U.S. European Command,
July 20, 1995.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nunn: The recent Senate Armed Services Committee mark-up concerning the MEADS/Corps SAM program directly impacts USEUCOM and NATO's ability to fight and win on the future battlefield, USEUCOM and NATO have a critical need for MEADS.
Missile defense is one of my very top priorities. While the `Core' US Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems (PAC-III, Navy lower-tier and THAAD) play a central role in defending US interests and forces, they do not provide the mobility and force protection required to defend against emerging air and cruise missile threats. These limitations provide our potential enemies a window of opportunity to attack perceived vulnerabilities in protection of our forces and/or national interests. Core TMD programs alone simply do not provide sufficient operational capability to meet our security requirements.
The MEADS/Corps SAM program will enable the US to protect its regional interests against a wide spectrum of threats. Excepting long range strategic missiles currently deployed by only a few countries, there is no direct missile threat to the continental United States today. Conversely this theater faces a range of systems that could directly threaten US interests and US/Allied forces. Many nations in and around the European Theater (especially in our Southern Region) are developing and employing short range Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM), cruise missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) to exploit perceived US and Allied vulnerabilities.
In the European Theater, interoperability is absolutely vital. Further, NATO is the enabler for coalition operations elsewhere. The MEADS program improves both US and NATO operational capability through total interoperability. Having MEADS deployed with our allies would mean less reliance on strictly US assets to defend US and Allied Forces and interests.
MEADS has potentially significant economic and political benefits, as well. New TMD systems are so expensive that unilateral development and fielding often makes them unaffordable. Yet, with the Germans, French and Italians picking up 50% of the MEADS program costs, it appears that we can protect our forces and interests while realizing potentially large savings.
Politically, MEADS is a visible and important illustration of the US commitment to missile defense, to NATO, and to Europe. MEADS is a model for future transatlantic cooperation efforts. Terminating MEADS now would have serious ramifications in other ongoing cooperative ventures and raise yet another round of poignant questions about US intentions regarding leadership in NATO. Consequently, to protect US forces and our national interests, we must maintain the leadership and momentum for MEADS. Congressional support is critical. With it, MEADS can protect US interests and US/Allied forces from adversaries equipped with short range TBMs, cruise missiles and UAVs. Without MEADS, we will place future US and Allied forces at a serious risk. I urge continued development of MEADS.
Sincerely,
George A. Joulwan,
General, U.S. Army.