1997 Congressional Hearings
Special Weapons
Nuclear, Chemical, Biological and Missile HEARING ON BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE THREAT OPENING STATEMENT Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University House National Security Subcommittee on Military Research and Development May 7, 1997 This testimony is based on the study Exploring U.S. Missile Defense Requirements in 2010 . Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc., April, 1997. In the realm of missiles and missile defenses, Russia will remain a major threat to the United States: first, as a source of proliferation from which a threat to the United States could develop; second, as a holder of powerful strategic nuclear systems under the questionable control of its weak central government. As a complicating factor, the rampant crime and corruption that is exerting a powerful influence on Russian actions and activities is likely to result in a continued outpouring of sophisticated weapon systems, missiles and technologies, and weapons of mass destruction enablers that will change the nature of the international military calculus. Although the United States must continue to work with Russia in an attempt to stabilize Russia's security situation, it must also prepare for the potential failure of that effort. The problems that Russia faces are too serious to be easily and quickly resolved. The situation in East Asia points toward a future in which missile and WMD capabilities will become increasingly common and of growing importance for the security of a region that has several crisis and conflict flashpoints. The issues that will have to be addressed will include the changes brought about by improved missile quality as well as the increased quantity of available systems. In addition, early warning requirements, missile defenses, and space warfare issues will all likely become key issues of concern as states increasingly turn to the strategic frontiers of space in an effort to deal with the realities of the revolution in military affairs. | |
|
