National Public Radio Talk of the Nation - Transcript
National Public Radio (NPR)
SHOW: Talk of the Nation 2:00 AM EST NPR
HEADLINE: Missile defense system
ANCHORS: JOE PALCA
BODY:
PALCA: Well, we're going to hear from one of the supporters of this system in just a few minutes, but right now, we hear from a critic of the current administration's missile defense program. With us now by phone from his office in Washington, DC, is Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senator, thanks for joining us.
Senator JACK REED (Democrat, Rhode Island): Oh, thank you very much.
PALCA: So what are your main critiques of the president's plan? Does it have any value at all, do you think?
Sen. REED: Well, there's a value to developing in a systematic and thorough way a missile defense system. That's not what the administration is doing. They are trying to deploy a system that has not been effectively tested and there's also the question of priorities. They're spending $10 billion this year on missile defense. That's roughly twice the budget of the Customs and Border Protection Service and almost twice the budget of the Coast Guard, and frankly, the gravest threats that face us today are not from missiles launched to fly intercontinentally. It's from terrorists who cross our borders as some suggest they already have and plant a weapon of mass destruction. So from a resource perspective, from a policy perspective, I think they've got it wrong, but from simply a procedural operational perspective of getting it tested first before you deploy it, they've got it totally out of whack. The president announced the decision to deploy in December of '02. That was several days after a test failure, even though the test was highly scripted. And since that time, they've canceled seven tests. So it amazes me how you can't test a system because of its complexity but yet you can say it works because it's deployed.
PALCA: Well, the question, it seems to me, though, is you have to decide at some point you've gone far enough in the testing and you could argue that each test leads to another round of revisions to the way the system is built which leads to another rounds of tests and you never get anything in the ground. I mean, how do you deal with that problem?
Sen. REED: Well, you deal with it the way we've dealt with every other major weapons system. You have the Office of Testing and Evaluation, an independent testing agency in the Department of Defense, to design the scenario so they're realistic to go ahead and evaluate the test, make recommendations. The Pentagon has completely abandoned that approach. They make up their own rules. They make up their own tests, and what seems to be in the case of missile defense, one test leads to a cancellation leads to another cancellation leads to another cancellation, but just the simple logic. You don't have enough confidence to test the system in a highly scripted way, yet you're going to try to suggest to the American public that this thing works operationally, that you can put it in the hands of war fighters and the war fighters would be able to operate it? There's real questions not only about the missiles in the ground but the whole apparatus of early warning out of radars, command and control. Who will fire this if suddenly, you know, we get an alert that a missile's been launched?
An issue also about, you know, the threat-a missile attack leaves a huge signature. If the North Koreans are foolish enough to launch a missile, we will be able to deter them. And, in fact, I think they know that, and as a result, our offensive power is the best deterrence against them at the moment.
PALCA: What about-OK. Just very briefly, Senator, is there a system? Should we be building anything at this point at all or should we be thinking about anything or is missile defense an idea from the last century?
Sen. REED: No. And missile defense is an idea that should be pursued thoroughly, responsibly. It should be subject to the same kind of operational testing and evaluation that we do. If we can deploy a system that's effective, then we should, but part of that is not just, you know, deploying something. There's always this inevitable cost-benefit analysis: How much will it cost? The administration refuses to tell us how much a full-blown system will cost. Is it $60 billion or is it $100 billion over a decade? These are large numbers, and every time we invest in missile defense, we don't invest in other systems and other types of protections. So this blind sort of sense that we're just going to build this system is not I think appropriate. It's not strategically sound, but should we be in a very deliberate research project and try to develop this system? Sure, we should.
PALCA: Senator, can you hold for just one moment? We have to take a short break, but we'll be right back.
Sen. REED: Sure.
PALCA: OK. We're talking about missile defense and we're taking your calls at (800) 989-TALK.
I'm Joe Palca. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. We'll be back in a minute.
(Soundbite of music)
PALCA: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Joe Palca in Washington.
We're talking about missile defense and what the Bush administration is doing to establish an operational system. Our guests are John Donnely, a defense reporter for Congressional Quarterly. He joins me here in Studio 3A in Washington, and on the phone from his office is Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
And I wonder if I can talk to-I would like to take one of your calls. Our number here is 1 (800) 989-TALK and our e-mail is totn@npr.org.
I'd like to ask Dennis in Bethesda, Maryland, to come on the line and ask the question. Dennis, welcome to the program.
DENNIS (Caller): Hi. I'd actually like to say something a little positive, a little balanced. It's OK in tests like this to-first of all, it's a good idea to have the missiles in the silos and test the system itself, but secondly, the ability to replace electronics and software and radar detectors these days allows those systems to be replaced as long as the propulsion systems work. And our propulsion systems are pretty good. Now I absolutely hate the Bush administration, but there are some things about this which do make sense. One is that if there is a limited number of people who fire single-warhead missiles and if this system really does get and prove the ability to shoot those down, then there is a very small limited market against terrorist types of missiles.
PALCA: OK, Dennis, I think that's an interesting point. I want to ask the senator what he makes of that.
Sen. REED: Well, the notion of having missiles in the ground to test is something that is a positive aspect, but there's a big difference between classifying a facility as an operational test bed which I think it is and calling it a deployed missile system capable of responding on a, I presume, routine basis to an attack. That's the biggest difference I think. I think, you know, testing it in the ground, doing those things, realistic testing is appropriate. There's also problems with the Alaska test bed in terms of whether it can actually fire missiles in an operational test capacity because of environmental restrictions, because also of the radar sightings, and so what I object to strenuously is pretending this is deployment when, in fact, it might have some value as an operational test facility. That in a sense I agree.
One of the problems with this system is that it seems to me that the sort of outfoxing it is probably easier than staying ahead of an aggressor. If there are several multiple missiles coming our way, I'm told the system would not perform that well. If the decoys are sophisticated on the missile system-we've just designed this at this point for rudimentary decoys. I have no objection to testing. I have no objection to trying to develop a system, but to stand up and say, 'This is working,' and suggest that this is now a reliable part of our defense is, I think, exaggeration.
PALCA: All right. Senator, thank you very much for joining us today.
Sen. REED: Thank you.
PALCA: Senator Jack Reed is a Democrat from Rhode Island and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He joined us from his office in Washington, DC, by telephone.