Missile Defense Programs and Policy; Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, Hearing Held July 19,2001 [H.A.S.C. No. 107-26]
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 2002. Presumed First Edition, First printing. Wraps. iii, [1], 102, [2], wraps. Illustrations. Missile defense is a system, weapon, or technology involved in the detection, tracking, interception, and destruction of attacking missiles. Originally conceived as a defence against nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), its application has broadened to include shorter-ranged non-nuclear tactical and theater missiles. The United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, and France have all developed such air defense systems. In the United States, missile defense was originally the responsibility of the U.S. Army. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has developed maritime systems and command and control that will eventually be transferred to the Navy and Air Force for operation and sustainment. From the hearing record. The committee is pleased to welcome the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the head of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to testify on the Administration's missile defense policy and programs. The fiscal year 2002 budget request represents a significant increase in funding for ballistic missile programs. For those of us who support a robust defense program, we welcome the more aggressive approach taken by this Administration, which I hope will hasten the day when all Americans are protected against the growing threat of ballistic missile attack. I commend the Administration for elevating the importance of this issue in the public debate. An essential part of any missile defense program is a strong testing regime. Again, I commend the Administration for seeking to strengthen the testing program, and I congratulate all of those who played a role in the successful missile intercept test that occurred last weekend. While any test program will inevitably result in a share of failures and successes, the July 14th intercept demonstrated again that it is technologically possible to hit a bullet with a bullet. Missile defense is technologically feasible and our job is to figure out the best way to give them the right task. That said, there are significant policy and programmatic issues raised by the Administration's new missile defense approach. Importantly, the issue of the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which limits our ability to defend ourselves, must be confronted. The Administration has chosen, in Secretary Wolfowitz's words, to move beyond the treaty, and I believe this is a wise decision. We seek to do so cooperatively with the Russians, but unilaterally if necessary. An effective deterrent for the threats we will likely face and confront in the 21st century is one that balances offensive forces with defensive forces. For too long that balance has been skewed as we consciously chose to remain vulnerable to even a single ballistic missile launched in our direction. The Administration has now chosen to correct that imbalance, a decision that reflects a change in policy. As for funding, the fiscal year 2002 budget seeks to develop a layered defense against ballistic missile tests in various stages of their trajectory. It is designed to explore a range of technologies, and I believe it reflects a prudent response to an urgent threat. Clearly many of the issues associated with the Administration's missile defense approach are controversial. This morning, we hope to gain a clear understanding of why the Administration has chosen this course and what we can expect. Condition: Very good.
Keywords: Ronald Kadish, Paul Wolfowitz, Ballistic Missiles, Missile Defense, Mass Destruction, Deterrence, Patriot Missiles, Defense Policy, Congressional Hearings, Ike Skelton, Bob Stump
[Book #48415]
Price: $45.00