Tom Harkin: “For example, a national missile defense system would be ineffective against a truck-bomb attack on the United States. Of…”

“For example, a national missile defense system would be ineffective against a truck-bomb attack on the United States. Of course, we have had some experience, regrettably, in that area. It would not be effective against a chemical weapons attack in the United States. Now, we haven't had that, but Japan has. What about biological weapons that would be delivered by a terrorist? No small threat. It seems like there is an anthrax incident every week here in the country. Again, if there is an anthrax scare, the first line of defense is going to be the local police and firefighters struggling to deal with the threat, and our State and local public health officials, and other health care people. However, a national missile defense system is no solution to combat this very viable threat. The list goes on with a cruise missile attack. It is much cheaper for a country to engage in; it would be launched offshore. Yet, a national missile defense would be ineffective. Even a bomber attack, coming in under our radar screens, would be ineffective for missile defense; and even some of the 'loose nukes' in the former Soviet Union, if in fact there were to be warheads smuggled out of the Soviet Union and enter the country by boat, plane, or truck across our borders. A missile defense is totally ineffective. Also listed is the theater missile defense, which would also be ineffective against those threats.”