredictable "rogue states" such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran……… But at a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation think-tank in Washington on Wednesday, Mr Peter Brookes, the principal adviser to a Republican-dominated congressional committee on East Asian affairs, said the US was disingenuous in insisting that weak "rogue" states posed the primary threat to the US. ……"The Clinton Administration fears mentioning the 'C' word: China," he said…… "
Nando Times 7/22/00AFP "……The U.S. military shot down a cruise missile over the state of New Mexico Saturday in a successful test of a new-generation Patriot interceptor, the U.S. Army said. "Preliminary test data indicate the test was successful," the military said in a statement after the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile interceptor blew up a low-flying drone simulating a cruise missile. …..The PAC-3, a more advanced version of the Patriot missiles used to shoot down Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War, has scored intercepts in three previous flight tests. ……"
Washington Post 7/22/00 Walter Pincus "…… Scientists at the nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories have for the first time been able to reproduce on computers three-dimensional simulations of the detonations that together produce the explosive output of thermonuclear weapons. The breakthrough will allow scientists to follow in 3-D the simulated inner workings of a thermonuclear warhead as it explodes. Previously that could only be done by an actual underground nuclear test. Nuclear weapons are complex devices with thousands of parts that arm, fuse and fire a primary explosion of a plutonium pit - or trigger - which, in turn, sets off the much more powerful secondary hydrogen explosion. Since the end of U.S. underground nuclear testing in 1992, scientists at the nation's nuclear labs have been working on simulation by computer as a way to ensure that aging, refurbished nuclear warheads remain reliable and safe. ……"
Newsmax 7/19/00 Christopher Holton "……The General Accounting Office has released a report concluding that our Navy is growing more vulnerable every day to anti-ship cruise missile attacks. The July 11 report, "Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile Defenses," surely comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with defense and maritime issues. ……. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this vulnerability, and the GAO's 58-page report could probably have been written in five pages or less by anyone who has served in the U.S. Navy over the past decade. ………During the years of the Clinton administration, the U.S. fleet's ability to defend itself against anti-ship cruise missiles has been frozen in time in some aspects and degraded in other aspects. During this seven-year period, not one new weapon system has been added to the inventory to defend against cruise missile attack. ….."
spacedaily.com 8/15/00 AFP "…….A former CIA head suggested Tuesday that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would have to be ratified again by the US Senate to remain valid after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The ABM treaty has been under attack in the United States because of plans to deploy a nationwide missile defense system, a project that would be illegal under the accord. "According to longstanding principles of international law, when one country has a bilateral treaty with another and is then 'succeeded' by a different state ... the bilateral treaty remains in effect only if both states so affirm," former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey wrote in the Washington Post. Woolsey, who also helped negotiate five US-Soviet arms control agreements between 1969 and 1991, argued that the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union had converted the treaty from a bilateral to a multilateral accord, and drastically shrunk the territory under its coverage. He said that because of these changes "it is impossible to make the argument with a straight face that the changes are not 'substantive.'" Therefore, argued Woolsey, the treaty must be again submitted to the US Senate, which will have to consider all the changes and agree to them. ……"
San Diego Union-Tribune 8/10/00 Dennis Gormley and Thomas Mahnken "…….A just-released nationwide survey of the U.S. public by the University of New Mexico's Institute for Public Policy offers extraordinary insight into how Americans view national security. …… Respondents considered today's security environment to be marginally improved over that of the Cold War. Forty-five percent felt "more secure," 33 percent "less secure," while 21 percent saw no significant change. However, compared to 1997, 1999's poll shows that while the public may see today's international security environment as a marginal improvement over the Cold War, that margin may be decreasing. ......... The survey's most disturbing results pertain to how little the American public seems to know about national missile defense. Only 26 percent of the respondents correctly understood that the United States does not currently possess a system to defend the nation against long-range ballistic missiles. Sixty-three percent of the respondents incorrectly believed that such a system existed, while 10 percent admitted they didn't know. Once informed about the current status of NMD, respondents showed substantial support for ballistic missile defense. Sixty-nine percent favored deploying NMD, 19 percent opposed it, and 12 percent were undecided. ..."
INSIGHT magazine 9/8/00 J Michael Waller "…… The vice president's views on key foreign-policy issues have made Al Gore the presidential candidate of choice for Russian hard-liners and the Chinese Communists. Vice President Al Gore welcomed President Clinton's Sept. 2 decision to postpone development of a system to defend the United States against incoming nuclear-missile attacks. So did Moscow and Beijing. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the decision a "well-thought-out and responsible step." The Chinese Foreign Ministry praised it as "rational." The rhetoric matches a subtle but significant taking of sides by Russia and China in the U.S. presidential campaign between Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush. While the rhetoric generally is indirect and low-key, Kremlin hard-liners, as well as China's communist leaders, have made it clear that, because of his views on missile defense and other issues, they would prefer to see Gore as the next president of the United States. ……"
Reuters 9/22/00 "……The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into charges that military contracting giant TRW Inc. (TRW.N) committed fraud and sought to cover it up in the U.S. national missile defense program, an FBI letter made public Monday showed. As many as 53 House Democrats had urged the FBI to investigate the allegations, which have been used by critics to assail as unworkable the so-called "hit-to-kill" technology central to the anti-missile shield. The FBI's action was disclosed in a July 31 letter from Thomas Kubic, deputy assistant director of the criminal investigative division, to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, whose office released it Monday. "I have asked the FBI's Washington field office, in coordination with the Office of Inspector General, Department of Defense, to review the allegations contained in your letter and the material prepared by Professor Postol to determine if there is a violation of federal law under the FBI's jurisdiction," Kubic wrote. …….."
Reuters News Service 8/31/00 "……Chinese President Jiang Zemin will use a speech at the United Nations next week to stress Beijing's opposition to a U.S missile shield plan, a senior Chinese diplomat said Thursday. ``There are still certain countries which seek so-called absolute security for themselves and are speeding up the development and deployment of advanced anti-missile systems,'' the official said of Jiang's September 7 U.N. speech. He was referring to U.S. proposals to build a theater missile defense (TMD) system in Asia and national missile defense (NMD) system to protect the United States from ballistic missiles from hostile states. ….."
Bloomberg & FoxNews 9/1/00 Tony Cappacio and Holly Rosenkrantz "….. President Bill Clinton said he won't take initial steps to build a national missile defense system, leaving that decision to his successor next year. ``I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national missile defense at this time,'' Clinton said in a speech at Georgetown University. He said a system is needed, but called for ``more tests against more challenging targets'' to make sure the technology will work. The decision puts off the start of construction of a radar site in Alaska, but will not delay completion of the system by the 2006 or 2007 target date if the next president decides to proceed next year, the president said. ……"
Reuters 9/1/00 "…..China applauded U.S. President Bill Clinton on Saturday as rational for leaving it to his successor to decide whether to deploy a national missile defence (NMD) system and made clear it hoped the plan would die. Beijing trenchantly opposes U.S. plans for an NMD and a related Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) for Asia, saying it would spark a new arms race and upset the world strategic balance...."
DOW JONES INTERNATIONAL NEWS 8/23/00 Michael C Sirak "……. In a detailed letter sent to lawmakers late last month, a former director of the Pentagon's missile defense shop takes issue with Defense Secretary William Cohen's recent assertion before Congress that the decision in the early 1990s to pursue a ground-based national missile defense system over space- and sea-based alternatives was made because of the greater technological maturity of ground-based elements. "This is entirely untrue," writes Henry Cooper in a July 31 letter to Sen. John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is contrary to history with which I am most familiar and indeed helped write." Cooper served as director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization under President George Bush from mid-1990 through January 1993, when the Clinton administration assumed office. SDIO is the predecessor of today's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, which oversees the development of the nation's theater missile defenses and the nascent NMD system. ……. Cooper says technological progress on space-based -- and even sea-based -- missile defenses was greater at the time. The decision to pursue a limited land-based option was based purely on political and not technological considerations, he says. ….."
New York Times 8/30/00 Steven Lee Myers "……The Pentagon and the State Department are sharply divided over how far work on a limited national missile defense system could proceed before the United States would be required to give formal notice that it was violating a crucial arms control treaty with Russia. ……… Officials in the Pentagon and State Department said that disagreement within the administration was a primary reason for Defense Secretary William S. Cohen's delay in making a recommendation to President Clinton this month on the project. The debate has focused on the point at which construction of the missile system, which involves elaborate radar installations, would violate the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which lies at the heart of the arms controls built up over the cold war. ……."
7am 8/00 "....... If the United States moves forward with its development and deployment of a national ballistic missile system, a new arms race will begin - especially in Asia and Southeast Asia - a pair of Chinese defense experts said Thursday. Because China has just a few nuclear-capable ICBMs that can reach the U.S., Beijing would be compelled to build additional rockets in order to counter the relatively moderate defenses offered by the American shield, the experts said. ......China, according to U.S. intelligence officials, has perhaps 20 ICBMs; the U.S. NMD shield - with 100 interceptor rockets - could likely thwart the mainland's limited nuclear attack capability for the moment. ....."
Washington Times 10/6/00 Lesley McKenzie ".... Russia's biological weapons sites, which pose a far greater threat than do its nuclear weapons, may have been dismantled and hidden for future use, according to a leading specialist on the weapons plants. ......... "The capability of the old Russian Ministry of Defense sites remains uninvestigated and largely unknown," said Christopher Davis, a member of the first Western team to visit biological warfare facilities of the former Soviet Union. "The suspicion is that, at the very least, the basic know-how, expertise, equipment and stock of seed cultures have been retained somewhere within the Ministry of Defense system," he said Monday at Jane's Conference on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Arlington, Va....... Mr. Davis traced the Soviet history of biological warfare research and development, and noted areas of concern. "Biological agents, if of the transmissible variety, are capable of causing casualties far in excess of those caused by nuclear weapons," he said. These weapons are also available at a lower cost than nuclear weapons..........The United States chose to disarm its biological warfare program in 1969, but the Soviet Union continued its warfare development through the establishment of an agency named Biopreparat in 1973-1974......."
Washington Times 10/6/00 Lesley McKenzie ".... Biopreparat developed biological weapons behind a civilian facade of pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. This tactic served as an alternative to chemical and nuclear weapons controlled under arms treaties and weapons conventions.......... Only in the period between 1989 and 1991 were analysts able to convince governments that these programs were a threat to the world. A secret U.S.-British visit to Russian facilities took place in 1991, but as late as 1993, the two nations still were confronting the former Soviet Union about the continued development of biological warfare.........Since then, while Biopreparat has undergone change, efforts were continually being made to help Russians convert these military establishments into civilian facilities......... Now the chief scientific adviser for the Applied Sciences Group at Veridian Systems, Mr. Davis cited several issues that remain unresolved. "What happened to the part of the program in the closed military facilities to which there have been no visits by Western experts?" he asked....... Also of concern are the hundreds of personnel who were involved in Biopreparat. There are rumors that many have been offered work by certain governments in the Middle East........"
Jerusalem Post Internet Edition 9/25/00 AriehO’Sullivan "…..In a repeat performance, the Nautilus, the jointly developed US-Israeli Katyusha-killing laser weapon, successfully shot down a salvo of two Katyusha rockets at a US testing range, the Defense Ministry announced yesterday. The test was carried out at the White Sands Missile Range in the New Mexican desert on Friday. According to a Defense Ministry statement, the Nautilus, known in the US as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), "tracked and destroyed" the Katyusha rockets. On June 6 the THEL shot down a sole Katyusha and on August 28 it hit two rockets. …….."
Newsday 9/20/00 Anna Dolgov AP "…..Russian officials on Wednesday confirmed the armed forces had conducted tests of an anti-missile missile that would guard against short-range rocket attacks, but would not comment on a report one of the weapons had crashed into its launcher shortly after it was fired. The daily Moskovsky Komsomolets said a Russian S-300 air-defense missile had turned upside down but by ''fantastic luck'' had failed to explode after crashing back into its launcher, which was just 200 yards from a launcher containing another missile. Officials at the Defense Ministry and Air Force on Wednesday confirmed that the exercises had taken place, but did not confirm the report that a missile had crashed. The Ashuluk training grounds in the Astrakhan region, some 800 miles south of Moscow, were cordoned off by troops after the accident, Moskovsky Komsomolets said. The accident appeared to have been caused by the failure of the engine. …….The ''Defense-2000'' exercises in the Astrakhan region last week were held to practice shooting down tactical missiles, the daily Izvestia reported. The S-300 is designed to defend specific targets -- a much smaller system than the nationwide anti-ballistic missile defense that the United States is working on. ….."
Russia Today 9/19/00 "....... Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Monday his country would not proceed with a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with the United States unless a landmark 1972 treaty forbidding missile shields is kept intact. Ivanov said U.S. plans to create a national missile defense (NMD) -- placed on hold by President Bill Clinton -- threatened the conclusion of the START III treaty which Russia wants to lower the number of nuclear warheads held by each side to 1,500. "We are ready to actively continue the process of nuclear disarmament and to move towards the conclusion of a START III treaty ... But this will only be feasible if the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty remains intact," he said......."
Associated Press 12/16/00 Brian Murphy "......The world according to George W. Bush during the campaign: a stronger U.S. military, a tougher line on Russia and China, a scaled-down peacekeeping role and a missile defense system to protect America, whether the rest of the globe likes it or not. ....... Bush, who cites Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill as his political heroes, has called for a ``new American internationalism'' in which U.S. interests come a very firm first. The missile defense, a costly holdover from the Reagan era, is high on Bush's agenda and could provoke his first major international showdown. Russia is deeply opposed to its development, which would breach a 28-year-old treaty. Russian leaders fear it could ignite another arms race, which their beleaguered economy can't afford. ......"
The Times (UK) 12/18/00 Ian Brodie "..... GENERAL Colin Powell has said that the Bush Administration will move ahead with a controversial national missile defence after discussing it with allies and other nations. Immediately after he was nominated to be Secretary of State by President-elect Bush, General Powell told reporters that the defence was necessary to thwart the "blackmail" inherent in Third World regimes possessing long-range nuclear missiles, which think they can hold the US hostage....."
Reuters 12/19/00 "....Russia and the United States have made the nightmare of inadvertent nuclear strike a little less likely - a scenario that came terrifyingly close in 1995 when Moscow mistook a research rocket for a missile.
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, with five weeks left in office, agreed Saturday with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to share data on more missile tests and other rocket launches like the one that had former President Boris Yeltsin weighing his retaliatory options. ...... The pre- and post-launch notification system envisages a data center opening in Moscow and builds on agreements to share early warning information signed in 1998 and June 1999....."
Associated Press Writer 12/14/00 Robert Barr "....The world's presidents, prime ministers and monarchs showered President-elect George W. Bush with congratulations Thursday, but some leaders worried over his plans for a missile shield and his promise to defend Taiwan. Despite the closeness of the U.S. vote and the five extra weeks it took America to determine a president, there were mainly kind words for the man a German official called ``the most important person for the most important and powerful country in the world.'' `....."
Washington Times 12/15/00 Bill Gertz "....The Pentagon's top general warned yesterday that China may emerge as a Soviet-like superpower in the coming years....... "I am firmly convinced that we need to focus all elements of U.S. power and diplomacy on ensuring that China does not become the 21st-century version of the Soviet bear," said Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a speech to the National Press Club. In particular, the United States needs to convince China that resolving its differences with Taiwan peacefully "is the only way ahead."......... China's government stated in a recent official report that the situation in the Taiwan Strait was "grim." The Communist government is building up its missile forces opposite the island and has also stepped up threatening rhetoric, calling for unification, through force if necessary........Gen. Shelton said the combination of a capitalist-style economy and Communist political dictatorship is a potential threat to regional stability. He noted that it will not be easy for the United States to prevent China from becoming a new Soviet Union......"
Washington Times 11/5/00 James Hackett "………When it comes to defending the nation, does it really matter who wins the election? After all, both candidates would continue developing missile defense technology. But would either actually deploy defenses? Gov. George W. Bush says he will. He has said, "America must build effective missile defenses, based on the best available options, at the earliest possible date," adding that, "they must protect all 50 states and our friends and allies and deployed forces overseas." That is a very strong statement. But Mr. Bush also says he will "offer Russia the necessary amendments to the ABM Treaty to make our deployment of effective missile defenses consistent with the treaty." If Russia refuses the changes, he "will give prompt notice . . . that the U.S. can no longer be a party to it." ….. Vice President Al Gore has said, "I would work hard to persuade Russia to modify the ABM Treaty . . . but I would not let Russian opposition stand in the way of its deployment, if I conclude the technologies are mature enough to deploy and are both affordable and needed." Harvard professor Graham Allison, a senior Gore adviser, adds that the vice president is committed to finding a way to provide adequate defenses against Iraq or North Korea without withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. Mr. Gore strongly endorses President Clinton's promise to preserve the ABM Treaty as "the cornerstone of strategic stability." ….. But what does Moscow say? Russia firmly opposes any change in the ABM Treaty. For over a year the Clinton-Gore team has been doing what Mr. Gore promises more of -trying to get Moscow to agree to change the treaty - with zero success. ….."
Washington Times 10/20/00 "......An overriding issue is national missile defense. One thing is certain: Russian President Vladimir Putin, who effectively vetoed Mr. Clinton's earlier commitment to begin deploying a relatively ineffective anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, would have no such veto power over Mr. Bush's pledge to deploy a "robust" ABM system. Mr. Gore believes that the anachronistic ABM Treaty must remain the "cornerstone" of U.S. strategic nuclear policy....... Mr. Bush's performances during each of the three presidential debates underscores the irrelevance of early concern over his so-called "gravitas." He has demonstrated a compelling understanding of how the world works, and a reassuring attitude toward the role of government, together with a winning charm......"
Washington Times 10/20/00 James Hackett ".... When President Clinton said last month he would not order deployment of a national missile defense the reason he gave was that the technology is not yet ready. Vice President Al Gore also has used the technology readiness argument, while making it clear his top priority is to preserve the ABM treaty............. For years, missile defense opponents have been saying it is premature to deploy defenses because the technology is not perfect. Last Saturday, that argument was shot down over the White Sands missile test range by the Army's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptor, which now has made six intercepts in a row......... Saddam Hussein fired 88 Scuds at Saudi Arabia and Israel, trying to kill Americans and turn the conflict into a holy war against Israel. Patriots hit most of the Scuds and prevented expansion of the war. But their fragmentation warheads were not always effective, leaving some missile warheads to land and explode. There also was concern about chemical weapons that could spread their contents even if hit. Patriot had to be improved........ After reviewing the options it was decided the best solution was hit-to-kill, which uses advanced sensors and computers to "hit a bullet with a bullet." When the target warhead is struck at very high speed it is destroyed in a fireball that burns up its contents, whether chemical, biological, nuclear or high explosive. Hit-to-kill solves the problem. The Army team developing PAC-3 has achieved a major success. The program began in 1994 and initial deployment is planned in 2001. Over the past 19 months, PAC-3 has been tested four times against ballistic missiles and twice against cruise missiles. All six intercepts have been spectacularly successful. In last week's test, PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors were fired simultaneously against different targets, showing how they will work together on the battlefield as part of a combined defensive system...........The Army wants to buy 2,200 PAC-3s, but budget limitations have cut its plans to just 560. With turmoil in the Middle East and threats in the Far East, analysts say the Army needs at least 1,200 PAC-3s to defend its forces worldwide. Patriot also is popular with the allies. PAC-2s have been sold to or deployed in 10 countries and at least eight are interested in buying PAC-3s. The next president should acknowledge the success of this missile defense program and order the production of more PAC-3s in the budget supplemental he submits next spring........"
Jerusalem Post 0/17/00 Arieh O'Sullivan "……The IDF late last night declared the country's anti-missile shield based on the Arrow-2 rocket finally operational. It marks the first time any country in the world has a functioning defense against surface-to-surface missiles. Air force officials said there was no relation between the announcement and any current political or security situation in the region. "It was a chronological event that now came to fruition," said one IAF source. …..A month ago, the Arrow was successfully tested against a live, incoming missile……"
newsday.com 12/29/00 VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV ".....President-elect Bush's choice of Donald Rumsfeld as the new secretary of defense is likely to raise pressure on the Kremlin to reach a compromise with the United States on its plan to deploy anti-missile defenses, analysts said Friday. ''Rumsfeld is known as a proponent of a tough line, and he is likely to take a rigid stance on the National Missile Defense,'' said Dmitry Trenin, a political affairs expert for the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow office. ........ Rumsfeld led a bipartisan commission that concluded two years ago that potential missile threats either from an accidental launch or a rogue nation were closer than U.S. intelligence believed, fueling arguments to push ahead with missile defenses. ......''The report by Rumsfeld's commission has stoked the Americans' desire to have anti-missile defenses, so his appointment isn't going to make life easier for the Russians,'' said Ivan Safranchuk, an arms control analyst at PIR-Center, an independent think tank in Moscow. ....."
New York Times 12/28/00 Steven Lee Myers "..... For more than two years, one man more than any other has driven the debate over whether to build a national missile defense: Donald H. Rumsfeld. ......Now, in choosing Mr. Rumsfeld to be his secretary of defense, President-elect George W. Bush has signaled that the politically and diplomatically divisive goal of building a shield against nuclear missiles will be at the core of the new administration's national security agenda. ......In 1998, Mr. Rumsfeld, the former Republican congressman, former ambassador to NATO and former secretary of defense, oversaw a commission that concluded that "rogue" nations could threaten the United States with ballistic missiles sooner than analysts had predicted. ......."The Rumsfeld Report was the main reason the debate was gradually turned around and the administration turned around," said Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican of Arizona and an ardent advocate of a missile defense. ......."
Times of India 12/30/00".... With President-elect George W Bush announcing Donald Rumsfeld as his nominee for the post of defence secretary, the national security team of the new Republican administration has taken formidable shape: Rumsfeld, who was defence secretary 25 years ago in the Ford administration; vice-president Dick Cheney, himself another former defence secretary; secretary of state General Colin Powell, who was formerly chairman joint chiefs of staff and national security adviser; and national security adviser Condeleezza Rice, who has served as senior staff member of the National Security Council. Each has an outstanding record, but three of them, Mr Cheney, General Powell and Ms Rice, had worked together as a team in the Bush administration in 1988-1992. ..... That apart, what stands out in this exercise is the focus Ms Bush has imparted to national security matters. Indeed, the Bush security team is due to consider a proposal to bring strategic economic planning under the overall purview of the National Security Council. Of course, all these moves are replete with signals. Two years ago, Rumsfeld headed a high-powered committee which concluded that missile and nuclear proliferation is inevitable, possibly leading to countries like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya eventually acquiring nuclear warheads and long-range missiles capable of reaching the United States. The committee, therefore, recommended that the US should develop missile interception capability. This, indeed, is the origin of the now-famous national missile defence programme. The significance of the original author of that recommendation becoming the US defence secretary cannot be overstated. ......"
Middle East News Line 12/20/00 "..... Iran could test an intercontinental ballistic missile as early as next year, the CIA says. The National Intelligence Council, a 15-member CIA-sponsored panel, says Iran could test either an intercontinental ballistic missile in 2001 and a land-attack cruise missile in 2004. "Iran sees its short- and medium-range missiles as deterrents, as force-multiplying weapons of war, primarily with conventional warheads, and as options for delivering biological, chemical, and eventually nuclear weapons," a new global assessment by the council said. ....."