Congresswoman Barbara Lee articulates in the attached statement the reasons WAND opposed H.Res. 195, and the deployment of a national missile defense (NMD).

Four Reasons to Oppose National Missile Defense (NMD)

---

• Cost: Requested Pentagon FY 2002 budget provides Ballistic Missile Defense programs $8.3 billion (an increase of $3 billion or 57% from FY 2001).

  Senator Cleland:
  

  "In a fiscal environment that precludes us from meeting our legitimate bread-and-butter needs in a global security environment that presents us with a multitude of potential threats more imminent than missiles not yet off the drawing board, I can't look the taxpayers of this country and of my state in the eye and tell them that this is a worthy expenditure of their money. …"

  ---

• Threat: Even if a Star Wars system did work, the United States would remain vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction, and the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings are the more likely scenarios of how those attacks would occur.

  Rep. Gephardt:

  "And while a technologically proven national missile defense system may serve to address one particular manifestation of the threat, a singular focus on this course could very well undermine our ability to develop and fund a multifaceted strategy against weapons of mass destruction."

  ---

• International Relations: A U.S. national missile defense system will encourage allies and enemies alike to consider maintaining or even increasing the number of their nuclear weapons, thinking that if they have enough nuclear weapons to challenge a U.S. missile defense system, then they will be a serious player in the precarious international security game.

  Sen. Levin:

  "General Kadish, three weeks ago you told us there was nothing in your recommendations which, if implemented, would violate the ABM Treaty in2002. Is that still true, in your judgment?" Reply from Kadish: "No, it isn't, Senator."

  ---

• Technology: The Pentagon claimed the test was a success but it hardly reflected a realistic situation. A Minuteman ICBM with a dummy warhead and a Mylar balloon were used as mock targets. The ICBM and the balloon have vastly different radar signatures; it does not take hugely sophisticated radar to distinguish between the two.

  Sen. Durbin:

  "A press report [yesterday] said that the Pentagon believes it is vital to field a system by 2004, if possible, even if the system has limited effectiveness in destroying incoming warheads, a "scarecrow" system. In the Challenger disaster, our astronauts lost their lives. If we base our security policy on public relations - or worse, faith not substantiated by science and reason - millions of Americans will be at risk."

Go to WAND's National Missile Defense Resource Page

WAND

Home