Definitions
A ballistic missile is propelled by a large rocket above the atmosphere and towards its intended target. It then follows a ballistic trajectory and falls back through the atmosphere to strike home. A ballistic missile defence system is designed to detect, track and destroy an incoming enemy ballistic missile at some point along its flight path.
This can be done in one of three ways:
1. A nuclear tipped interceptor missile is fired towards the incoming enemy missile. When it gets close enough the nuclear warhead is detonated. The enemy missile is destroyed through its proximity to the blast. Early Soviet and American missile defence systems employed this technology.
2. A non-nuclear interceptor missile is fired towards the incoming enemy missile. Tracking capabilities are sufficient to allow the interceptor to
home in on the enemy missile for a head on collision. The sheer force of the impact destroys the enemy missile. This is cutting edge technology.
3. A high-energy laser is fired at the enemy missile from an aeroplane or space-based battle station. The laser ruptures the enemy missile casing causing catastrophic failure. Air-based laser technology is not thought to be deployable for at least 4 years.
There are many types of missile defence systems. Some are designed to protect small areas and destroy short or medium-range missiles like Saddam Hussein’s Scuds. The USA, Russia, Israel, and several European consortiums have developed or are developing such systems.
Other missile defence systems are designed to protect entire countries and intercept long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles. The USA is the only country developing these type of systems.
A short history of US missile defences
Missile defence is not new and political popularity for missile defences is longstanding. The first missile defence system was deployed in 1967 but was immediately taken off line because it didn’t work. In the 1980s President Reagan announced the Strategic Defence Initiative, or ‘Star Wars’ plan, that aimed to place anti-ballistic missiles and lasers in space to destroy thousands of incoming Soviet warheads but financial and technological barriers led
to its demise. In 1991 President Bush unveiled the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, essentially a scaled down version of Star Wars. The latest incarnation, President Clinton’s National Missile Defence system, is a further dilution of this, involving only a land-based system to protect only the USA from a very limited number of warheads
Radars
Missile defence systems need radars to detect and track enemy missiles and to guide interceptor missiles to their targets. Current US plans for a comprehensive strategic missile defence system cannot succeed without the use of early-warning and X-Band radars located outside, as well as inside, the USA. Current plans envisage the use of the early-warning and X-Band radar sites at Fylingdales in Britain and Thule in Greenland, whose foreign policy is administered by Denmark. Britain is therefore involved in US missile defence plans whether it likes it or not.
So why does the US want extensive missile defences?
There are two main reasons why the US wants to build extensive missile
defences.
The first reason is the growing threat from nuclear, chemical or biological missile attack from the so-called ‘rogue’ states, namely North Korea, Iran and Iraq. During the Cold War the USA faced a single massive threat from missiles armed with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads in the form of the Soviet Union. This threat has now changed. The Soviet Union is no more, but nuclear, chemical and biological weapons' technology and ballistic missile technology has proliferated around the world to some undesirable countries. So America now perceives itself to be facing a multiple, diverse, unpredictable missile threat and it no longer believes that the Cold War strategy of nuclear deterrence can be relied upon to protect America in the way that the USSR was deterred. So in order to protect itself from this perceived threat, and so as not to be deterred from protecting its global interests, the USA has decided to develop strategic missile defence systems.
Although the credibility of the threat has been widely questioned, ballistic missile proliferation cannot be ignored. North Korea in particular is a great cause of concern. It tested an intermediate range ballistic missile in 1998 without warning, the debris from which fell close to Alaska, it continues with its clandestine nuclear weapons programme
and has pledged to continue its ballistic missile programme. North Korea is also exporting its missile technology to Pakistan and Iran.
The second main reason why the US is developing missile defence systems is the Republican Party. With a ‘realist’ attitude towards foreign policy and national defence, the Republican Party and has used its majority in Congress for the past six years, and victory in the 2000 presidential elections, to push for extensive missile defences. The result has been the allocation of significant amounts of money to missile defence and the passing in to law of a bill that makes deployment of a strategic missile defence system a constitutional requirement. Deployment is regarded by the Republican right as a matter of principle, regardless of technical difficulties or international repercussions
What concerns are being been raised about strategic missile defence?
US missile defence plans are causing concern around the world, particularly with Russia over the fate of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Russia: The deployment of ballistic missile defences is currently limited by the 1972 US-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty was designed to maintain strategic stability by preventing a further build up of nuclear missiles in response to the missile defences that were being developed by both the US and the USSR in the 1960s.
Washington now wants to renegotiate the ABM Treaty, seen as a relic of the Cold War, to allow development and deployment of extensive missile defences to protect the entire the USA. Moscow says it will not go along with this. In response the Bush administration stated in August that Russia had until November to agree to the necessary changes or the US would unilaterally withdraw from the treaty. It is thought that following close US-Russian cooperation in the ‘fight against terror’, a compromise may be reached in November.
China: It is causing tension with China where these developments are viewed as aggressive and threatening. China does not believe American intentions are benign, instead Beijing is concerned that US missile defences will eventually be designed to counter its own missile arsenal and is not prepared to let that happen. This rhetoric is given weight by the US quest for ‘full spectrum dominance of land, sea, air and space’ as outlined in the US Space
Command's 1999 document ‘Vision 2020’.
Moscow has indicated that it may abandon all previously signed disarmament treaties if its concerns are ignored and, along with Beijing, forgo further dialogue on arms control negotiations and cooperation on non-proliferation.
Europe: European countries are concerned that the international arms control regime will cave in if the ABM Treaty collapses, that international security will take a turn for the worse if there are unresolved tensions around missile defences between America, Russia and China. There is also concern that deployment of missile defences and a weakened arms' control regime will spur further ballistic missile and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation. Finally there is widespread concern that deployment of strategic missile defences will pave the way towards a gradual weaponisation of space.
The weaponisation of outer space
The deployment of strategic missile defences is accepted by the highest levels of US military command as the next step towards the complete domination of space. It makes the prospect of the weaponisation of outer space and the extension of arms racing into this new arena a likely scenario following the deployment of missile defences. In particular this
could lead to the deployment of high-energy laser weapons on space battle stations to attack hostile ballistic missiles, and potentially any ground target. The development of the Space Based Laser has been brought forward by about a decade with the first test being planned for 2005-2006.
To the future: Bush administration policy
The shape of a strategic missile defence system, the future of arms control, the size of the US nuclear
weapon's arsenal, all of which are intrinsically linked, have yet to be enshrined in policy by the Bush administration. However a number of statements and reports provide a good idea of what the world can expect.
President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld have stated that
this administration will pursue an extensive system that employs land and sea-based missile interceptors, and air-based, and eventually space-based, laser technology.
At present the Bush administration is building a new test site for the land-based NMD system at Fort Greely in Alaska. The Pentagon will build 5 interceptor silos and support infrastructure which, in the event of an emergency could be made operational and constitute a limited missile defence system by 2004-2005. Senior Pentagon officials have acknowledged that this may break the ABM Treaty next year.
The terrorist attacks
The terrorist attacks of 11 September have had a significant impact on the missile defence debate in the USA. Several experts in the US claim the terrorist attacks demonstrate how pointless missile defence systems are when faced with these unconventional attacks. Yet Bush stated on October 11 that
“the case is more strong today than it was on September 10”. Pro-missile defence analysts argue that following September 11 terrorists would not hesitate to launch a nuclear, chemical or biological ballistic missile at the US if they had the capability. The chances of this are however, incredibly small. Very few states
could do this, let alone a terrorist group. Nonetheless September 11 has hardened the Bush
administration's resolve to deploy missile defences and the need for bi-partisan Congressional support against the al-Qaeda terrorist network has quelled Democratic political and financial opposition to extensive missile defence deployments.
Conclusion
To sum up, although missile defence has taken second place to terrorism on the Bush security agenda, it has not gone away. US missile defences to protect troops and defend small theatres of wars have been deployed and new systems will continue to be developed and deployed. It looks certain that missile defences to protect the entire USA from long-range strategic missiles will be developed and deployed. Whether they work or not is another matter. Nonetheless history has shown that once military contractors and Congress are on board,
weapon's programmes are rarely cancelled.
If handled badly, these deployments could cause serious friction with Russia and China and precipitate a gradual collapse of the international
arm's control regime and spur further proliferation. If right-wing US military and political ambitions are not held in check missile defence could easily lead to the placing of weapons in space, ushering in an era of space arms racing and space warfare underwritten by an American quest for absolute security.
|