[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    PATRIOT MISSILES FOR UNITED STATES FORCES IN SOUTH KOREA: WHICH 
                                VERSION?

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to call my 
colleagues' attention to an article entitled ``Korean Impasse Spurs 
Patriot Plans,'' by John D. Morocco and David Hughes, that was 
published in the January 31, 1994, edition of Aviation Week & Space 
Technology. This article summarizes the situation as it stood last 
Sunday, adding relatively little new information to the public record. 
However, what it did say that is very important is that not all Patriot 
battalions have received the post-Desert Storm antitactical ballistic 
missile upgrades.
  The critical paragraphs in the story read as follows:

       The number of Patriot batteries involved [in the planned 
     South Korean deployment], as well as where they would come 
     from, has yet to be determined. Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Policy Frank Wisner said Patriot systems are in short 
     supply, but indicated some have become available as a result 
     of the U.S. drawdown in Europe.
       Pentagon officials are considering whether to send Patriot 
     batteries equipped with post-Desert Storm engineering 
     upgrades. Only two Patriot battalions out of 11 in the U.S. 
     Army currently have the quick reaction program (QRP) 
     improvements installed, according to Army officials, and the 
     rest are being modified with kits one battalion at a time.
       With QRP changes, Patriot batteries can defend five times 
     more ground area against tactical ballistic missile attack 
     than was possible during Desert Storm. QRP improvements 
     include refinements in the ground-based radar, remote siting 
     capability for the radar so it can be placed up to 10 km. 
     from a launcher and a self-locating device to speed the 
     emplacement of a new battery to under 30 min. A separate 
     improvement underway is the addition of any optical disk 
     system to all Patriot batteries to capture radar data on any 
     engagements for replay and analysis. The lack of after-action 
     data in Desert Storm made it more difficult to adjust to 
     unexpected Scud aerodynamic performance and to verify Patriot 
     performance after the war.
       The Patriots would provide protection against North Korean 
     surface-to-surface missiles. North Korea has more than 100 
     Scud-B and -C and Frog-3, -5, and -7 missiles. It also has 
     developed the new No Dong 1, which has a range in excess of 
     1,000 km. (622 mi.). U.S. and South Korean forces currently 
     have no missile defenses, and observers say the air defense 
     system is inadequate.

  The issues raised by this article are critical. Which Patriots is the 
administration planning to send to South Korea? Will the battalion be 
one of the two upgraded battalions with the quick reaction program 
engineering upgrades installed?
  If the answer is ``no,'' we have a more serious question--where in 
the world is the threat of surprise tactical ballistic missile attack 
against deployed U.S. forces higher than it currently is on the Korean 
Peninsula? If it is true that the upgraded Patriot system can cover 
five times more ground area than the basic system, how would the 
administration justify a decision to send the less capable systems--
systems that would leave some of our people exposed to attack when they 
could be protected?

  Mr. President, not only is it important to make the final decision to 
send the Patriots and send them now, but it is vital that the right 
Patriots be sent--the ones with the full quick reaction program 
upgrades and the optical disk radar data recorders. We are waiting for 
the decision, and the countdown to the February 22, 1994, deadline for 
North Korea agreement to full IAEA inspections of its nuclear 
facilities is running.
  In fact, the time available to transport the Patriots to South Korea 
is so short that the administration may have to have them delivered by 
air instead of by sea. While are transportation is more costly, time 
has become critical.
  It appears that the administration feels little urgency--at least 
from its public comments--in the Patriot deployment. The time has come 
for them to begin feeling the pressure and treating the issue as one 
that requires immediate decision and expeditious implementation.
  My comments on this matter may seem unusual in the ordinary context 
of Defense Department deployment decisions. I ordinarily do not raise 
these matters on the floor. However, the Department's performance under 
Secretary Aspin's leadership in responding to a variety of 
contingencies causes me to raise this matter publicly and to make it an 
issue.
  The men and women wearing this Nation's uniform in Korea deserve a 
far more competent and decisive response to their commander's request 
for the Patriots for force protection than General Montgomery's request 
for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to protect his forces in 
Mogadishu received. With that bloody and tragic lesson of the price of 
delay and indecision in mind, I believe it is vital that we press the 
Pentagon and the administration's national security leadership as a 
whole to make a positive decision, make it now, and ship the Patriots--
the right Patriots--as soon as is humanly possible.
  The alternative may be another disaster by indecision.
  Mr. President, I ask that the full Aviation Week & Space Technology 
article from which I quoted above be printed in the Congressional 
Record immediately following my remarks.
  The article follows:

         [From Aviation Week & Space Technology, Jan. 31, 1994]

                   Korean Impasse Spurs Patriot Plans

                 (By John D. Morrocco and David Hughes)

       The U.S. is planning to deploy Patriot air defense missiles 
     to South Korea, a move that simultaneously increases the 
     political pressure and hedges Washington's bets in the 
     continuing diplomatic confrontation with North Korea over 
     nuclear inspections.
       The missiles were requested by Army Gen. Gary Luck, the 
     commander of U.S. forces in Korea, following a review of 
     defense requirements. The Pentagon said it is looking 
     ``favorably'' at the request but ``no actual decision has 
     been made.''
       The plan comes amid increasing tensions on the peninsula. A 
     U.S.-North Korean diplomatic standoff over the issue of full 
     access to North Korea's nuclear facilities by international 
     inspectors has spurred the threat of economic sanctions by 
     the Clinton Administration.
       The number of Patriot batteries involved, as well as where 
     they would come from, has yet to be determined. Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Policy Frank Wisner said Patriot 
     systems are in short supply, but indicated some have become 
     available as a result of the U.S. drawdown in Europe.
       Pentagon officials are considering whether to send Patriot 
     batteries equipped with post-Desert Storm engineering 
     upgrades. Only two Patriot battalions out of 11 in the U.S. 
     Army currently have the quick reaction program (QRP) 
     improvements installed, according to Army officials, and the 
     rest are being modified with kits one battalion at a time.
       With QRP changes, Patriot batteries can defend five times 
     more ground area against tactical ballistic missile attack 
     than was possible during Desert Storm. QRP improvements 
     include refinements in the ground-based radar, remote siting 
     capability for the radar so it can be placed up to 10 km. 
     from a launcher and a self-locating device to speed the 
     emplacement of a new battery to under 30 min. A separate 
     improvement underway is the addition of an optical disk 
     system to all Patriot batteries to capture radar data on any 
     engagements for replay and analysis. The lack of after-action 
     data in Desert Storm made it more difficult to adjust to 
     unexpected Scud aerodynamic performance and to verify Patriot 
     performance after the war.
       The Patriots would provide protection against North Korean 
     surface-to-surface missiles. North Korea has more than 100 
     Scud-B and -C and Frog-3, -5 and -7 missiles. It also has 
     developed the new No Dong 1, which has a range in excess of 
     1,000 km. (622 mi.). U.S. and South Korean forces currently 
     have no missile defenses, and observers say the air defense 
     system is inadequate.
       Stressing the defensive nature of the Patriot system, 
     Wisner said: ``The deployment is clearly not meant to 
     increase tensions.'' He said such a move had been considered 
     for some time and was merely a response to the theater 
     commander's request after Washington asked him to review 
     security arrangements for U.S. forces. But given the current 
     diplomatic tensions, it is certain to draw howls of protest 
     from Pyongyang.
       Wisner said the most viable way to pursue the nuclear 
     problem with North Korea was through negotiations. But other 
     officials have indicated that time is running out and warn 
     that the U.S. could soon move to seek economic sanctions.
       William Taylor, senior vice president at the Center for 
     Strategic and International Studies, said just the talk of 
     deploying Patriots sends a message to the North Koreans that 
     time is running out. It signals the Administration's 
     realization that the imposition of economic sanctions 
     increases the risk of armed conflict and the U.S. is 
     preparing for that.
       The U.S. has offered to cancel the annual joint exercises 
     with South Korean forces in exchange for the North Koreans 
     allowing inspections of its seven declared nuclear sites. But 
     Pyongyang has balked during discussions with the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency on the details of how 
     those inspections would be carried out.
       IAEA Director Hans Blix is to report on the progress toward 
     compliance by Feb. 22. The Administration's Patriot gambit 
     has underlined the importance of that deadline, Taylor said. 
     The Clinton Administration is basically telling North Korea 
     it does not have much time to strike a deal with the IAEA, 
     since it will take the agency two weeks to conduct 
     inspections.
       Wisner said the U.S. intelligence community is ``divided'' 
     over whether the North Koreans have already developed a 
     nuclear weapon. In testimony before the Senate Select 
     Intelligence Committee last week, CIA Director R. James 
     Woolsey reiterated his previous assertions that North Korea 
     could already have produced enough plutonium for at least one 
     nuclear weapon. ``Moreover, their Yongbyon reactor may be 
     shut down soon, enabling them to extract fuel, reprocess, 
     recover the plutonium and use it to produce weapons.''
       Wisner said, however, it was ``not immediately apparent'' 
     that the North Koreans are closing down the Yongbyon reactor. 
     Furthermore, he noted that the U.S. intelligence community is 
     divided over whether North Korea has nuclear weapons. He said 
     it is possible, given the amounts of plutonium they have 
     produced. ``We should not rule that out.''
       Taylor noted that the Administration's announcement of 
     Patriot deployment plans also satisfies congressional critics 
     who have been urging that the U.S. bolster its defenses in 
     Korea. But at the same time, it would undercut long-standing 
     U.S. efforts to get the South Koreans to buy Patriot systems 
     of their own. ``Forget Raytheon selling it to them if we 
     bring it in,'' he said.
       Rep. John P. Murtha (D.-Pa.) said Korea will be the first 
     major foreign policy test of the Clinton Administration. 
     ``Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia don't amount to anything compared to 
     Korea.''
       The chairman of the House Appropriations defense 
     subcommittee said he expected ``a confrontation'' with North 
     Korea this year over the issue of nuclear weapons. ``I think 
     it's so serious we have to consider the ultimate, and that's 
     military action.''
       Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper, director of the 
     Defense Intelligence Agency, said he did not think war was 
     ``imminent or inevitable.'' Despite recent movements to 
     concentrate more of its forces along the demilitarized zone, 
     Clapper said there are ``significant shortcomings in force 
     capabilities that Pyongyang would prefer to correct before 
     initiating military hostilities.'' But he also noted that 
     North Korea has no desire to become another East Germany and 
     ``it could find itself without attractive alternatives.''
       U.S. Air Force officials said there has been ``a lot of 
     planning, a lot of what-if-ing'' in terms of a potential 
     conflict in Korea, but there has been no recent surge of 
     activity. It has been at ``a pretty constant level for the 
     last six or seven months,'' one official said. However, 
     Woolsey has asked the intelligence community ``to undertake 
     additional specific steps to ensure strong intelligence 
     support to our military forces [in Korea].''

                          ____________________