 |
by Senator Joseph Biden |
|
Compiled by GayToday
In the wake of yesterday's inhumane carnage perpetrated on U.S. soil, the Senator's examination of the Bush administration's determination to promote its especial defense plan for America becomes particularly significant, if not poignant. Following is the full text of Senator Biden's speech: At the end of the Cold War, when the wall came down, we found ourselves on the brink of extraordinary changes - all of us wondering what it would mean and where it would lead. Was it the beginning of something or an end? And if it was the beginning, were we going to get it right? On that night we were all idealists, but a new day dawned and a harsher reality came into focus. It became clear that long-submerged ethnic, religious, tribal, and nationalistic divisions had not changed, while America's place in the world had changed forever. >From that day on we inherited a profound obligation of leadership, and an even more profound obligation to get it right in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Europe, in Asia, in our hemisphere, in our commitments, our treaties, and in our defense - missile or otherwise. Now, the spotlight remains on us, and it's brighter than ever. We're at a pivotal moment when American values and principles have taken center stage in the global theater. How we perform on that stage is as much about American honor, decency, and pride as it is about strategic policy. So before we go raising the starting gun on a new arms race, before we dip into the Social Security Trust Fund to satisfy this Administration's almost theological allegiance to a missile defense system at the expense of more earthbound military needs and international treaties, before we watch China build-up its nuclear arsenal and see an arms race in Asia, before we squander the best opportunity we've had in a generation to modernize conventional military forces, let's look at the real threats we face at home and abroad. Let's re-engage and re-think and meet our obligations with a strength and resolve that befits our place in the world.
A nation that reaches out to allies and adversaries alike with the undiluted, unequivocal message that democracy works, freedom is worth the fight - and that America will always be a reliable friend to those willing to take the risks to achieve those goals. We can't forget or simply disregard the responsibilities that flow from our ideals. We can't lose sight of the fact that leadership requires engagement, and partnership demands inclusivity. Let there be no mistake, America must remain at the table because walking away comes with a price. Our European allies should never think that America ignores international opinion or that we're ready to go it alone. They should never think that our commitment to vital multinational institutions and projects built on common values and common concerns -and that includes NATO - has diminished. We became a European power in the twentieth century and we must remain a European power.
I think of an America so vastly different, so unburdened of old Cold War fears and feelings, that it's willing now to do a little soul searching. Are we a nation of our word or not? Do we keep our treaties or don't we? Are we willing to lead the hard way - because leadership isn't easy. Diplomacy isn't easy. Multi-lateral policy initiatives aren't easy.... ....Or are we willing to end four decades of arms control agreements and go-it-alone, a kind of bully-nation, sometimes a little wrong-headed, but ready to make unilateral decisions in what we perceive to be our self-interest and the hell with our treaties, our commitments, and our word? Are we really prepared to raise the starting-gun on a new arms race in a potentially more dangerous world? Because, make no mistake, folks, if we deploy a missile defense system we could do just that. Step back from the ABM Treaty, go full steam ahead to deploy a missile defense system and we'll be raising that starting gun. If the President continues to go headlong, head-strong on this theological mission to deploy his missile defense system, if he does what he says and drops objections to China's missile build-up, not only will we have raised that starting gun, we will have pulled back the hammer. Let's stop this nonsense before we end up pulling the trigger. China now has about 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles. But according to press reports, the National Intelligence Council thinks that China might deploy up to 200 warheads, develop sophisticated decoys, and perhaps move to multiple warheads in response to any missile defense system. It is absolute lunacy for us to invite China to expand its arsenal and resume nuclear testing, not to mention that moving forward with missile defense could jeopardize Chinese cooperation on the Korean Peninsula. In Seoul, I spoke with President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea about ways to bring North Korea into the family of nations. He urged me to encourage the Administration to engage North Korea in senior-level dialogue and not to allow a theological commitment to missile defense to blind us to the prospect of signing a verifiable agreement to end the North's development, deployment, and export of long range missiles. If we spur an aggressive Chinese build-up - including the resumption of nuclear testing and jeopardize Chinese cooperation on the Korean Peninsula, consider that India surely would respond and, in turn, Pakistan would ratchet up its production. Consider that Taiwan, the two Koreas, or Japan - or all of them - could build their own nuclear weapons. Are we so dead-set positive that a missile defense system furthers our national interest that we're willing to risk an arms race * So sure of the science that we're willing to weaponize space and nuclearize Asia? * Are we so sure of the feasibility that we'll divert hundreds of billions of dollars from the real needs of the military? Look, the fact is, we could weaponize space OR we could buy 339 F-22s to replace our aging F-15 fleet for $62 billion;
I could go on but, in short, we could provide our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines virtually everything they need in the immediate futute for about $385 billion - and that's still less than what a missile defense system would cost. We're facing a difficult budget fight. With the consequences of a $1.3 trillion tax cut, we can't have our cake and eat it too. The administration would like us to think it's all possible. But it's not. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we may have to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of $9 billion to cover budget shortfalls this year, and $21 billion more over the next three years. That's a very different economic picture than projections of just a few months ago. Missile defense has to be weighed carefully against all other spending and all other military priorities. In truth, our real security needs are much more earthbound and far less costly than missile defense. If you combine the $1.3 trillion dollar tax cut with what we'd spend on a full-blown missile defense shield, we could start to modernize our conventional forces, and build a stealthier, more mobile, more self-sufficient military that I believe we'll need in the twenty-first century. Lets be clear. When it comes to defense, it's not the President's missile defense system or nothing. We should improve military personnel retention and overall readiness, bring on the next generation of fighter aircraft, the next generation of helicopters, the next generation of destroyers - and be fully prepared for the next generation of engagement. I've said, and I'll say again, we should be fully funding the military and defending ourselves at home and our abroad against the more likely threats of short-range cruise missiles or biological terrorism. Last week, The Foreign Relations Committee began hearings on how to build a Homeland Defense and protect our military from bioterrorism and chemical attacks.
I've said and I'll say again that we should work with Russia and China and all of our allies to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We should rely on mutual deterrence rather than thinking we can replace it, because deterrence works. We should support research and development on a boost-phase intercept system that would avoid countermeasures and would be more acceptable to Russia and China, limiting the possibility of ending Russia's adherence to START II, and lessening the prospects of a new arms race in Asia. We should strive, through hard-nosed diplomacy, to delay and eliminate the long-range ballistic missile threat by ending North Korea's programs and its sales of long-range missile technology. We should build a combined offensive and defensive system that we know works BEFORE we deploy it. We should amend the ABM treaty, not walk away from it. Having said that, lets put the cost and the effectiveness of this missile defense system in some context so that everyone understands exactly what we're taking about. The cheapest realistic system suggested by this Administration, which relies on the same midcourse interceptor the Clinton Administration proposed, would cost about 60 billion dollars over 20 years. And 60 billion is a very conservative number. And remember, this is only for a system that is incapable of shooting down a missile carrying biological weapons, incapable of shooting down a missile carrying chemical weapons and, at least for now, incapable of shooting down a missile with an unsophisticated, tumbling warhead that will look just like a tumbling decoy. In order to combat what are known as "countermeasures" - such as those decoys or the sub-munitions that carry biological weapons - the Administration proposes a "layered" defense. That means a missile defense that begins with a boost-phase interceptor, continues with the midcourse interceptor and finishes with terminal defense systems. Now that gets really expensive. One recent estimate for that system is a quarter trillion dollars. I think that, too, is a conservative figure, because the truth is that the Administration has yet to comprehend the full complexity and the technological challenges of a layered defense. In my view, that full blown layered missile defense system - which doesn't address a single real issue on the ground - will cost about half-a-trillion dollars. And what will this get us? For half-a-trillion dollars you get a layered system. If it includes space based lasers, you weaponize outer space, which invites other countries to attack the satellites on which we depend for information and communications. But it still won't be one hundred percent effective. Secretary Rumsfeld, speaking about a national missile defense system on the Lehrer Newshour earlier this year said that a system would not have to be ninety or even eighty percent effective, but only seventy-percent effective. Secretary Rumsfeld, in referring to a .7 success rate, said, and I quote, "That's plenty." Folks, 30% failure for any national defense system could be called plenty of things, but plenty successful isn't one of them. Think about it. Let's say Richard Ryan becomes President and the head of a rogue state tells him, "I'm invading my neighbor today, and if you try to stop me, I'll fire my ICBM's at you." Never mind that he won't do that, because he knows we would annihilate his country in response. President Ryan turns to his national security adviser, Carl Weiser, and says: "What do I do?" And Carl says: "Don't worry, we have a missile defense. And it's 90-percent effective." President Ryan says: "Oh? There's a 10 percent chance of losing Detroit?" And Carl says: "That depends. If they fire seven missiles, the odds of losing at least one city will be 50-50." President Ryan says: "And I'm supposed to feel I have 'freedom of action' thanks to this defense?" And Carl says: "Hey look, Rumsfeld told Jim Lehrer that 70-percent effectiveness would be enough, at least initially. With that system, there's a 50-50 chance of losing at least one city even if that rogue state fires only two missiles." Folks, the American people get it. They know that a real-world missile defense could save lives if we were ever attacked, but that it would not free the President from nuclear blackmail. Think about it. We will have spent up to five-hundred billion dollars for a system that might work nine out of ten times - assuming the Administration knew how to build it... One that won't give the President freedom of action, one that won't give the Pentagon what it really needs, won't modernize our conventional forces...all without being able to say, "yes, we've saved Social Security for one more day." Sure, we'll do all we can to defend ourselves against any threat. Nobody denies that. But even the Joint Chiefs say a strategic nuclear attack is less likely than regional conflicts, or major theater wars or terrorist attacks at home and abroad. We will have diverted all that money to address the least likely threat while the real threats come into this country in the hold of a ship, or the belly of a plane or are smuggled into a city in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack. The truth is, technology will keep outpacing our capability to build an effective system which may well be obsolete or penetrable by the time its done. And that means we'll continually increase our capability and, in turn, so will those who are trying to penetrate it.... ....And so, a new arms race begins. Forty-nine Nobel-prize winning scientists sent a letter to President Clinton last year opposing deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system, saying, and I quote, "The system would offer little protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core security interests." They went on to say, "We and other independent scientists have long argued that anti-ballistic missile systems, particularly those attempting to intercept reentry vehicles in space, will inevitably lose in an arms race of improvements to offensive missiles." That night in 1989 when the wall came down and we wondered where it would lead, another arms race was the furthest thing from our minds. The idea that our allies would question our commitment and our resolve, and even our motives was unthinkable. Our place on the world stage seemed secure. The world was looking to us for democratic leadership and it still is. Let's think about what we felt that night, the feeling that something good was happening and something even better was about to happen. It was as if the world had awoken from a long bad dream into a new era in which old values and old prejudices would no longer prevail and new values and new ideals, whatever they were to be, would make us more secure. Let's not now raise a starting gun on a new arms race that is sure to make us less secure. Thank you very much. |
Sen. Joseph Biden 
Biden calls on Bush to 'get it right in Europe' and stay engaged 