[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1437-E1438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         THE B-2: A PERFECT WEAPON FOR THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD

                                 ______


                            HON. JANE HARMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 13, 1995
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues an article by Charles Krauthammer that appeared in today's 
edition of the Washington Post.
  I believe that Mr. Krauthammer presents cogent and powerful arguments 
for continued production of B-2 bombers. He points out that only the B-
2, with its long range, can deploy from secure U.S. bases on short 
notice and is invulnerable to enemy counterattack. It is the kind of 
weapon the United States needs for the post-cold war world.
  I recommend Mr. Krauthammer's article to my colleagues:
               [From the Washington Post, July 13, 1995]

                    The B-2 and the ``Cheap Hawks''

                        (By Charles Krauthammer)

       We hear endless blather about how new and complicated the 
     post-Cold War world is. Hence the endless confusion about 
     what weapons to build, forces to deploy, contingency to 
     anticipate. But there are three simple, glaringly obvious 
     facts about this new era:
       (1) America is coming home. The day of the overseas base is 
     over. In 1960, the United States had 90 major Air Force bases 
     overseas. Today, we have 17. Decolonization is one reason. 
     Newly emerging countries like the Philippines do not want the 
     kind of Big Brother domination that comes with facilities 
     like Clark Air Base and Subic Bay. The other reason has to do 
     with us: With the Soviets gone, we do not want the huge 
     expense of maintaining a far-flung, global military 
     establishment.
       (2) America cannot endure casualties. It is inconceivable 
     that the United States, or any other Western country, could 
     ever again fight a war of attrition like Korea or Vietnam. 
     One reason is the CNN effect. TV brings home the reality of 
     battle with a graphic immediacy unprecedented in human 
     history. The other reason, as strategist Edward Luttwak has 
     pointed out, is demographic: Advanced industrial countries 
     have very small families, and small families are less willing 
     than the large families of the past to risk their only 
     children in combat.
       (3) America's next war will be a surprise. Nothing new 
     here. Our last one was too. Who expected Saddam to invade 
     Kuwait? And even after he did, who really expected the 

[[Page E 1438]]
     United States to send a half-million man expeditionary force to roll 
     him back? Then again, who predicted Pearl Harbor, the 
     invasion of South Korea, the Falklands War?
       What kind of weapon, then, is needed by a country that is 
     losing its foreign bases, is allergic to casualties and will 
     have little time to mobilize for tomorrow's unexpected 
     provocation?
       Answer: A weapon that can be deployed at very long 
     distances from secure American bases, is invulnerable to 
     enemy counterattack and is deployable instantly. You would 
     want, in other words, the B-2 stealth bomber.
       We have it. Yet, amazingly, Congress may be on the verge of 
     killing it. After more than $20 billion in development 
     costs--costs irrecoverable whether we build another B-2 or 
     not--the B-2 is facing a series of crucial votes in Congress 
     that could dismantle its assembly lines once and for all.
       The B-2 is not a partisan project. Its development was 
     begun under Jimmy Carter. And, as an urgent letter to 
     President Clinton makes clear, it is today supported by seven 
     secretaries of defense representing every administration 
     going back to 1969.
       They support it because it is the perfect weapon for the 
     post-Cold War world. It has a range of about 7,000 miles. It 
     can be launched instantly--no need to beg foreign dictators 
     for base rights; no need for weeks of advance warning, 
     mobilization and forward deployment of troops. And because it 
     is invisible to enemy detection, its two pilots are virtually 
     invulnerable.
       This is especially important in view of the B-2's very high 
     cost, perhaps three-quarters to a billion dollars a copy. The 
     cost is, of course, what has turned swing Republican votes--
     the so-called ``cheap hawks''--against the B-2.
       But the dollar cost of a weapon is too narrow a calculation 
     of its utility. The more important calculation is cost in 
     American lives. The reasons are not sentimental but 
     practical. Weapons cheap in dollars but costly in lives are, 
     in the current and coming environment, literally useless: We 
     will not use them. A country that so values the life of every 
     Capt. O'Grady is a country that cannot keep blindly relying 
     on non-stealthy aircraft over enemy territory.
       Stealth planes are not just invulnerable themselves. 
     Because they do not need escort, they spare the lives of the 
     pilots and the fighters and radar suppression planes that 
     ordinarily accompany bombers. Moreover, if the B-2 is killed, 
     we are stuck with our fleet of B-52s of 1950's origin. 
     According to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, 
     the Clinton administration assumes the United States will 
     rely on B-52s until the year 2030--when they will be 65 years 
     old!
       In the Persian Gulf War, the stealthy F-117 fighter flew 
     only 2 percent of the missions but hit 40 percent of the 
     targets. It was, in effect, about 30 times as productive as 
     non-stealthy planes. The F-117, however, has a short range 
     and thus must be deployed from forward bases. The B-2 can 
     take off from home. Moreover, the B-2 carries about eight 
     times the payload of the F-117. Which means that one B-2 can 
     strike, without escort and with impunity, as many targets as 
     vast fleets of conventional aircraft. Factor in these costs, 
     and the B-2 becomes cost-effective even in dollar terms.
       The final truth of the post-Cold War world is that someday 
     someone is going to attack some safe haven we feel compelled 
     to defend, or invade a country whose security is important to 
     us, or build an underground nuclear bomb factory that 
     threatens to kill millions of Americans. We are going to want 
     a way to attack instantly, massively and invisibly. We have 
     the weapon to do it, a weapon that no one else has and that 
     no one can stop. Except a ``cheap hawk,'' shortsighted 
     Republican Congress.
     

                          ____________________