Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 59, July - August 2001

Documents & Sources

Speech by Senator Daschle

'A New Century of American Leadership,' Speech by Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, August 9, 2001.

"... [L]et me be clear: Democrats support mutually-agreed upon modifications to the ABM Treaty and a robust national missile defense testing program. Under the right circumstances, we could support deployment of a limited national missile defense. However this administration's single-minded approach jeopardizes larger US political, economic, and security goals around the world: it shortchanges our ability to deal with our more immediate threats here at home. It encourages other countries to either increase their existing arsenals, develop new weapons, or seek other means to exploit perceived US vulnerabilities. And - if we choose to act unilaterally - it will make it harder to develop the necessary multilateral responses to arms control and a whole array of global issues.

Many supporters cite the recent successful intercept test as a reason to push ahead. I congratulate the scientists and engineers who made this technological feat possible. But to use the success of one or two preliminary tests as a blanket justification for deployment is premature. I would remind everybody that in this latest test, we knew who was launching, where it was being launched from, when it was being launched, what was being launched, and the flight path it would take. For good measure, there was a homing beacon on the target missile. If our adversaries would be kind enough to meet all of these conditions, and if we are willing to accept a 50% success rate, then maybe I'd share their assessment. But I wouldn't bet my life on it - let alone the security and fiscal health of the United States.

The chief threat to America is not from big, lumbering ICBMs, launched with a clear return address. The chief threats today come from biological and chemical weapons and bombs that could be smuggled in a cargo container, bus, or backpack. They come from attacks to our economic infrastructure - the computer systems, communications networks and power grids on which America is dependent. They come from terrorists who do not have the infrastructure to launch ICBMs, and who leave no return address.

National Missile Defense is the most expensive possible response to the least likely threat we face. If we are to pursue such a strategy, we need to be clear about the trade-offs. In spite of his claims that the federal government should be able to live on a 4% spending increase, President Bush's budget asks for a 10% increase for the Pentagon, including a 57% increase in missile defense. We support an increase both in the Pentagon budget and in missile defense. But a 57% increase this year - along with the prospect of hundreds of billions of dollars in future years would cannibalize the personnel and force structure that deal with the threats we are far more likely to face. So let's take a closer look at the trade-offs. If we were to provide overall missile defense with the 10% budget increase the Pentagon enjoys under the President's proposal, we could pursue a broad array of missile defense technologies consistent with the ABM Treaty, which top experts tell us we can do for quite some time. We would also free up about $2.5 billion this year alone.

What does $2.5 billion get us? As Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution and others have shown, it would allow us to make significant investments in programs that address the more imminent, more immediate threats we face. It would allow us to substantially:

Restore the cuts the President made in the US-Russia programs to control and destroy Russia's nuclear weapons and weapons material, and find alternative employment for their nuclear scientists and workers.
Train and equip our local emergency workers to deal with the consequences of a chemical or biological weapons attack.
Continue to fund our modest obligations to control North Korea's nuclear fuel production and reengage the North Koreans on ending their missile program. After all, this is the front end of the potential threat missile defense is intended to address.
Increase research and development into cruise missile defense. Cruise missiles are less sophisticated, more available, and therefore a more likely threat. Yet we have no defense against this more immediate threat.
Concentrate on developing and deploying theater missile defenses, which would be needed tomorrow to protect our soldiers if we are thrust into another Gulf-like war.
Secure our borders and points of entry against terrorism and other threats. ...
Increase our counterterrorism budget...
We could fight cyberterrorism by increasing computer security. ...
And we could fund scholarship programs for foreign language and foreign regional studies programs and expand intelligence community staffing. ...

These are all here and now threats, and we could fund all of these programs at levels necessary to start addressing them - without shortchanging our troops, the weapons systems they rely on, or missile defense. ..."

Source: Text - Daschle Remarks on 'A New Century of American Leadership', Washington File, August 9.