The Clinton-Gore administration — which frequently speaks with
forked tongue — is currently trying to convince gullible congressmen
that Clinton-Gore — like many Republican congressmen — want to deploy
a Regional antiballistic missile defense (ABM) to defend America against
“nuke” missile attack. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is let in on
the Clinton-Gore secret: The Clinton-Gore “bullet hits bullet” ABM
system is just one more “stealth vehicle” for achieving unilateral U.S.
nuke disarmament. Congress appears to not understand the significance of
the Clinton-Gore decision to forswear the use of U.S. nuke warheads in
our ABM defense system.

The proposed Clinton-Gore ABM system — which is sometimes “spun” as
having been initiated in the Reagan Era — relies on “hitting a bullet
with a bullet.” But the ground-based ABM system proposed by Ronald
Reagan never envisaged “hitting” thousands (or even a few) of incoming
Soviet nuke reentry vehicles with inert “bullets,” smart or otherwise,
nor did the space-based (Star Wars) ABM system proposed by Ronald Reagan
ever envisage hitting a thousand (or even a few) Soviet ICBMs in the
launch or boost phase with inert “bullets.” Reagan would have used
“nukes” for ABM defense — enhanced radiation devices that the U.S. had
spent several decades and many billions of dollars developing, testing,
producing and stockpiling for exactly that purpose.

(We had reason to believe that the Soviet Union already had a similar
stockpile of enhanced radiation warheads, and nearly all our ICBM nuke
warhead development during the ’70s was for the purpose of making our
nuke reentry vehicles as invulnerable as practically possible to those
Soviet ABM enhanced radiation devices.)

There was a Reagan-era anti-satellite system that was successfully
tested that did not rely on nukes, but relied, instead, on “hitting” and
destroying “spy” satellites in near-earth orbit with an inert “bullet.”
(There was also a Reagan-era program for attempting to “blind” spy
satellites with high-power pulsed lasers.) The problem that the Reagan
“bullet hits satellite” system faced is of the same nature — but far
less forbidding — as that faced by the Clinton-Gore “bullet hits
bullet” ABM system. Unlike a ballistic missile launched against the
United States from some unpredictable location at some unpredictable
time, a spy satellite is in a well-known and fairly predictable
near-earth orbit. The Reagan era anti-satellite “bullet” would have
been mounted on an Air-to-Air Missile, and the AAM carried by an F-15
fighter aircraft, which would have been vectored to the precise location
and to the precise heading so as to “zoom” up and launch the “bullet” at
the satellite soon to be passing overhead. (The high-power pulsed-beam
laser was mounted in an Air Force 747 and would have been similarly
vectored into position to attack.) The target acquisition ‘window’ for
attacking the offending spy satellite would have been measured in hours,
perhaps days, rather than the minutes that will be available to the
Clinton-Gore ABM system.
Because a “spy” satellite does not pose the same degree of threat to our
nation that thousands of incoming nukes do, if an all-out nuke exchange
has not already been initiated, and we really, really want to blind an
offending spy satellite, it would be foolish to risk starting an all-out
nuke exchange by using a nuke to blind it. So, in the Reagan era, the
U.S. had non-nuke (as well as nuke) options for “blinding” spy
satellites in near-earth orbit. (The Soviet anti-satellite system
involved launching a nuke into near-earth orbit, which was then vectored
into close proximity to the offending spy satellite.) But when it came
to destroying incoming nukes, which of ballistic necessity would be
traversing relatively well defined “corridors” in space, both the U.S.
and the Soviet Union intended to rely on huge stockpiles of nukes
(exo-atmospherically detonated enhanced radiation devices) carried aloft
by ground-based missiles well positioned at the terminal of ICBM attack

So what is the Clinton-Gore rationale for forswearing the tried and
true (and least for only a few incoming nukes at a time) ABM nuke
option? Why do Clinton-Gore insist on trying to hit bullets with
bullets if they don’t have to? For congressional and public
consumption, the Clinton-Gore rationale is that some of the incoming
warheads delivered by ballistic missile are not likely to be nukes, but
rather hollow “bullets” filled with chemical biological agents.
Clinton-Gore claim that the enhanced radiation ABM nukes developed
specifically to “kill” incoming nukes will not “kill” incoming chem-bio
filled bullets. That’s what they claim.

But it seems far more likely that the Clinton-Gore rationale for
forswearing a nuke ABM system is that their “bullet hits bullet” system
is really just another “stealth” vehicle for accomplishing nuke
disarmament. The real Clinton-Gore rationale is that they fully intend
to get rid of the entire U.S. nuke stockpile as fast as Congress will
let them, including the exo-atmospheric enhanced radiation devices, and
this “bullet hits bullet” ABM system is just one more “stealth” vehicle
to sneak unilateral nuke disarmament past a gullible and unwitting

Dr. Prather has been actively involved with Department of Energy National LABs, federal agencies, U.S. universities, U.S. private sector firms, congressional members and committee staff in seeking to ameliorate the radiological, environmental, health, safety and — above all — the nuclear weapons proliferation consequences of the collapse, first, of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 and then the Soviet Union in 1991.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.