Upcoming conference: "Ballistic Missile Defense: Global and Regional Dynamics"

Happy New Year everybody. In case you are pondering what to do with the New Year's resolutions and the (hopefully still) many blank pages in your calendar, here is a suggestion: Martin Senn from the ArmsControl.at Blog organizes a conference on "Ballistic Missile Defense: Global and Regional Dynamics" that will take place from February 18 to 19, 2010, in Vienna. It sounds very promising:

The decision of the Obama administration to shelve the deployment of missile defense components in Poland and the Czech Republic was greeted by many commentators and statesmen as a departure from the missile defense policy of the Bush years. Instead of prioritizing the protection against a distant threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the current US administration has shifted the focus on the manifest threat of missiles with shorter ranges and plans to deploy more reliable and technologically mature defense systems. Washington’s missile defense agenda thus changed in terms of priorities, but on the whole it remains very ambitious. As the Obama administration envisages networks of sea- and land-based defense systems to protect US allies and assets in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia, the coming years will witness the deployment of missile defense systems at an unprecedented scale and pace.

The conference “Ballistic Missile Defense: Global and Regional Dynamics” convenes international experts to discuss the current state, prospects and impact of various missile defense initiatives on a global and regional level. As for the global level, the conference seeks to explore the background of the Obama administration’s reorientation in the realm of missile defense and to assess its impact on great power relations as well as its compatibility with global zero as the new long-term goal of US arms control policy. A further focus is on multilateral instruments for the prevention of ballistic missile proliferation and their (possible) relation to missile defense. On a regional level, the discussion deals with the causality of the current rush towards missile defense in East Asia and the Middle East and how the deployments will affect regional stability.

The conference is part of a joint research initiative on ballistic missile defense between the International Security Research Group at the University of Innsbruck and the Armament & Defence Technology Agency of the Austrian Armed Forces. In the run-up, a group of natural scientists will discuss technical aspects of missile defense in a workshop headed by Dr. Peter Sequard-Base of the Armament & Defence Technology Agency (click here to download the workshop program).

European missile defense bases - yet another post

More than a month has passed since President Obama announced to bury the former plans for the two controversial missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. This gave ample opportunity to digest this major change. Here is a brief summary of the reactions and latest developments:

Paul Taylor at the Reuters blog wrote that the decision to drop plans to install it on Polish and Czech territory constitutes a test for NATO’s unity because

President Barack Obama’s decision […] leaves those former Soviet satellites feeling betrayed — because they expended political capital to win parliamentary support — and more exposed to a resurgent Russia, especially after its use of force against Georgia last year.

Megan Stack from the LA Times puts it more poignantly:

Washington's decision to back out of the missile shield agreement forged by the Bush administration –and opposed by Russia – has evoked memories among Poles of Cold War helplessness, of being brushed aside as casualties of great power politics.

When Barack Obama entered office it was often mentioned in the European press that even though the substance of his foreign policy might not change dramatically, the way he would address his (European) partners would alter in comparison to Dubya. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee obviously shared this view and awarded Obama the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Well, it seems that sometimes the Obama administration is not necessarily more successful than the Bush gang: Polish officials seemed to be the last to hear about the change in plans.

"We heard first from the media," said Witold Waszczykowski, deputy head of Poland's national security bureau. Speculation that the missile shield plan would be dropped had been in the air since the U.S. presidential campaign. And yet, Waszczykowski said, Polish leaders were repeatedly reassured - even days before a team of U.S. officials arrived to brief officials - that no decision had been reached.

Aiming to sooth this frustration and concerns, Poland and the Czech Republic are being offered roles in the Obama administration's new plan to defend Europe against Iran's development and deployment of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, senior administration officials told Congress on October 1.

The U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Ellen O. Tauscher, informed the House Armed Services Committee that

"We have offered the Poles a future piece of the SM-3 [Standard missile-3] deployment" and "we're working on a number of different things" for the Czechs.

Russia remains suspicious about Washington's new antimissile plans and fears its strategic nuclear weapons could still be threatened by the reconfigured scheme. However, at the same time Moscow sees a redrafted U.S. anti-missile shield plan as less of a security threat than the previously proposed project. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, stressed that there are chances for cooperation. He said that Moscow believes it would be possible to establish a missile-defense system jointly with the military alliance.

"If we are convinced that the European missile-defense initiative is not part of a U.S. theater missile-defense system, such efforts are possible."

Cooperation is also under discussion in Washington. The United States has not dismissed an offer to use two Russian radars in southern Russia and Azerbaijan for missile defense, a senior Defense Department official said in a recent interview with Interfax. The NTI Newswire reported that:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates "and other senior defense officials have already pointed to the possibility of some form of link between Russian radars ... to provide additional data and early warning information that could benefit both of us in defending against ballistic missile threats," said Assistant Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow.

Vershbow bang the drum also with other remarks that raised concern on the Russian side. He told reporters on Thursday that countries in the region, such as Ukraine, "may also have radars that could contribute to early-warning information." This statement prompted Moscow to call for clarification. Subsequently Washington denied in an official statement that it planned to station U.S. radar systems in Ukraine.

Leaving aside all this animosities, concerns, and the potential for cooperation, some observers question whether the weapons that would be central to the Obama administration's new missile defense plan for Europe can be trusted to function during a conflict. There has been no realistic testing of the Standard Missile 3, which could still be fooled by balloons or other decoys likely to be deployed by an enemy missile, argued David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In addition critics come up with a very creative form of accounting to show that the new plans will not lead to cost-savings. The Congressional Budget Office early this year estimated the cost of the Bush plan at between $9 billion and $13 billion over two decades. However these savings are allegedly eliminated by the construction and extended operational costs of the ship-based alternative which would cost $18 billion to $26 billion. However, there is one teeny tiny thing that the critics might have forgotten to take into consideration: some of that cost comes from pre-existing plans to equip no fewer than 67 Navy vessels with Aegis ballistic missile defense technology. Besides that, the vessels are far more flexible and neither static nor do they serve a single purpose as the European components of the original plan would have.


There is another reason why the new plan leaves a lighter footprint: Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, added that preparation of a Polish missile defense site, which was to have taken five years to complete, could now be finished in less than a year and be staffed with fewer than 100 U.S. personnel, instead of the 400 who would have been needed under the Bush-era plan.

© picture: Korea Times

A step ahead in the missile-defense-maze

The meeting of the two presidents in Moscow was not only about counting warheads and delivery systems – the issue of missile defense was also discussed. It is time to catch up with the developments:

While visiting Russia, U.S. President Barack Obama and his counterpart, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, have signed a joint statement on missile defense. It reads in between:

“Russia and the United States plan to continue the discussion concerning the establishment of cooperation in responding to the challenge of ballistic missile proliferation. […] We have instructed our experts to work together to analyze the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century and to prepare appropriate recommendations, giving priority to the use of political and diplomatic methods.”

At a speech at a Moscow university President Obama elaborated further on this and highlighted the purpose of the missile shield and the condition under which the program could be scrapped:

"I want us to work together on a missile defense architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest."

However, some Russian actors are reluctant to make a linkage between the two issues of missile defense and Iran. These topics should be considered separately from each other, believes the head of the international affairs committee of the State Duma lower house of Russia’s parliament Konstantin Kosachev. “The missile defense issue and Iran should not be mixed, no matter how the Americans insist on this,” the lawmaker said on the Echo of Moscow radio station commenting on President Obama’s speech.

Also in the Washington the question is deliberated whether this linkage can be made and if the presumptions on which it is based are watertight. Already back in January a review of the proposed European missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic was announced in order to see if this is the best solution to defend Europe and the United States from long-range ballistic missile threats of third sources. The United States expects to finish the review by the end of the summer.

Moscow hopes that at the end of this review Washington will realize the counter-productivity of its plan to deploy elements of U.S. missile shield in central Europe. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this week.

"I hope that the revision [of the missile shield plans] in Washington... will result in an understanding that unilateral steps in this sphere are counterproductive."

This viewpoint is shared by Russia’s Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov. He told Ekho Moskvy radio that he has reasons to believe that “ultimately, this thoughtless and very dangerous step will not be made - there will be neither radar nor missiles”.

Naturally, Russia cannot assume that Washington will follow its line of thought and it keeps all options open: on the one hand it has already expressed its willingness to collaborate with the United States on missile defense if Washington first dropped the Europe proposal, Interfax reported. On the other hand Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reaffirmed on July 10 Moscow's threat to deploy short-range missiles near Poland if Washington moved to field the European defense system. Russia is also cautious to put off Iran. It has therefore broadened the scope of the missile shield’s purpose. Vladimir Yevseyev, senior research associate with the renowned Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said that:

"Iran is not the only missile threat because there are many countries in the vast Middle East area which have developed missile programs and arms. Some of them would like to create a nuclear infrastructure.”

Yevseyev proposed to deploy missile defense systems in other places than sites proposed by the United States and use, for instance, Russia's S-400 air defense system and the U.S. Patriot system, which are both capable of intercepting missiles from the Middle East.

Some people were less creative – rather a bit off – and recycled an idea from the 1980’s: Space systems designer Boris Chertok recommended building a U.S.-Russian missile defense system in outer space, Interfax reported. Chertok should take a look at the draft PPWT, the “Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects” proposed by his own government and China. The draft’s article II starts off with the sentence:

“The States Parties undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying any kinds of weapons.”

Russia is not the only player waiting for the outcome of the review. Also Poland wants a clear answer from Washington on its plans to deploy the interceptors on Polish soil under a 2008 deal, the government spokesman Pawel Gras said on July 12.

"We're still lacking an essential, clear response as to whether the U.S. will go ahead with the shield plan. It's a fundamental question to which we need a definite answer."

Gras underlined furthermore that Warsaw was still waiting for the "U.S. to make good on the promise by the new administration, independently of the shield plan, to deploy a battery of Patriot missiles."

In summary: all options are on the table – and we will have to wait for the outcome of the review to see if the options narrow down.

© picture: Xinhua

New Missile Defense Budget plans

President Obama released the federal budget for 2010 on Thursday, May 7, and it holds significant changes for the budget year that begins on October 1. An official summary provides the following information:

The fiscal 2010 budget will reduce the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) program by $1.2 billion, leaving a fiscal 2010 request of $7.8 billion for MDA:
· The program will be restructured to focus on the rogue state and theater missile threat.
· Ground-based interceptors in Alaska will not be increased as planned, but research and development will be funded to improve existing capabilities to defend against long-range rogue missile threats.
· The second airborne laser prototype aircraft will be canceled due to affordability and technology problems, keeping the existing aircraft as a technology demonstration effort.
· The Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program will be terminated because of significant technical challenges.

Let’s expand on the first point: this shifting focus includes a move away from boost-phase intercept programs and thereby belying earlier calls for the boost-phase which was regarded to be essential to defend America. The new policy envisages intercepts during the ascent-phase. The ascent phase starts after powered flight, but before a ballistic missile deploys decoys or executes maneuvers to avoid being shot down in the post-boost-phase of its flight. MDA’s Executive Director Rear Admiral David Altwegg said that the ascent phase intercepts are "significantly less challenging […] with the technologies now available." He continued: "Our studies tell us that this ascent-phase interceptor effort will provide the margin of superiority needed and replace boost-phase as we now know it."

Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, laid out that the development of ascent and upper boost-phase missile defense capabilities will require SM3/ AEGIS development, enhanced THAAD capability, and deploying a Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) constellation.

This is reflected in the new budget: the spending on the THAAD system will rise from $882 million to $1.12 billion and the sea-based equivalent, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, will have a budget which is increased by more than 50%, from the current $1.17 billion to $1.86 billion. Some of this money will be channeled from the PAC-3 program, which will be reduced by roughly 60% to $400 million.

The change – and the included cuts – already stirred up emotions. Representative Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) said in a statement. “This budget does not reflect the priorities of North Alabama and fails to provide clear support for national missile defense that is necessary to protect ourselves and our international allies." What a clear set of priorities, North Alabama first, (inter)national security second.

While we wait and see what other reactions come up, we can consider to found a “Hooterville citizens for missile defense” campaign to support representative Parker.

to-do list for the weekend

Dear reader,

once again, I can only supply you with a brief list of links to missile-related articles. As announced, this will be the last article for a while. I will be back online in April. It would be great to see you back then.

GMD

• Obama Likely Flexible on Missile Shield
• Poland, Czech Republic Worried by Obama's Intentions on Missile Defense
• Poland ready to conclude U.S. missile shield negotiations: FM
• No timetable exists for radar on Czech soil - U.S. source
• Biden hints at compromise with Russia on missile defense plan
• Obama's arms reduction idea a threat to missile defense in Europe?
• Missile shield plans delayed, but not discontinued?
• UK backs missile defense shield
• Russian missile plans depend on US
• Ballistic Missile Defense Efforts Tied to Iran, Gates Says
• Belarus says air defense pact with Russia not aimed at missile shield
• Iran denies claim its missiles can hit anywhere in world
• Iran, Russia, U.S.: the BMD link

Missile Defense

• Kinetic energy weapons may be best way to intercept missiles
• Kinetic Energy Interceptor shows promising flexibility
• Airborne Laser offers new era for ballistic missile defense
• NATO keen on missile shield in Europe
• South Korea to complete missile defense system by 2012
• South Korea May Join U.S. Missile Shield
• Geopolitical implications of missile defense
• Missile Defense in the Obama Budget
• India Working Towards LASER Based Missile Defense System
• US in talks with India for providing missile defence

DPRK

• North Korea Prepares Missile Near Launch Site
• South Korea says DPRK’s missile test would violate UN resolutions
• A look at DPRK's missile arsenal
• North Korea eyes disputed sea border for missiles-media

Miscellaneous

• U.S. urges Russia to consider missile offer
• U.S.-Russia: Missile Diplomacy
• Kissinger calls for missile cuts
• France transfers more anti-tank missile technology to India
• Russia and Iran's missiles
• Russia expands production of precision guided weapons, see also here
• Iran builds S-300-style anti-aircraft missile defense system
• Iran's Missiles: Don't Go Ballistic
• Black Market Missiles Still Common in Iraq
• Brahmos field testing today, February 20
• China can't stop India's missile system

It is time for another round-up of reading

First some articles concerning our good old European GMD base:
• U.S. eager to search dialogue with Russia on missile defense
• While some say that Russia offers Obama olive branch on missiles other media reports that Russia denies missile suspension. The Warsaw Business Journal brings it to the point: Conflicting rumors surround Kaliningrad missiles
• Russia says missile threat [to deploy its Iskander missiles] stands, only as response
• Czech minister hails freezing of Russian missile plans
• Poles, Czechs wary on Russia missile move, eye Obama
• Czech adamant on missile shield referendum
• Czech lawmakers postpone missile defense vote
• Rethinking U.S. missile defense: “Between 1985 and 2008, America has spent $116 billion on missile defense, with an additional $50 billion envisioned over the next six years”. Taken together, this incredibly big sum makes up more than one fourth of the U.S. package intended to bring up the economy back up to its feet. And it was spent for a project which is “an expensive insurance policy whose payoff remains doubtful”
• Missile shield could boost U.S.-Russia ties
• German Foreign Minister Steinmeier seeks U.S. missile defense shift

And here something on the itsy bitsy rest of the world:
• Iran says 'self-sufficient' in missile production
• Iran's slow but sure missile advance
• India rushes to buy anti-tank missiles
• Failed test and rocketing costs: Army says no to BrahMos missile
• Second phase of BrahMos missile program to be launched Feb 10
• India lags behind Pakistan in missiles (an Indian perspective)
• Pakistan surges well ahead of India in missile technology (from a Pakistani viewpoint)
• Russian space agency to support Bulava project
• Russia boosts targeting tech for Iskander missiles
• Russia wants new START and BMD bases scrapped
• DPRK space ambitions raise missile concerns, analyst warns
• DPRK set to test long-range missile as tension rises in region
• China will create a versatile missile force
• Missile Defense in Japan

another reading list

Hi everybody,

here is your today’s agenda:

• India test-fires BrahMos and admits that the test failed
• Fresh test of BrahMos missile within a month
• India plans to test a Prithvi missile
• India goes for 'urgent' purchase of anti-tank missiles
• India plans to use laser weapons in Ballistic Missile Defense
• India Plans Missile Defense Test
• India, U.S. Discuss Potential Missile Defense Sales but U.S. Denies Pursuing Indian Missile Defense Sales
• Czech politicians disagree on U.S. radar plans under Obama
• Poland Encourages Obama to Pursue European Missile Defenses
• Obama urged to boost priority of BMD development
• Ballistic missile threat growing in 21st century
• China rebuts global anti-missile system
• U.S. Navy flight tests new Raytheon SM-2 target detecting device
• Bulava tests should continue – Russian official
• Venezuela Aids Iranian Missile Sales to Syria
• United Arab Emirates to Buy PAC-3 System
• Nuclear War Concerns Spur UAE Missile Defenses
• Taiwan Would Continue Arms Buildup Despite Potential Chinese Missile Reduction

Russia's reprisal options

There was no need to wait long until we get some “options” how Russia might react to the conclusion of the US-Polish agreement. RIA Novosti came up with an article by Yury Zaitsev, who is an academic adviser at the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences. He writes that:

Russian missile defense systems will not be able to distinguish missile interceptors launched from Polish territory from ballistic missiles. Any launch of an interceptor will automatically result in retaliation, and not only at the interceptor deployment site.

This direct threat to Poland has to be seen in the light that Russia mentioned earlier that it could direct its missiles toward Poland in case it should decide to host the interceptor base.

Russia does not want to be dragged into another arms race, but it should not ignore the emerging threats. Its most obvious reply to the U.S. missile defense deployment would be equipping its Topol-M missiles with supersonic maneuverable warheads, using jammers, and reducing the boost phase of Russian missiles. It is also important to equip the armed forces with new MIRVed missiles.

Both ideas are not new. For some background information on the maneuverable warhead check the Missilethreat website. Russia is already working on MIRVed versions of the Topol-M, which are labeled RS-24. It is expected to complete the RS-24 flight tests program with the two launches scheduled for this year and, if the tests are successful, begin deployment of RS-24 in 2009.

Russia could also revive its program to develop global missiles, which could be put into near-Earth orbits and directed at enemy territory while bypassing missile defenses.

This is also a revamped idea: in the 1960’s the Soviet Union came up with the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS). After launch an ICBM would go into a low Earth orbit and would then de-orbit for an attack. The clear military benefits of this program were that the missile had no range limit and the orbital flight path would not reveal the target location. While the FOBS program did not constitute a breach of the Outer Space Treaty, the program was phased out in January 1983 in compliance with the SALT II agreement, which explicitly banned fractional orbital missiles. However, the Reagan Administration withdrew from SALT II in 1986 after accusing the Soviets of violating the pact. Therefore there are currently no international obligations that ban Russian from reanimating FOBS.

[Russia] could also deploy Iskanders, with a range of up to 500 km, there. Initially any missiles in Kaliningrad would be strictly non-nuclear, but they could be equipped with nuclear warheads when Poland hosts the interceptors.

The frequent readers of my blog know that this idea is around for a while. Considerations exist to not only deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad but also in Belarus. Back in November 2007 Minsk has announced that the missile brigade, which will be equipped with Iskanders, will be deployed in the Mogilev Region, which is near the Russian border. This would mean that the US-interceptor-base at Redizikowo Pomorskie would be out of range, namely roughly 860km away which significantly exceeds the range of 280km of the Iskander-E (export) version. Only an updated version of the Iskander could put the interceptor base into reach but this would at the same time constitute a breach of Russia’s MTCR obligations. Back in May 2007 Sergej Ivanov said in an interview after an R-500 missile test that Russia will definitely not infringe its international MTCR obligations but the extension of the Iskander missiles’ range for Russia’s own purposes is a different issue.



Yury Zaitsev came up with another recommendation for Moscow how to formulate the sought “adequate response”:

[…] reducing the number of strategic offensive arms enhances the role of missile defense systems [and] therefore, Russia should keep an adequate nuclear deterrent in the next few decades, which must become one of the most important military and political tasks.

This is no surprise either. The importance of the Russian nuclear forces was stressed quite often in the recent time. The START I treaty will expire on 5 December 2009 and the SORT-of Moscow Treaty only regulates the number of warheads deployed by 31 December 2012. This is also the day on which the treaty loses all force. From that day on Russia will not be obliged to limit its nuclear arsenal in the future unless any follow-up agreements will be concluded. However, the technical and financial means for a major nuclear weapon expansion are not given. As examples serve the slow pace of the deployment of Topol-M missiles and the numerous failed tests of the Bulava missile. One option, of course, would be MIRVing existing missiles, as already mentioned above.

These are of course all worst-case options but as things are now there is no reason to be overly optimistic that Russia and the United States will find a negotiated solution any time soon. Probably a severe plunge in the oil-price would help but this is equally unlikely to happen soon.


UPDATE: Now we could hear the first nuclear threats in the direction of Poland. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, a staunch supporter of Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, pointed out that Russian doctrine permitted the use of nuclear weapons 'against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them.'

THAAD test and the necessity of the Eastern European GMD bases

The United States successfully conducted an interceptor test of their Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. In contrast to the Patriot system, which was tested earlier this month, the THAAD is not designed to hit the incoming warheads just before impact but operates on a longer range. It acts as the upper tier of a basic two-tiered defense against ballistic missiles that intercepts missiles during late mid-course or final stage flight.

The test on Wednesday was brought closer to real-life situations than it was the case during earlier launches:

To add realism to the test, personnel operating the THAAD system were not told when the target would be launched. They also for the first time used a semiautomatic mode to manually fire on the warhead.

Six minutes after the simulated missile launch, the mobile THAAD firing battery fired an interceptor from the Pacific Missile Range Facility near the island of Kauai. The interceptor successfully locked onto the target, traced its path and performed a “hit-to-kill” interception, destroying the mock missile with the force of its impact.

Maybe the need to get THAAD closer to real-life situation will increase even more. The Aviation Week writes that Capitol Hill denizens are increasingly debating whether the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) should alter its research and spending priorities to better address more immediate concerns than defending against a long-range strike. According to these plans theater-based missile defenses provided by the THAAD and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems would be emphasized while the ground-based midcourse defense in Europe would be de-emphasized.

Speaking of GMD: I had the chance to attend a very interesting two-day conference titled “Missile Defense, Russia and the Middle East – Coping with Transatlantic Divergence – Exploring Common Solutions” organized by the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. During the presentations one especially interesting point was made: according to non-quotable sources, MDA officials acknowledged that their GMD radar in Adak, Alaska, could deal with a hypothetical Iranian ICBM-threat! A certain upgrade would be necessary but no insurmountable obstacles exist. In other words: the radar base the United States hopes to set up in Brdy, Czech Republic is NOT necessary to track missiles that Iran might fly in some distant future across the Big Pond. So the question arises why does the United States insist on the construction of the base? Coincidentally, the next conference speaker used a map depicting five Russian missile bases that are in range of the interceptors that are planned to be based in Poland (or Lithuania)… Is the roaring Russian bear in the end right with its concerns that the European bases are intended to keep Russia in check?

We will have some time to gather more information on this issue. The NTI Newswire reported on Monday that the interceptor base faces a possible delay. The interceptors intended to be deployed would use two-stage booster rockets while the U.S.-based rockets have three stages. That difference means previous testing is required. Officials speak of at least three tests. MDA hopes to finish the tests before the beginning of 2011 which is a very ambitious aim. Washington had set a 2013 deadline to finish the whole system. Some defense experts expect that Pentagon will miss that date by up to five years.

Another delay looms: Czech opposition has gathered over 100,000 signatures in support of a proposal to hold a national referendum on the placement of the U.S. early-warning radar in the Czech Republic, an opposition spokesperson said on Thursday. Over 60% of the Czech population oppose the radar plans.

Andrew Thompson wrote for the Zurich ISN a commentary titled “Under the Radar”. He provides a great summary of the critical issues and the Czech Republic’s internal debate. Thompson brings up a very interesting point, which I have not read anywhere else:

One such scenario entails the suggested provision of Social-Democratic support for radar in exchange for approval of the EU Treaty of Lisbon by the Euroskeptic Civic Democrats. The political viability and realistic feasibility of such a complex deal and compromise package, however, is far from certain and already faces many questions.

A saying goes that NATO was founded to “Keep the Americans in, Soviets out and Germans down”. So what is this Czech Lisbon-radar deal about? Keeping the EU afloat, letting the Americans in and keeping Iranians / Russians down? However, it remains highly questionable if U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who is scheduled to come to Prague on the morning of Tuesday, July 8, will be able to sign a deal on the radar base – a base that is not required to counter a potential future Iranian threat!

Let’s NATO-ize!

In an interview on November 8, Ellen Tauscher, the Chairwoman of U.S. House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, strongly criticized the current plans of the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system and its developments. The Missile Defense Agency should focus on the existing threats like the 600 Iranian short-range and medium-range missiles rather than prioritizing “science projects” such as the European missile defense site which would not become effective until 2012.

The Congresswoman suggested to take a strategic pause, get the rhetoric right and NATO-ize it the missile defense plans. The U.S. should work with all of its 26 NATO partners on these plans — instead of working bilaterally with just two — and also try to win cooperation from Russia. Tauscher specifically named NATO's Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense program - which could include the PAC-3, THAAD, and Aegis BMD systems - which is awaiting a February 2008 study on its potential for pairing with U.S. GMD. She stressed that the NATO-system, when deployed in southeastern Europe, has clear advantages over the currently planned U.S. system. The NATO-option would leave no gap in missile defense coverage because it could engage shorter-range missiles launched from the Middle East.

On the same day, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a fiscal 2008 defense spending bill that includes $8.7 billion for missile defense programs, about 2 percent less than requested by President Bush. As laid out by Military.com, the bill cuts $85 million for construction of the third ballistic missile defense site in Poland, but retains funding for the radar in the Czech Republic. Congress would bless defense budget reprogramming in 2008 once Czech and Polish legislatures formally bless agreements to hosts the bases, Tauscher said. However, she does not expect that to happen. This makes a NATO-ized option even more attractive.

GMD test

The last interceptor test of the US Ground-based Midcourse Defense occurred on September 28. Even though this was already one month ago, I discovered today The Pentagon Channel. They have clip on the missile test which I think is worth sharing. It shows a Pentagon Briefing with Missile Defense Agency director Lieutenant General Henry Obering.



Those of you, who are looking only for a brief summary, might want to read this factual note.

The video contains some information I have not found elsewhere, neither in the official press release nor in analyzes like one by Vinod Kumar at IDSA. One of them is that for the first time Russian observers attended such a test. Efforts to reduce tensions and disperse the concerns of Russians side but as rhetoric of the last weeks show, it is still a long way to go. Furthermore General Obering mentioned that the next test will be the first in which the target missile will be equipped with counter-measures like decoys. Finally. He also spoke of “volume kill”: future interceptors might have more than one kill-vehicle. They are intended to increase the chance that not only a decoy is intercepted while the warhead continues its path.

The next test will be conducted at earliest in February 2008.