| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Issue No. 68, December 2002 - January 2003
With much of the political sting currently drawn from the missile defence debate by the unilateral US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in June this year, the new emphasis in American-Russian discussions, and between Russia and the NATO Alliance, is on possible cooperative arrangements, particularly with regard to European theatre missile defence (TMD). Within the US, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is pressing on with extensive and diverse development and deployment plans, albeit in the face of persistent allegations that its testing programmes are often designed to exaggerate 'successes' and minimise difficulties.
While such claims have always been an important part of the struggle over missile defence, the struggle itself appears to some observers to be effectively over. This view has been candidly expressed, for example, by Joseph Circincione, Director of the Non-Proliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's strategy. Speaking on October 3, Cirincione declared: "I think the great strategic debate over national missile defense is over... Other treaties did not fall like dominoes. The world did not get destabilised. The ABM Treaty is dead and it turns out it doesn't really matter... I think the missile defense system is going to be treated like any other defense system now, it is going to be judged on performance, cost and schedule and will compete with other programs for scarce defense dollars." This view is, however, contested by other arms control analysts, for example John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World (CLW), who responded to Cirincione by observing (October 3) that "we don't yet know the long-term implications" of the collapse of the ABM Treaty. Isaacs added: "As to say...the fight's over and it's just going to be treated like any old procurement program, I certainly don't agree with that. The fight continues... [In particular,] a missile defense system in space...[would have] all sorts of other consequences about using space for war, which is a very different concept with very bad implications".
While the US has announced no definite plans to deploy space-based interceptors, the administration has clearly not ruled out such an evolution of the missile defence architecture. On October 24, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stated: "Space offers attractive options not only for missile defense but for a broad range of interrelated civil and military missions. It truly is the ultimate high ground. We are exploring concepts and technologies for space-based intercepts. If these prove successful they could offer future opportunities for global protection against intermediate and long-range missile attacks, not only for ourselves but our friends and our allies and all peace-loving nations."
Wolfowitz made his remarks during a speech, delivered to the Frontiers of Freedom organisation in Washington, summarising the new missile defence horizons now in view:
"With the elimination of the ABM Treaty constraints, we are now in a much-improved position to develop, test and evaluate ground, air, sea and space-based technologies and basing modes for the deployment of effective laser defenses. We are no longer bound by the territorial defense restrictions of the ABM Treaty and we can develop and deploy a ballistic missile defense system capable of protecting all 50 states. On June 14th, accordingly, we began construction of the ABM interceptor silos at the missile defense test bed at Fort Greeley, Alaska. Other elements of the test bed will be built starting early in 2003. Perhaps just as important, removing the restrictions of the ABM Treaty has enabled us to test in ways that we have been prohibited from for 30 years. Already we've learned an enormous amount about how to employ missile defenses more effectively and efficiently. We are able to greatly increase the efficiency of our ballistic missile defense interceptors through the forward deployment of sensors that otherwise would not have been permitted. We are free to develop boost-phase defenses that are able to intercept missiles of all ranges, thereby addressing the short-range missile threat that we've been facing for the past 10 years. And starting in September of this year we began integrating ship-based and ground-based radars into our test against intercontinental ballistic missiles. The early results are promising and have great potential for the development of effective good-faith defenses. For example, this past September we used an Aegis sea-based theater defense radar aboard the USS Lake Erie to track all stages of a Minuteman III ICBM launched from Vandenberg. On October 14th the Navy destroyer John Paul Jones participated in the test in which the on-board Aegis radar tracked a long-range ballistic missile target-launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Both of those test events provided valuable data on the capability of the Aegis radar to acquire and track long-range ballistic missiles, data that will eventually be integrated with other sea, air and ground-based sensors to increase the overall effectiveness of our defenses. We are constructing and testing mobile sea and land-based ABM sensors. Doing so will make it harder for adversaries to use countermeasures effectively and increase our efficiency in terms of the number of interceptors required to engage any given incoming missiles and its associated warheads. This in turn will improve our technological foundation for boost-phase intercept. We've made progress. We've made progress in the last 10 years. We're making more rapid progress now. Our missile defense program since 2001 has demonstrated that missile technology, in particular hit-to-kill technology, actually works. We actually can hit a bullet with a bullet. We have four-for-four in long-range ground-based intercepts with the most recent successful test occurring just last Monday, October 14th. We are two-for-two in short to medium-range ship-based intercepts; and two-for-four in short-range ground-based intercepts."
This scorecard was further improved on November 21, with, in the words of a Pentagon press release, another "successful flight test in the continuing development of the Aegis" system. The release elaborated: "Flight Mission-4 (FM-4) involved the firing of a developmental Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) from the Aegis ballistic missile defense cruiser USS Lake Erie to engage a ballistic missile target launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. ... Within two minutes after target launch, USS Lake Erie's Aegis Weapons System fired the SM-3 guided missile. Approximately two minutes later, the missile's Kinetic Warhead acquired, tracked, and diverted into the target, demonstrating the Aegis BMD system's capability to engage the ballistic missile system in the ascent phase. This was the third consecutive target intercept flight, demonstrating Aegis BMD system robustness."
As mentioned by Wolfowitz, the second target intercept flight occurred on October 14 (see last issue). On October 15, Ted Postol, a physicist now based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and formerly involved in the missile defence programme, was quoted by the New Scientist magazine as insisting, referring to the whole series of intercept tests, that "They're completely rigged, quite frankly". Most importantly, according to Postol, the tests deploy decoys posing artificially few problems for the interceptor missile.
On October 11, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a report claiming to present "information that the Missile Defense Agency will keep classified in Monday's [October 14] test". According to a UCS press release: "The data, about the mock warhead and decoys to be used..., is ostensibly classified for security reasons. However, as the new UCS report details, this now classified information reveals merely that the tests remain highly artificial."
On October 16, Congress approved the final version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Defense Appropriations Bill. The measure allocates $7.4 billion to the MDA. Although the funding falls $14 million short of the administration's request, it was widely reported as a victory for the White House, particularly in its full retention of $2.6 billion to move ahead with plans to deploy ground-launched missile-interceptor systems in Alaska as early as 2004 - the core of the 'test bed' programme referred to above, previously the object of much controversy and even scorn among Democrats.
On November 18, John Bolton, US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, outlined post-ABM progress in American-Russian discussions on missile defence cooperation. Addressing the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, Bolton noted:
"The Joint Declaration on the New Strategic Relationship that was...signed at the May Summit [between Presidents Bush and Putin] in Moscow put in place a number of building blocks for cooperation between the US and Russia on missile defense. In the Declaration, the two sides agreed to implement a number of steps aimed at strengthening confidence and increasing transparency in the area of missile defense, including the exchange of information on missile defense programs and tests, reciprocal visits to observe missile defense tests, and visits to observe and familiarize each side with the other's missile defense systems. We also agreed to study possible areas of missile defense cooperation. Earlier this month, the US-Russian working group on missile defense met to continue its work on both transparency and cooperation. The US has invited the Russians to observe the Missile Defense Agency's next mid-course interceptor flight test (IFT-10), which is tentatively scheduled for next month; and, on a voluntary and reciprocal basis, to attend an exhibition of the Patriot PAC-3 system at Ft. Bliss, Texas and to visit missile defense-related facilities at Ft. Greeley, Alaska.
There are also a number of other prospective areas of cooperation with Russia that have real potential.
The United States, along with the rest of NATO, is also engaged with Russia on missile defense cooperation under the auspices of the new NATO-Russia Council. The working group that has been established will focus initially on missile defense terminology, concepts, and system capabilities in order to develop procedures that could facilitate protection of forces in a joint, non-Article V crisis response operation. This is a positive and practical first step in developing a future joint NATO-Russia missile defense capability to protect deployed forces and critical assets. As work progresses, the Alliance will evaluate next steps and the potential for deeper cooperation with Russia in this area."
With regard to the overall US approach to missile defence cooperation, Bolton stated that the administration "has developed a dual-track approach". The "first track", he explained, "is the NATO or collective track." In this respect, the "Alliance is currently completing a Theater Missile Defense Feasibility Study which is examining options for providing missile defenses to defend deployed Alliance forces against missiles with ranges up to 3,000 kilometers. Once NATO completes the study, we believe that Allies should move forward and acquire these needed capabilities. In just a few days, NATO Heads of State and government will hold a summit in Prague. We expect that the summit's final declaration will express the need to examine options to protect Allied forces, territory, and population centers against the full range of missile threats. This will establish the framework within which NATO allies can work cooperatively toward fielding the required capabilities."
The NATO Prague Summit Declaration (November 21) duly contained a commitment to examine "options for addressing the increasing missile threat to Alliance territory, forces and population centres in an effective and efficient way through an appropriate mix of political and defence efforts, along with deterrence." The Declaration continues: "Today we initiated a new NATO Missile Defence feasibility study to examine options for protecting Alliance territory, forces and population centres against the full range of missile threats, which we will continue to assess. Our efforts in this regard will be consistent with the indivisibility of Allied security. We support the enhancement of the role of the WMD Centre within the International Staff to assist the work of the Alliance in tackling this threat." On November 22, a NATO summary of the Prague meeting of the NATO-Russia Council noted that the Foreign Ministers of Russia and the Alliance had "welcomed progress" in "theatre missile defence, where an ambitious work programme has set forth a road to interoperability of Allied and Russian systems". See next issue for further coverage of the Prague Summit.
With regard to the second, "bilateral track", in which "the United States can work with individual Allies and friends, both in Europe and Asia", Bolton commented: "We have a proposed framework for participation in the US missile defense program. This framework would allow individual nations and their industries to participate at various levels depending on their interest, resources, and overall contributions. We have conducted our initial consultations with friends and allies without a predetermined missile defense architecture in mind or complete answers to all of the relevant questions. We understand that friends and allies have different motivations in approaching the issue of cooperation - some are interested in the benefits of industrial cooperation and technology transfer; some believe more strongly than others in the merits of missile defense both politically and militarily; others approach this from the perspective of building a closer bilateral relationship with the United States. The consultations have also raised a number of complex issues, including the budgetary implications and where missile defense should fit as a priority among other defense needs, as well as command and control of a potential European missile defense system. These are all important questions that need to be addressed."
Bolton concluded his remarks with a clarion call for cooperation, and a recommendation that the call be answered promptly: "It is no longer a question of whether missile defenses will be deployed. Rather the relevant questions are now 'what,' 'how,' and 'when.' The train is about to pull out of the station. We invite our friends, allies, and the Russian Federation to climb on board."
Note: meeting with Russian Deputy Foreign Ministry Georgy Mamedov in Moscow on November 10, Bolton discussed prospects for the prompt ratification of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), signed at the Moscow Summit in May and specifying reductions of actively-deployed strategic nuclear warheads per side to the 1,700-2,00 range by 2012. After the meeting, Mamedov told reporters (November 10): "After the Congressional elections just held in the United States, as the American side believes, there are very good prerequisites for...speedy ratification... You know that the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs expects this treaty to be ratified by the Federal Assembly even in December, and we, of course, would like that the US Senate would not lag behind either."
Reports: Missile debate is over and Bush won, prominent critic says, Global Security Newswire, October 4; Information the Missile Defense Agency doesn't want you to know - Pentagon plans missile test for Monday, hides data to avoid criticism, Union of Concerned Scientists Press Release, October 11; Missile intercept test successful, US Department of Defense Press Release, No. 520-02, October 14; US missile defense test dodges decoys, New Scientist.com News Service, October 15; Congress completes action on $355,100 million defense spending bill, Washington File, October 16; Transcript - Wolfowitz Outlines Missile Defense Successes, Way Ahead, Washington File, October 25; Bush's missile defense victory signifies changing times, Congressional Quarterly, October 26; Russian Deputy Minister Georgy Mamedov meets with US Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Russian Foreign Ministry Press Release, Document 2306-10-11-2002, November 10; Transcript of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov remarks before Russian media, Moscow, November 10, 2002, Russian Foreign Ministry text; Transcript - NATO summit document to address missile defense threats, Washington File, November 18; Prague Summit Declaration, issued by Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Prague on 21 November 2002, NATO Press Release (2002) 127, November 21; Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Successful, Missile Defense Agency Press Release, November 21; Successful Aegis missile defense intercept occurs in Pacific test, Washington File, November 22; Statement by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, in his capacity as Chairman of the NATO-Russia Council, at the NATO-Russia Council Meeting at the Level of Foreign Ministers, NATO Press Release, November 22.
© 2002 The Acronym Institute.