TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/040891/04081013.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.5 KB | 125 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 28

More Billions For Arms


By ED MAGNUSON -- Reported by Nancy Traver/Washington


    Proud as punch of the Patriot? Amazed at the quiet swish
and lethal accuracy of the Tomahawk? Awed by the Apache
helicopter and its tank-killing Hellfire missile? So, too, are
the U.S. military services, the Bush Administration, the
Congress -- and a host of defense contractors eager to turn the
war-born popularity of their fearsome weapons into a new splurge
of arms spending and big profits. Such is the congressional
passion for these high-tech marvels that a new "war dividend"
of great value to many people -- but decidedly not to the
beleaguered American taxpayer -- is being doled out on Capitol
Hill.

    The gulf war has sharply transformed the survival
prospects for some of the military's most expensive weapons
systems. Before confronting Saddam Hussein's forces, the $1.1
million Bradley fighting vehicle had been derided as a firetrap
that left its underprotected three-member crew vulnerable to a
fiery death from an enemy hit. The $3.2 million M1A1 Abrams tank
was criticized as an overpriced gas-guzzler prone to mechanical
breakdowns. The $11.7 million Apache was depicted as difficult
to maintain in a desert. The Patriot was just another overpriced
antiaircraft weapon never tested against missiles in combat. But
now, says Gordon Adams, director of the independent Defense
Budget Project, "defense contractors all say the war proved
their weapon is ironclad, gold-plated and a surefire winner."

    The nation's lawmakers are all too ready to agree. Always
happy to protect home-state industry, they can now point to the
sterling war records of various weapons and to recent polls
showing that 70% of Americans have gained a higher respect for
their manufacturers. If the systems are so good, they argue, why
not buy more of them?

    Democratic legislators have an extra incentive to support
a binge of defense spending: most of them voted against giving
George Bush a green light to start the war. Now they may be even
more anxious than the Republicans to push new weapons. Contends
Lawrence Korb, an Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan
Administration: "The Democrats on Capitol Hill are in shell
shock. To stand up against the Patriot now would be
unpatriotic."

    So it was that a recent vote on a $15 billion supplemental
appropriation, ostensibly to pay for the gulf war, passed
overwhelmingly (92-8 in the Senate, 379-11 in the House). The
appropriation was conveniently placed "off budget," meaning that
it is exempt from a requirement that any new spending must be
balanced by cuts elsewhere. It includes hundreds of millions for
weapons that had been targeted for either budgetary death or a
fate close to it before the war, and will add $2.9 billion to
a deficit estimated at $308 billion for the current fiscal year.
Some examples:



    Patriot. The missiles, which cost about $900,000 each
earlier this year, were to be phased out in next year's budget
because the 3,200 in Army inventories were sufficient. Only
about 130 were used in the war. Nonetheless, an additional $214
million was included in the appropriation to buy 158 of the
missiles. They cost more, it was explained, because they are
being improved.



    Multiple Launch Rocket System. The MLRS, which is mobile
and can rapidly fire surface-to-surface missiles more than 20
miles, had also been doomed to no new purchases next year. Now
20,286 of the rockets used by the launchers will be bought for
$152 million. The Army already has 312,057 of the missiles on
hand.



    Maverick. These air-to-ground guided missiles proved less
effective than some others, often missing their target, and no
new buys had been scheduled for next year. But $370 million has
been appropriated to buy 5,000 new Mavericks to join the 11,500
in Air Force stockpiles.



    Hellfire. Carried by the Apache, only 112 of the antitank
missiles were to be bought next year. Though 29,500 were still
in the arsenal, that number was deemed insufficient and $42.4
million has been assigned to purchase 1,063 more of them.

    Beyond the new money already voted, the battle to keep
other endangered species alive has gained new support.
Congressmen from New York and Maryland are trying to save the
Navy's possibly obsolescent F-14 fighter, even though the
Pentagon warns that will mean cutting production of more
versatile F/A-18 fighter-bombers. The Apache, the Bradley, and
the M1A1 Abrams may also escape the knife wielded by Secretary
of Defense Dick Cheney. He wants to stop their production as
part of a drive to slash defense spending by 1996 to 34% under
that in 1985.

    The sudden public adulation of American technology, long
seen as sinking under Japan's rising sun, has even revived the
Northrop Corp.'s hopes for its flawed and perhaps missionless
B-2 bomber. The California company has launched a furious
campaign to get more money for an aircraft that carries an $865
million price tag. The company and the Pentagon claim that the
B-2 can destroy Soviet mobile missiles dispersed in millions of
square miles of thick forests. Never mind that Saddam Hussein
launched Scud missiles for weeks from sites in the open desert
while a huge force of allied warplanes tried to find them. When
it comes to buying weapons, it seems, cost is no object and
logic goes out the window.