Panel I of A Hearing of the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Oversight of Missile Defense (Part Three): Questions for the Missile Defense Agency

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Thank you.

General, first of all, it's your job to, obviously, develop this. You've been assigned to do that and you're doing the best you can. And I happen to have major reservations about the effectiveness of it, but Congress has approved it, so I think we bear a lot of the responsibility for this policy.

But on this question of the threat, we don't have infinite resources, and it is possible to conceive of an infinite number of threats to our national security. And decisions have to be made about the deployment of limited resources to protect us.

Is it -- would you acknowledge that there's a significant tactical use of asymmetric warfare-type tactics by adversaries of the United States that we're seeing throughout -- in the whole war on terror?

GEN. OBERING: Yes, sir.

REP. WELCH: And wouldn't it be the case, as some witnesses have testified, that there is a serious threat, that somebody may try to bring a nuclear device into this country on a ship or across a boarder and then detonate that device here in the homeland?

GEN. OBERING: Yes, sir.

REP. WELCH: And, would you be in agreement that it would be important for us in terms of addressing that threat, that we have a focus on some of the vulnerabilities at our ports and along our borders?

GEN. OBERING: Yes, sir.

REP. WELCH: Do you have an opinion as to whether the threat of that type of means of delivery is greater than the threat of opposed by a long range ballistic delivery system?

GEN. OBERING: I do have an opinion, yes, sir-

REP. WELCH: And what's that?

GEN. OBERING: And, I do believe that from our own experience delivered a larger weapon from a ship into the United States in which you control everything up until the launch of that weapon, and not have to rely on trusted agents or sneaking past any sensors, that type of thing, is a real threat. That's something that can, in fact, happen.

REP. WELCH: Right. And the question that I ask this way -- do you think that threat is a greater threat than delivery by these (asymestic ?) means?

GEN. OBERING: Sir, I don't know if I can quantify that. What I can say is it is a threat that we can do something about.

REP. WELCH: I actually think it's important to have some quantification. If there's limited resources and we have to decide to put those resources in to protecting ports from a delivery by means of a backpack or cargo container versus put our resources into acceleration of the missile defense program, and we can't do both, which do you think is a more imminent threat?

GEN. OBERING: Again, sir, I'm not an expert in that regard. I'm only an expert in the missile portion of that.

REP. WELCH: Well --

GEN. OBERING: The missile defense portion of that.

REP. WELCH: I understand that. But -- and again this is not just you. That's your job, so that's what you've got to do, and I think all of us respect that and appreciate your history here. But from the perspective of threat -- I mean obviously it's very important for national security reasons that people with experience, like you, and policy makers have threat assessments, right?

GEN. OBERING: Okay, sir. If I can answer it this way. I look at the intel books every day.

REP. WELCH: You look what?

GEN. OBERING: I look at the intel assessments every day. I don't recall seeing any testing of a nuclear suitcase weapon in the last four or five, four years -- almost four years that I am director. I have seen year after year after year, test after test after test, last year 120 of those of missiles from a variety of countries around the world. So I'm paying attention to that capability. And if we have countries that are producing that capability in those tests, and in some of those countries, a small subset are making very hostile statements against the United States, it's something that I'm being paid to pay attention to and to see if we can do something about that. I'll leave it up to the Congress and others to make a determination of how much is enough of what. But all I can say is from my personal perspective, I see this progression across the globe, and I see it's something we can actually do something about.

REP. WELCH: What countries are you focused on as a threat to our security through the delivery of missile?

GEN. OBERING: I think today Iran and North Korea have made very hostile statements against the United States and our allies. They are backing that up with capability demonstrations. One of the lessons learned from the summer of 2006 is the North Koreans had carried on their Taepo Dong II program much beyond what we were anticipating and they attempted the launch of that long-range weapon. But more importantly, the shorter range weapons that they fired, they showed a dramatic improvement in the reliability and accuracy of those weapons as well.

REP. WELCH: Do you believe that our capacity for massive retaliation, if there were a missile attack on Iran -- by Iran, would serve as any deterrent on the launch of a ballistic missile against the United States from Iran?

GEN. OBERING: If the controlling authorities were deterrable, yes, sir. If they're not, then the only thing you can do is protect yourself against that missile. And I think that's the -- that is what I'm trying to convey, and maybe not very well, is that we are no longer in the Cold War. We no longer can rely solely on deterrence because we may face, in this century, organizations or countries that are non-deterrable.

REP. WELCH: Right. Well, I actually agree with that, Alright -- actors that are non-deterrable, and that's what the problem is with the asymmetric warfare tactics of folks who use terror as a political tactic. But, as I understand it, a recent national intelligence estimate on Iran, our November '07 intelligence estimate included -- and I'll quote this -- "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost- benefit approach." Do you agree with that conclusion in the national intelligence estimate?

GEN. OBERING: I will give you my opinion of that. There are three things that are necessary to deliver a nuclear weapon, a weapon of mass destruction. You have to have -- in a nuclear weapon, you have to have the enriched uranium to be able to produce the material. You have to have a weaponization of that. And you have to have a weapons delivery vehicle.

Now, if you look at the cost-benefit analysis that's going through the Iranians right now, why are they investing so heavily in the weapons delivery systems, i.e., the missiles if they're only interested in a small conventional warhead? Knowing the accuracies that they have, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's my assessment. So I think that -- and I think that there's been follow ups to the NIE since then that talk about what that really meant in terms of halt and whether they've restarted, et cetera. But I don't think that makes sense to say that they're only going to -- that they're going to stop weaponization and yet they're going to continue to accelerate their missile programs. So I believe that it doesn't make sense. I think it's something that we really have to pay attention to.

REP. WELCH: So, what's your threat assessment of the likelihood of Iran launching a first strike missile attack on the United States?

GEN. OBERING: I believe that the ability to do that is several years away. The ability to do that is not before 2015 based on the intel experts that inform us. The problem here is we have to be prepared for that because capability takes years to develop, both offensive as well as, by the way, defensive to be able to build a defense for that. But intent can change overnight. So I can't guarantee the Congress and I can't guarantee the United States people that we will be protected from attack because they choose not to do so.

REP. WELCH: What would be -- my time?

REP. TIERNEY: Your time is expired.

REP. WELCH: Okay.

REP. TIERNEY: We're going to have another round.

REP. WELCH: Okay, thank you for your time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. WELCH: And obviously, this program going on for 25 years, at this point has pretty -- strong life of its own.

And my understanding is that there are plans for very substantial purchases -- according to the information I have. This is for new interceptors between now and 2013. Includes interceptors for the GMD system in Alaska and California; 111 SM-3 interceptors; 100 terminal sea-based interceptors for the Aegis BMG system; 96 Thad interceptors; 400 Patriot PAC-3 interceptors. It adds up -- I left a few out -- to about 635 new interceptors proposed to be bought in the next five years.

I have two questions: First, why are the taxpayers -- why can taxpayers be confident that our money is being well spent when this very significant acquisition plan is not in the regular procurement sections of the DOD budget?

GEN. OBERING: Well, first of all, the fact that it is or is not in a regular procurement mode, I would submit, is not an accurate measurement of whether it's being well spent -- frankly.

I think that's a matter of looking at --

REP. WELCH: Then what's the point of having a regular procurement system?

GEN. OBERING: Well, first of all, sir, the procurement system that you're referring to is one that has grown up over the years -- primarily out of the Cold War time frame. And in the missile defense era and the missile defense mission area, the reason that we are using RDT&E money for the majority of our program -- although we are transitioning that to procurement for a portion of that in the -- beginning in 2010, okay?

REP. WELCH: Well, my understanding of a budget is that real world decisions and choices have to be made with cost and benefits weighing the opportunity cost. If you choose to spend dollars here, you're not going to be able to spend them there. And my understanding of a basic procurement and budgeting process is that it's intended to impose some discipline. So our decisions about threat assessment -- something that we were talking about at the beginning of your testimony -- have to be made.

GEN. OBERING: But they can be made at the RDT&E level as well, is what I'm trying to say. And there's Defense-wide accounts that you can make those decisions and determinations in.

But if I could answer your question --

REP. WELCH: Well --

GEN. OBERING: We are making -- we have a good track record of being able to manage these programs with respect to cost and schedule -- number one. Number two, in terms of the numbers of interceptors, the ones that you quoted -- we actually are being asked for more of those by the warfighters. And that has been approved recently by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council that's chaired by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They're not only asking for what you just quoted. They're asking for about double those in the land, mobile and the sea-based area.

REP. WELCH: Well, you know, we have a bit of a disagreement here.

You know, Mr. Chairman, my concern is that there's not some centralized approach where some people who are looking at the information coming in from the warfighters advocating for this program, are also hearing from folks who are concerned about homeland security and the threat that comes, perhaps, from a backpack delivery of a very serious nuclear device.

So this isn't an argument I have, really, with the general. It's a concern I have with the process of budgeting where hard decisions and threat assessments are not made.

Just with respect to a second question, general, that is 655 -- 635 new interceptors. How would you -- what is it that you describe is the threat for which we're purchasing 635 interceptors?

GEN. OBERING: Well, if I could -- for the budget that the Defense Department oversees and is responsible for, there are hard decisions made and those budget trades are being made within the department.

With respect to what are those numbers of interceptors are geared for: They are geared for the numbers of missiles that we see the North Koreans and the Iranians deploying and capable of using in the regional fights, along with the anticipated long-range missiles that we believe that those countries will be capable of producing over the next several years.

REP. WELCH: All right.

Is it fair to say -- I've been listening to your testimony carefully. And what I hear you say is that this program is essentially necessary in order to deal with the threat that has been assessed to be presented by Iran and North Korea.

GEN. OBERING: For the missile defense program that we have fielded, yes, sir.

REP. WELCH: And -- that's it. My time is up and I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source