« PrécédentContinuer »
Over the years the Soviets have continued to deploy the long-range SA-5 and have repeatedly modified this system. Further deployment and upgrading are probable to enhance the SA-5's capability to work in conjunction with low-altitude systems like the SA-10.
The SA-10 has some capability against lowaltitude targets with small radar cross-sections, such as cruise missiles. The first SA-10 site was operational in 1980. Over 60 sites are now operational, and work is progressing on at least another 30. More than half of these sites are located near Moscow; this emphasis on Moscow and the patterns noted for the other SA-10 sites suggest a first priority on terminal defense of command and control, military, and key industrial complexes.
In keeping with their drive toward mobility as a means of weapons survival, the Soviets are in the process of deploying a mobile ver
sion of the SA-10. This mobile version could be used to support Soviet theater forces and to permit periodic changes in the location of SA-10 sites within the USSR to counter US retaliatory forces more effectively
The Soviets are also Aight-testing another important mobile SAM system, the SA X-12, which is capable of intercepting aircraft at all altitudes as well as cruise missiles and shortrange ballistic missiles. As previously noted. the SA-10 and SA-X-12 may have the potential to intercept some types of strategic ballistic missiles as well. This is a serious development because these systems are expected to be de ployed widely throughout the Soviet Union in the 1980s. They could, if properly supported, add significant point-target defense coverage to a nationwide Soviet ABM deployment
Report of the Secretary of Defense
Caspar W. Weinberger
to the Congress
This Report Reflects the FY 1988/FY 1989 Budget
as of January 1, 1987
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
United StresSoviet source Comparison Charts no estimates only
Estonia, Live, and then into the Soverom
To the Congress of the United States
This year we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of our Constitution. Since the Philadelphia Convention completed work on this historic document in 1787, it has guided American democracy and become a model for countless other constitutions. It remains the standard by which freedom-seeking peoples the world over judge the legitimacy of their own governments. Our Constitution is a truly remarkable and enduring document, fully worthy of the praise it won from the great English statesman, William Gladstone, as the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."
Our Constitution, however, is not so esteemed by some. Since it recognizes that ultimate authority resides with the people themselves, our Constitution challenges tyranny and oppression. Indeed, it is considered a constant threat by those who rule without the consent of the governed. It is because of these hostile regimes that our Constitution charges our federal government to provide "for the common defense" of the American people, our free and democratic way of life, and the ideals for which we stand.
Today, carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to me by the President, I submit to the representatives of the American people,
no assemble as the Congress of the United States for the 100th time, the President's plan to provide for the common defense of our nation and of our freedom. I do so fully mindful of our shared responsibility for defending the American people. The President's defense budget is nothing more, and nothing less, than a statement of the resources needed to ensure our security, our peace, and our freedom in the years ahead. It provides a sound foundation for the preservation of our ideals for generations yet to come.
The defense budget now before the Congress requests 3 percent real growth for our defense program in fiscal years (FI) 1988 and 1989. This modest increase over the amount enacted by the Congress for FI 1987 will not recover the ground lost by a 7 percent real decrease in defense spending Congress has imposed in the last two years. However, our budget will regain the momentum of our modernization program, and protect the investments we have already made in our future security.
In recent years, some in the Congress and elsewhere have focused so sharply on reducing the federal deficit that they have mistakenly
perceived the defense budget primarily as their most favored target for budget cutting. Such thinking fails to comprehend either the real purposes of our defense spending plan, or the size and scope of the threat to our freedom posed by the Soviets' steadily increasing offensive military power.
In every corner of the globe, America's vital interests are threatened by an ever-growing Soviet military threat. Moscow is maintaining its unprecedented pace of military expansion, and continues using military might to support its ruthless goals. In the past decade, the Soviet Union has outstripped us in almost every meaningful category of military production.
Deterring the Soviet threat, and the present aggression of terrorism and other low-intensity conflicts, requires our firm and unwavering commitment to sufficient defense strength. Our defense budget sends a message to friends and adversaries alike that we have the will and the strength to deter aggression and to deny the Soviet Union a military advantage that can be exploited against our interests and those of our allies and friends.
From this perspective the two-year defense budget submitted by the President to the Congress is a most modest investment in security. But it is designed to secure the steady, long-term strengthening of America's needs. It builds on our past investments by maintain our strategic modernization program and upgrading our conventional forces. It also acknowledges that the foundation of our defense capabilities is our military and civilian personnel, whose performance remains unsurpassed in the world today. Our budget continues our efforts to provide adequate pay, compensation, and quality of life for our volunteers who perform those difficult and dangerous tasks for all of us.
Our budget also invests in the future security of Americans with a comprehensive and focused research and development program. Most important among our projects is the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which will provide a new opportunity to move beyond deterrence based solely on the threat of retaliation, and to secure a thoroughly reliable defense against Soviet nuclear missiles to protect all our people.
Ours is a prudent defense budget designed to accomplish all these goals and more. It is consistent with the defense priorities set by President Reagan in the beginning of his first term -- and repeatedly endorsed by the Congress and the American people. But, if this defense budget is not supported, the increased risks to the nation will be felt first on the front lines where America's uniformed citizens will have fewer of the high-quality weapons systems they need to deter aggression, or fewer opportunities for essential training, or less of the support needed to sustain operations. It is here that risks to our security, accepted by those who would cut our budget again, could tempt tyrants to begin aggression. This we must, and can, avoid.
Because America has begun to regain the defensive strength we lost in the 1970s, we have seen a resurgence of support for American ideals worldwide and a growing respect for our national interests. The Soviets have returned to negotiations they once spurned; our allies have renewed their commitments to the defense of our shared interests; those people seeking freedom from oppressive regines have turned to the United States for counsel a or practice terroriss have been unequivocally warned of the terrible