Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Discussion of Limited Missile Defense System
Aired December 18, 2002 - 07:32 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: OK, back to the issue of a limited missile defense system that the administration plans to have up and running by the year 2004. The deployment decision fulfills a campaign promise, but also raises a number of questions, most importantly, will it work? So far, the testing of U.S. missile interceptors has had mixed results.
Joining us now to debate the merits of the president's plan, from Washington, Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Defense Policy.
Welcome back.
FRANK GAFFNEY, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR DEFENSE POLICY: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: And Joseph Cirincione with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Good to see you, as well.
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Good morning.
ZAHN: OK, I'm going to start with you, Joe, this morning. Will this plan work?
CIRINCIONE: Well, this may go down in history as Bush's folly. For the first time, a president is deploying a major weapons system without really knowing whether it will work or not. It has had eight tests, has failed most of them and the system that we're planning to deploy in Alaska will cost approximately $30 billion and doesn't yet have the radar or even the interceptors or the satellites that are necessary. We're basically making this up as we go along.
It wouldn't be so bad except that $30 million is coming away from other vitally needed defense programs. So if you're in uniform and you're worried about your training, your health care, your housing, that your weapons programs are being cut because of budget cuts, you should be worried about our priorities at this point.
ZAHN: Frank, I want you to react to not only what Joe just said, but what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said yesterday about the whole notion of this plan not being fully developed, or at least the technology.
Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I like the feeling, the idea of beginning and putting something in the ground or in the air or at sea and getting comfortable with it and using it and testing it and learning from that. A lot of things just don't arrive fully developed, full blown, and there it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: All right, Frank, so if it's not fully developed now, when will it be?
GAFFNEY: Paula, as you know better than practically everybody, every day's headlines bring us new news of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether it's in Iraq, whether it's in Iran, most recently the stories out of North Korea. And specifically the story about the ship that was intercepted off the coast of Yemen in the Arabian Sea with SCUD missiles.
The problem is those SCUD missiles could be turned over now already to al Qaeda or other operatives in Yemen or SCUD missiles like them elsewhere could be on ships off our coast...
ZAHN: Well, we understand that, Frank. But...
GAFFNEY: So this is an emergency situation and I would argue that Donald Rumsfeld is exactly right, we ought to be putting these things into place as quickly as we can. Most Americans, Paula, think we already have a missile defense in place. This is unfortunately not the case. What the administration is doing, I think correctly, perhaps not even as urgently as it should be, but nonetheless taking the steps to correct what is the single most egregious vulnerability this country faces today, simply because we have no defense whatsoever against this obvious and growing danger.
ZAHN: Well, Joe, what about the point Frank just made, that you have to in some way confront this threat from terrorist nations and you've got to start someplace?
CIRINCIONE: You absolutely do, and that's why a missile defense is a diversion from our efforts on the war on terrorism. Terrorists don't have missiles. What are we talking about, the possibility that some time in the future North Korea may have a missile that might be able to hit us? Obviously, if we saw North Korea erecting a missile we would take it out before it was launched.
The war on terrorism is where our priorities should be, and that has nothing to do with missile defense. That's why the biggest danger of this is not just that it violates all our procurement standards, not just that it's going to sink $30 billion in some frozen rat holes in Alaska, but it's a diversion from our true defense needs.
GAFFNEY: Yes, but, Paula, look, I don't think Joe was listening to what I just said. If that ship with SCUD missiles -- either that ship or another ship, and there's some 25,000 of them at sea any time -- had a SCUD missile on a launcher, it could be fired at New York, it could be fired at Washington, it could be fired at Los Angeles or many of the population centers close to our coasts...
CIRINCIONE: But the Alaska system has nothing...
GAFFNEY: ... with no warning whatsoever and the most important part for my money of this decision was putting missile defenses at sea, where they could begin very quickly, thanks to the fact that we already have these ships which can be modified quickly to take missile defenses aboard, to provide us some protection against that danger.
This is part and parcel of the war on terror and Joe doesn't get it, I guess, but the problem is...
CIRINCIONE: Two quick points, Frank.
GAFFNEY: ... the terrorists are likely to do things differently the next time. This would be an optimal way to do mass destruction to this country because, as I said, at the moment we have no defense against it at all.
CIRINCIONE: Two quick points. Frank...
ZAHN: All right, Joe, make two quick points and then address the issue very quickly as to whether this ever could have privatized 9/11.
CIRINCIONE: Sure. Well, obviously it has nothing to do with 9/11.
GAFFNEY: That's not the point. It's the next 9/11.
CIRINCIONE: There is no 9/11 involving missiles. What the terrorist threat that we face is terrorists using the tools that they have, hijacking airplanes, attacking critical infrastructure, maybe chemical or biological weapons. It has nothing to do with missiles.
GAFFNEY: Unless they have them.
CIRINCIONE: Frank's not paying attention.
GAFFNEY: Unless they have them, Joe.
CIRINCIONE: The SCUDs that went to Yemen are short range missiles...
GAFFNEY: Off the coasts. They're dangerous.
CIRINCIONE: ... that the Alaska system has nothing to do with long -- short range missiles.
GAFFNEY: They're (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CIRINCIONE: If the terrorists were to get a SCUD, for whatever reason, why would you go through the trouble of putting it on a ship and bringing it into the harbor? Why don't you just put your weapon of mass destruction on the ship itself, bring it into the harbor and detonate it?
GAFFNEY: Paula, there's a very good answer to that...
CIRINCIONE: We have to pay attention to the way terrorists operate.
GAFFNEY: That's a...
CIRINCIONE: If terrorists are...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Hang on. Hang on. I can't understand both of you. Joe, finish your thought.
GAFFNEY: Paula, a very quick answer is...
ZAHN: Joe, please finish your thought.
GAFFNEY: If you...
CIRINCIONE: The terrorists do the quick, easy and simple and secure way of attacking us. They're not going to take this complicated route of jerry rigging a SCUD missile on a cargo ship off the coast of New Jersey.
GAFFNEY: May I explain why they would?
ZAHN: Yes, go ahead. You have 10 seconds.
GAFFNEY: Ten seconds. If you detonate a device at ground level, it doesn't have nearly the destructive impact that you do if you detonate it at altitude. That's why this will be the next terrorist tool of choice, I'm afraid, because we have no defense against it. I hope we'll get it in place before we need it.
CIRINCIONE: Well, this debate is not going to be over any time soon. I expect this to be a key issue in the new Congress.
GAFFNEY: I do, too.
ZAHN: And I expect to bring both of you back at some point to continue to debate this.
Frank Gaffney, Joseph Cirincione, thank you both for your time this morning.
CIRINCIONE: Happy holidays.
ZAHN: Appreciate -- you, too.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 18, 2002 - 07:32 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: OK, back to the issue of a limited missile defense system that the administration plans to have up and running by the year 2004. The deployment decision fulfills a campaign promise, but also raises a number of questions, most importantly, will it work? So far, the testing of U.S. missile interceptors has had mixed results.
Joining us now to debate the merits of the president's plan, from Washington, Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Defense Policy.
Welcome back.
FRANK GAFFNEY, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR DEFENSE POLICY: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: And Joseph Cirincione with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Good to see you, as well.
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Good morning.
ZAHN: OK, I'm going to start with you, Joe, this morning. Will this plan work?
CIRINCIONE: Well, this may go down in history as Bush's folly. For the first time, a president is deploying a major weapons system without really knowing whether it will work or not. It has had eight tests, has failed most of them and the system that we're planning to deploy in Alaska will cost approximately $30 billion and doesn't yet have the radar or even the interceptors or the satellites that are necessary. We're basically making this up as we go along.
It wouldn't be so bad except that $30 million is coming away from other vitally needed defense programs. So if you're in uniform and you're worried about your training, your health care, your housing, that your weapons programs are being cut because of budget cuts, you should be worried about our priorities at this point.
ZAHN: Frank, I want you to react to not only what Joe just said, but what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said yesterday about the whole notion of this plan not being fully developed, or at least the technology.
Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I like the feeling, the idea of beginning and putting something in the ground or in the air or at sea and getting comfortable with it and using it and testing it and learning from that. A lot of things just don't arrive fully developed, full blown, and there it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: All right, Frank, so if it's not fully developed now, when will it be?
GAFFNEY: Paula, as you know better than practically everybody, every day's headlines bring us new news of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether it's in Iraq, whether it's in Iran, most recently the stories out of North Korea. And specifically the story about the ship that was intercepted off the coast of Yemen in the Arabian Sea with SCUD missiles.
The problem is those SCUD missiles could be turned over now already to al Qaeda or other operatives in Yemen or SCUD missiles like them elsewhere could be on ships off our coast...
ZAHN: Well, we understand that, Frank. But...
GAFFNEY: So this is an emergency situation and I would argue that Donald Rumsfeld is exactly right, we ought to be putting these things into place as quickly as we can. Most Americans, Paula, think we already have a missile defense in place. This is unfortunately not the case. What the administration is doing, I think correctly, perhaps not even as urgently as it should be, but nonetheless taking the steps to correct what is the single most egregious vulnerability this country faces today, simply because we have no defense whatsoever against this obvious and growing danger.
ZAHN: Well, Joe, what about the point Frank just made, that you have to in some way confront this threat from terrorist nations and you've got to start someplace?
CIRINCIONE: You absolutely do, and that's why a missile defense is a diversion from our efforts on the war on terrorism. Terrorists don't have missiles. What are we talking about, the possibility that some time in the future North Korea may have a missile that might be able to hit us? Obviously, if we saw North Korea erecting a missile we would take it out before it was launched.
The war on terrorism is where our priorities should be, and that has nothing to do with missile defense. That's why the biggest danger of this is not just that it violates all our procurement standards, not just that it's going to sink $30 billion in some frozen rat holes in Alaska, but it's a diversion from our true defense needs.
GAFFNEY: Yes, but, Paula, look, I don't think Joe was listening to what I just said. If that ship with SCUD missiles -- either that ship or another ship, and there's some 25,000 of them at sea any time -- had a SCUD missile on a launcher, it could be fired at New York, it could be fired at Washington, it could be fired at Los Angeles or many of the population centers close to our coasts...
CIRINCIONE: But the Alaska system has nothing...
GAFFNEY: ... with no warning whatsoever and the most important part for my money of this decision was putting missile defenses at sea, where they could begin very quickly, thanks to the fact that we already have these ships which can be modified quickly to take missile defenses aboard, to provide us some protection against that danger.
This is part and parcel of the war on terror and Joe doesn't get it, I guess, but the problem is...
CIRINCIONE: Two quick points, Frank.
GAFFNEY: ... the terrorists are likely to do things differently the next time. This would be an optimal way to do mass destruction to this country because, as I said, at the moment we have no defense against it at all.
CIRINCIONE: Two quick points. Frank...
ZAHN: All right, Joe, make two quick points and then address the issue very quickly as to whether this ever could have privatized 9/11.
CIRINCIONE: Sure. Well, obviously it has nothing to do with 9/11.
GAFFNEY: That's not the point. It's the next 9/11.
CIRINCIONE: There is no 9/11 involving missiles. What the terrorist threat that we face is terrorists using the tools that they have, hijacking airplanes, attacking critical infrastructure, maybe chemical or biological weapons. It has nothing to do with missiles.
GAFFNEY: Unless they have them.
CIRINCIONE: Frank's not paying attention.
GAFFNEY: Unless they have them, Joe.
CIRINCIONE: The SCUDs that went to Yemen are short range missiles...
GAFFNEY: Off the coasts. They're dangerous.
CIRINCIONE: ... that the Alaska system has nothing to do with long -- short range missiles.
GAFFNEY: They're (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CIRINCIONE: If the terrorists were to get a SCUD, for whatever reason, why would you go through the trouble of putting it on a ship and bringing it into the harbor? Why don't you just put your weapon of mass destruction on the ship itself, bring it into the harbor and detonate it?
GAFFNEY: Paula, there's a very good answer to that...
CIRINCIONE: We have to pay attention to the way terrorists operate.
GAFFNEY: That's a...
CIRINCIONE: If terrorists are...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Hang on. Hang on. I can't understand both of you. Joe, finish your thought.
GAFFNEY: Paula, a very quick answer is...
ZAHN: Joe, please finish your thought.
GAFFNEY: If you...
CIRINCIONE: The terrorists do the quick, easy and simple and secure way of attacking us. They're not going to take this complicated route of jerry rigging a SCUD missile on a cargo ship off the coast of New Jersey.
GAFFNEY: May I explain why they would?
ZAHN: Yes, go ahead. You have 10 seconds.
GAFFNEY: Ten seconds. If you detonate a device at ground level, it doesn't have nearly the destructive impact that you do if you detonate it at altitude. That's why this will be the next terrorist tool of choice, I'm afraid, because we have no defense against it. I hope we'll get it in place before we need it.
CIRINCIONE: Well, this debate is not going to be over any time soon. I expect this to be a key issue in the new Congress.
GAFFNEY: I do, too.
ZAHN: And I expect to bring both of you back at some point to continue to debate this.
Frank Gaffney, Joseph Cirincione, thank you both for your time this morning.
CIRINCIONE: Happy holidays.
ZAHN: Appreciate -- you, too.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
