[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3205-S3206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AN ANNIVERSARY TO REMEMBER
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this past Saturday, March 23, marked the
13th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's address to the Nation in
which he outlined a vision of the future based on the common sense
wisdom of developing a national defense against missile attack.
To commemorate this occasion, I ask unanimous consent that a
transcript of President Reagan's remarks on missile defense from this
historic speech be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on that day in 1983, President Reagan
announced his decision to begin the long march away from the suicidal
defense doctrine known as mutual assured destruction. In one bold
stroke, he singlehandedly committed the Nation to an intense research
and development program designed to harness our technology to the task
of countering the threat posed by ballistic missiles, and to do it with
measures that are defensive. Wouldn't it be better, he asked, ``to save
lives rather than to avenge them?''
In retrospect, we can see that it was a speech that truly rocked the
world. In the context of the closing strategy of the cold war, it posed
the decisive final challenge to the Soviet Union. Three years later, at
the Reykjavik Summit, extraordinary Soviet efforts to deter Reagan from
his commitment to missile defense failed. As a result, the evil
empire's days were numbered and Soviet leader Gorbachev knew it.
In the context of domestic politics, Reagan's 1983 speech ignited a
passionate debate over defense policy which still continues today.
Within just hours after the speech, one of our distinguished colleagues
in this body coined the term star wars. Opponents claimed Reagan's idea
was a fantasy, that he wanted a perfect astrodome defense which would
cost trillions of dollars.
Despite such rhetoric, in the context of science and technology, the
speech helped focus inquiries on numerous fronts which led to
remarkable breakthroughs. Is it technically feasible, at an affordable
cost, to ``intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before
they reach our own soil or that of
[[Page S3206]]
our allies?'' In 1983, many critics answered ``no.'' Today, such
questions are themselves--as Reagan would say--largely ``impotent and
obsolete.''
But still, 13 years later, America has not deployed, nor is it
committed to deploy, any national missile defense system. Why? In a
fundamental sense, the answer lies in the triumph of politics over
science. The real technological barriers have been broken. We have the
know-how. Even funding is no longer the real issue.
Rather, it is the many political barriers that remain, and they are
formidable. The Soviet Union is gone, and with it, the perceived threat
posed by its awesome missile arsenal. Proliferation of missiles to
other countries continues, but we are told that any real concern about
it is premature. Today's Democrat President, like the Democrat
Congresses before him, argues strenuously that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty should remain as the ``cornerstone'' of U.S. strategic
defense policy. It prohibits the deployment of effective defenses on
the theory that deterrence should rest solely on threat of instant
retaliation--the same theory President Reagan sought to transcend.
So the struggle for national missile defense continues. ``It will
take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts,'' President
Reagan said, and he was right.
Today, I stand proudly with those who remain committed to the moral
vision articulated by President Reagan: ``That the human spirit must be
capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by
threatening their existence.''
We will continue the efforts President Reagan began. And I hope, that
in marking this anniversary, we can take increased devotion to the
cause of world peace and freedom--that we can learn from the wisdom,
the foresight, the courage and the example of President Reagan.
Like Ronald Reagan before us, we pursue this cause not because some
public opinion poll told us it was the popular thing to do. We act
because we know it is the right thing to do for our country and for
future generations.
Exhibit 1
Address to the Nation on National Security By President Ronald Reagan,
March 23, 1983
The calls for cutting back the defense budget come in nice,
simple arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led the
democracies to neglect their defenses in the 1930's and
invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that
grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or
neglect.
This is why I'm speaking to you tonight--to urge you to
tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must
continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in
midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened
will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must
voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet
the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It's up
to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the
hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and
the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the
best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.
The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach it,
there is simply no alternative but to continue this year, in
this budget, to provide the resources we need to preserve the
peace and guarantee our freedom.
Now, thus far tonight I've shared with you my thoughts on
the problems of national security we must face together. My
predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on
other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power
and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the
advent of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly
directed toward deterrence of aggression through the promise
of retaliation.
This approach to stability through offensive threat has
worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing
nuclear war for more than three decades. in recent months,
however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the necessity to break out
of a future that relies solely on offensive retaliation for
our security.
Over the course of these discussions, I've become more and
more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable
of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings
by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe
we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing
tensions and for introducing greater stability into the
strategic calculus on both sides.
One of the most important contributions we can make is, of
course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly
nuclear arms. We're engaged right now in several negotiations
with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of
weapons. I will report to you a week from tomorrow my
thoughts on that score. But let me just say, I'm totally
committed to this course.
If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to
achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in
stabilizing the nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still
be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation, on mutual
threat. And that's a sad commentary on the human condition.
Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are
we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by
applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a
truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
After careful consultation with my advisers, including the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share
with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that
we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile
threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the
very strengths in technology that spawned our great
industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we
enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept
and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached
our own soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may
not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet,
current technology has attained a level of sophistication
where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will
take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There
will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be
successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must
remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and
maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But
isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world
from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.
In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions
in nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that
can be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At
the same time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a
conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by
improving our nonnuclear capabilities.
America does possess--now--the technologies to attain very
significant improvements in the effectiveness of our
conventional, nonnuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these
new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive
that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the
United States or its allies.
As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we
recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive
power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests
and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are
one. And no change in technology can or will alter that
reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments.
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations
and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with
offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an
aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these
considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific
community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons,
to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and
world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear
weapons impotent and obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty
and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our
allies, I'm taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term
research and development program to begin to achieve our
ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic
nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control
measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither
military superiority nor political advantage. Our only
purpose--one all people share--is to search for ways to
reduce the danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort
which holds the promise of changing the course of human
history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I
believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for
your prayers and your support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________