|
For Immediate Release
February 24, 2000
REPLACING CARRIERS WITH ARSENAL SHIPS WRONGHEADED
AND IT WOULD HURT PUGET SOUND AREA
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Former Senator Bill Bradley’s notion of replacing U.S. aircraft carriers with the so-called arsenal ship would be a wrongheaded defense strategy and it would represent a very negative impact for the Puget Sound area, which is home to two aircraft carriers and supporting ships, said U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.).
The congressman, who has served on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the House for more than 20 years, said he recently saw comments made by the former New Jersey senator at a debate in New Hampshire. "Since Senator Bradley is spending this week in our state, I believe it is appropriate to debate the issues that would have such a profound impact on the Northwest and which are entirely relevant to our selection of the next Commander-in-Chief," Dicks said.
The congressman took issue with a statement that Sen. Bradley made in New Hampshire in response to a question from moderator Judy Woodruff of CNN. In that debate on Jan. 26, 2000, Bradley said: "...we can make tough choices on investment in new technology as opposed to platforms. And we can look ahead to a time where things like the arsenal ship will be moving toward replacing the aircraft carrier and doing so with only 50 people aboard."
"To propose that arsenal ships – a concept dismissed by Congress – could replace aircraft carriers demonstrates an exceedingly thin background on defense issues. I think Senator Bradley spent too much time on the Senate Finance Committee and not enough time thinking about national defense," Rep. Dicks commented Thursday.
The concept of a low-profile arsenal ship carrying cruise missiles was studied in the mid-1990s by the Pentagon, but ultimately scuttled by Congress because it was judged not to be cost effective and it would be vulnerable to a broad array of an enemy’s weapons, according to Rep. Dicks. "Without the protection that a carrier has on board and around it," he said, "these ships would represent a large platform of U.S. weapons that would be of little military utility because they could be easily neutralized,"
The congressman said that a more survivable and cost-effective platform for cruise missiles – though not one that would replace carriers – would be the conversion of four yet-to-be decommissioned Trident submarines. "They would be submersible and thus survivable," he said.
"The reason we have carriers with the advanced fighter aircraft aboard and accompanying ships is to project power and to meet adversaries in any potential theater of conflict," the congressman added. Dicks represents Bremerton, which is home to the carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson. Naval Station Everett, across Puget Sound, is home to the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Each carrier has a crew of more than 3,000 and each is accompanied in its battle group by another seven support ships stationed at their respective home ports.
In addition, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton serves as the only nuclear-powered carrier overhaul yard on the west coast, employing nearly 8,000 people, Dicks said.
"In a state as important for national security as Washington, I believe we should have a serious discussion of defense issues, and I look forward to hearing a more detailed explanation of the Senator’s policy positions as he seeks the job of Commander-in-Chief." Dicks said. "If the arsenal ship is an example of one of his heralded ‘big ideas’ in this presidential campaign, I remain skeptical about the rest of his platform," the congressman stated.
[following is a more complete transcript of the 01/26/2000
debate exchange containing the comment in question]
TRANSCRIPT -- DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
JANUARY 26, 2000
[several pages of transcript precede this passage]
BRADLEY: The administration hasn't done that. The second thing that's important for us to do now is to tell Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- two countries that we protected in 1990-91-- to increase their oil production. If they increase their oil production, the prices would then drop. And with Saddam Hussein specifically, I think the most important thing is to diplomatically isolate him. I would not let sanctions go. I would keep sanctions on and try to keep him pinned down and surrounded through diplomatic effort.
WOODRUFF: This is a follow-up. Desert Storm, which you opposed, was successful because the U.S. military had the resources that it needed, and many critics today say that there is a huge readiness problem in our military. You are the only presidential candidate who has said he is not for increased military spending. My question is, how do you know that this is not going to leave the United States' national security position in a vulnerable state?
BRADLEY: Because we're heading to a new age, Judy. We no longer have to fight the Cold War. We have a defense budget that resembles the Cold War defense budget. We don't have to protect Europe against the possibility that Soviet tanks would move across the North German plain. We have new threats on the horizon. So we can eliminate certain weapons systems that are from the Cold War. We can also consolidate bases much more than we have. And we can make tough choices on investment in new technology as opposed to platforms. And we can look ahead to a time where things like the arsenal ship will be moving toward replacing the aircraft carrier and doing so with only 50 people on board.
WOODRUFF: All right, a question now to Mr. Gore, also international policy question. Chechnya -- the Clinton/Gore administration is continuing to back international financial support for Russia, loans, despite the brutal war in Chechnya, in which, as you know, Russian soldiers have killed many, many civilians. Why is your administration not willing to do anything truly tough toward Russia given these circumstances?
Source: Associated Press
Home >> Newsroom >> Press Releases
|
