The most often heard criticisms of this legislation that have come to my attention and that I have read in the op-ed pieces and the newspapers consist generally of three main arguments: First, the system costs too much; second, we will violate the ABM Treaty; third, this is not the real threat we are dealing with right now, that it is more of a terrorism threat, that people could bring a nuclear weapon in a suitcase and put it anywhere in the United States, and that this is what we have to concentrate our attention on. Let me take those arguments and just say that on the basis of the facts--not the rhetoric, not the eye wash, not the double-talk, but the facts--before our Committee on Defense Appropriations, we have heard of a system that, using a sea-based system, we can deploy a missile defense system with existing ships, cruisers, that are now in the inventory of the U.S. Navy and at sea around the world that have a firing system that is capable of being used for launching interceptors. This can be deployed over a 5-year period at a cost of between $2 and $3 billion.
On the recordJune 4, 1996
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing criticisms of missile defense legislation during a floor speech.
Share
More from Thad Cochran
Aug 1, 2017
I am pleased to commend LTC Daniel S. Artino for his dedication to duty and service as an Army legislative fellow and congressional budget liaison for the Assistant Secretary of the Army. Dan was recently selected to command an Apache…
May 3, 2017
I enjoyed working with him to reintroduce the Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies (CONNECT) for Health Act yesterday.
Dec 18, 2017
I am pleased to commend Maj. Matthew W. Taylor, USAF, for his dedication to duty and service as an Air Force legislative fellow. Matt, a special operations pilot, was recently selected to be the assistant to the Vice Commander of the…





