On the recordMarch 15, 1999
if I may just respond briefly to the comments made by my colleague, the Senator from Arizona. First, let me again emphasize something that I think is implicit in his statement, and that is we all recognize the threat that is posed by the potential development of intercontinental delivery systems by these rogue nations. No one is discounting that. That has changed the calculus significantly. The question is whether we are going to move forward on the very simple--and one might say simplistic--criterion of ``technologically possible,'' or if we are going to, in this legislation, and in practice, address the complexities of this issue. Historical analogies are never perfect, but I suspect back in the 1930s when France was debating defense policy, the notion of building a series of concrete forts along their territorial line was not only technologically feasible but ultimately was constructed. But when it came to 1940, the Maginot Line just did not work to defend the people of France. I am not suggesting we are in the same type of debate, but I think it is sometimes too alluring to think in the simple terms of: If we have the technology of doing something, let's do it--particularly when we get to the issue of national missile defense.
Source
govinfo.gov




