On the recordSeptember 9, 1998
whatever our views on a nationwide ballistic missile defense, it seems to me that we should reject S. 1873. Were that bill to pass, deploying a national missile defense system could, in my view, break the back of the economy at a moment when we finally have gotten a handle on things. A week ago, General Lyles warned that our current programs are over budget and ``may not be all affordable.'' We spent years getting some budget discipline. We have finally achieved that. We must not throw that all away. This bill would require deployment even without a threat of new strategic missiles; and it would throw taxpayers' money at the first available technology, rather than the best technology. As Dr. Richard L. Garwin warns, the first technology will be vulnerable to missiles with penetration aids, which Russia surely has and others can easily develop. Missile defense is expensive; penetration aids are cheap. This bill will also guarantee what General Welch calls a ``rush to failure.'' Five test failures with the THAAD theater defense system are a reminder of how difficult it is to develop any missile defense. A policy of deploying the first ``technologically possible'' system is almost bound to fail. Finally, this bill does not even permit consideration of the negative consequences of deployment. S. 1873 would destroy the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thus end any hope of implementing START Two or of achieving START Three.
Source
govinfo.gov




