 |
 |
|||
    |
Washington, D.C...In a new analysis of costs of national missile defense based on a report issued today by the Congressional Budget Office, Council for a Livable World and the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers estimate that the cost of the preferred Republican option of a layered defense would total at least $120 billion through 2015. [The CBO report is available on their web page: http://www.cbo.gov/] Many Republicans claim that the Clinton Administration's proposed land-based system is inadequate; instead, they prefer a defense that includes land, sea, and space interceptors. For example, they endorse placing interceptors on Aegis ships, a plan they believe would be cheap and quick. Yet a 1999 Pentagon analysis estimated that this plan would cost $14.5-$17.5 billion. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of space-based lasers would be $27.5 billion and space-based interceptors $18.25 billion. Total cost: $119.7 - $122.7 billion. And the costs are likely to sky rocket still more. John Isaacs, the Council's president agreed: "If Americans are having sticker shock over the Congressional Budget Office's new estimate that the Clinton program will cost $60 billion, wait until they see what Republicans have in mind." Daryl Kimball, the Coalition's executive director, accused the Pentagon of using low cost estimates to convince Congress to buy in, only to have the price rise later on. "It is time for the Pentagon to play it straight with the American people; it is proposing a costly and little-tested technology that is of dubious effectiveness," said Kimball. Earlier this year, the Pentagon discussed spending $12.7 billion on National Missile Defense over the next six years. Since that time, the cost estimates have been shooting upwards. In an April 12, 2000 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, the director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, conceded that the numbers were changing: "So my view is that it is not an attempt to misrepresent the cost of this program, but we have to be precise in what question is being asked." Many Republican politicians have made it clear that if George W. Bush is elected, they intend to push for a multi-layered national missile defense. Just last week, 25 Republican Senators sent a letter to President Clinton criticizing as inadequate the land-based missile defense system planned in Alaska and North Dakota. The letter stated: "The [Administration] approach fails to permit the deployment of other promising missile defense technologies " including space-based sensors,...and additional interceptor basing modes, like Navy systems and the Airborne Laser " that we believe are necessary to achieve a fully effective defense against a full range of possible threats." If Republicans regain the White House, it will be full throttle towards $120 billion and beyond.
Potential Cost of Deploying A Layered National Missile Defense Cost: Program: $48.8 billion Current Clinton plans for ground-based
NMD2 ====================== 1 Assessments for ground-based NMD include costs for the years 1996-2015. All other systems assume deployment in 2010 and calculate program costs until 2015. 2 April 2000. "Budgetary and Technical Implications of the Administration's Plan for National Missile Defense," Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 3 Ibid, CBO chose to keep the number separate, as SBIRS-low has other purposes 4 June 9, 1999. "Report to Congress on the Utility of Sea-Based Assets to National Missile Defense." Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. 5 May 15, 1996. "Budgetary Implications of S. 1635, The Defend America Act of 1996." CBO letter to Chairman Floyd Spence 6 July 26, 1996. "Answers to Questions Posed by Senators Exon and Drogan." CBO letter. 7 May 15, 1996. "Budgetary Implications of S. 1635, The Defend America Act of 1996." CBO letter to Chairman Floyd Spence 8 July 26, 1996. "Answers to Questions
Posed by Senators Exon and Drogan." CBO letter
Return to Global Beat Home Page Nuclear Watch | Balkan Conflicts | East Asian Security | EU Integration & Enlargement | Middle East | NATO Expansion | Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation | South Asian Security | U.S. Defense Policy | Publications | Events | |