|
|
|
|
New U.S. Defense Spending to Reverse Decade of Decline In his State of the Union address on Jan 19, 1999, President Clinton announced plans to increase defense spending, emphasizing the need for a national missile defense.  By Michael Lindemann Start Date: 1/25/99 Citing new threats in a changed, multi-polar world, U.S. President Clinton announced in his State of the Union Address on January 19 that he would seek more than $100 billion in increased defense spending over the next six years, reversing a trend of reduced military spending that began more than a decade ago as the Cold War came to an end. Many members of Congress in both parties, along with top military leaders, applauded the announcement. A minority of Congressional voices expressed disappoint, saying Clinton was caving in to pressure from the military. The U.S. military rationale for increased spending hinges on the perception that the world after the Cold War presents a multitude of new military challenges. The Pentagon imagines scenarios in which U.S. forces could be called upon to fight in two or three widely separated theatres at the same time. They imagine threats posed by formerly minor adversaries who are now developing ballistic missiles, such as North Korea; or weapons of mass destruction, such as Iraq. They imagine a world in which China looms as a potentially huge and unpredictable threat. They want to modernize weapons systems, provide more pay and benefits incentives for career soldiers and enlisted personnel, integrate command and control across the several services, and seize the "high ground" of space for reconnaissance and orbiting defense platforms. Indeed, from the standpoint of preferred military strategy, Clinton's promise of new spending is by no means enough. It can be expected that the pressure for additional funding commitments will continue. One feature that stands out in the administration's new defense posture is renewed commitment to an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense system. Ideas that were hatched during the early days of Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative have been scaled back and streamlined into a new program called National Missile Defense, or NMD. Already, $3.9 billion has been budgeted for this program, and Clinton has called for another $6.6 billion through the year 2005. Deployment of NMD would directly violate the ABM Treaty, which has been a cornerstone of global arms control since the early 1970s. On January 20, in answer to questions about Russia's strong opposition to NMD, Defense Secretary William Cohen told reporters that the United States reserves the option of simply pulling out of the ABM Treaty. This sent administration officials scurrying to reassure the Russians that Cohen did not actually mean what he had clearly said. "The secretary did not threaten to withdraw from the treaty," said Robert Bell, director of defense programs on the National Security Council. Bell indicated that the administration was simply exploring possible amendments to the Treaty, and had made no decisions. He also stressed that a decision on whether to deploy missile defenses will not be made before June 2000. Meanwhile, a key test of the new NMD system is scheduled for June 1999, when a dummy missile is to be fired westward over the Pacific Ocean from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and an interceptor missile will be fired from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in an attempt to shoot the first missile down. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese agree that the U.S. military's concern over such perceived threats as new missile developments in North Korea warrant deployment of NMD or changes in the ABM Treaty. "Any military expert understands that these states have not, and, in the near future, will not have guaranteed means of delivering weapons to U.S. territory," said Gen. Leonid Ivashov, chief of the international cooperation department at the Russian Defense Ministry, on January 21. "Therefore, the Russian Defense Ministry regards the U.S. statements on withdrawal from or revision of the ABM treaty as a threat to Russian security interests," Ivashov reportedly told the Interfax news agency. Meanwhile, in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said his government believes a U.S. missile defense system "would only undermine security and stimulate the proliferation of missiles." The controversy raises additional problems for Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He has signed and still favors ratification of the recently negotiated Start II arms reduction treaty. But opposition in the Russian parliament is strong, and hopes of ratification in that body are dwindling. Particularly opposed to Start II is Yeltsin's own former chief of security Alexander Lebed, who has emerged as a leading candidate to replace Yeltsin as president. While the NMD controversy rages on the ground, Air Force Gen. Howell M. Estes, chief of both NORAD and the U.S. Space Command, has his eyes on the sky. For Estes, the "high ground" of space is where the battles of the future will be won or lost, and he insists that the United States must protect its interests by seizing that high ground now. Noting that U.S. economic and national security interests are increasingly dependent upon satellite communications, Estes says, "Unfortunately there are those in the world who are going to develop means to put these assets at risk in space." To protect those assets, which will only increase in the years ahead, Estes and other military planners foresee a wide range of space based military systems. These could include new reconnaissance and battlefield communications satellites (replacing current-generation AWACS aircraft), orbiting satellite-killers and anti-ballistic missile platforms. Ultimately, they might even include directed energy weapons capable of attacking ground forces and installations. Only nuclear weapons are barred from deployment in space by current treaties.
Built by Frontier on a Macintosh on 6/17/00; 11:55:08 AM. Web Comments  -
Produced by Larry LoweServed 3474 times since 1/25/99. |
|
