The gathering of 28 nations in Lisbon, in November 2010 to define the role of NATO for the next decade ended with much discussion on a missile defence shield. For the last decade the US has been aggressively pushing for a missile defence shield in Eurasia due to apparent missile threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

A National Missile Defence (NMD) system has been the topic of much debate in the US for more than half a century. According to its supporters, such a system would provide a protective shield against a missile attack. A missile defence system consists of a variety of technologies which, when brought together, act as a shield against missile attack. In 1999, the US Congress decided that the time for talking was over – it passed a bill calling for the implementation of the NMD system to defend the United States from a growing number of countries developing long range missiles. This article examines the reality of a missile defence shield and the politics behind it.

Missile Defence Shield: Past and Present

Since the 1950’s American politicians and scientists have explored various ways of defending America from the threat of Soviet Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) – these are missiles with a flight range of over 3,500 miles. These efforts were bracketed under National Missile Defence (NMD) and consisted of providing a shield against a Soviet nuclear attack. America devised a program which advocated the use of nuclear missiles to intercept Soviet ICBMs.

However, in 1961 the programme was abandoned because of technical shortcomings. It was replaced by a combination of programmes but the new programmes’ longevity was compromised as it could not absolutely guarantee the destruction of Soviet ICBMs, was very expensive and suffered from major technological problems. Nonetheless, these programmes succeeded in pushing both the Americans and the Soviets to conclude the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 1972. Under the treaty each country was allowed to create a so-called missile shield for incoming ICBMs. But it was limited both in geographical scope and the number of interceptor missiles each country could deploy to defend itself.

Then Ronald Reagan’s launched the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) in 1983, this undermined the ABM treaty and instigated the Soviets into a new arms race with the Americans. Star Wars, as it was commonly known, was more ambitious than any previous attempt undertaken by the US to create a missile shield. It was an ambitious attempt to deploy missiles, radars and interceptors on land, air, sea and space. SDI included many space-based laser battle stations, nuclear-powered laser satellites and very sophisticated command and control systems. But unlike the previous programmes, SDI was designed to offer protection to US allies from incoming Soviet ICBMs. It was no longer an ambition of the US to limit NMD to its shores, but was touted as an effective defence for Europe.

After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 the SDI initiative lost momentum and was eventually discarded. It was not until George W Bush came to office that the NMD became the focal point for the Neo-cons. In 2001, George W Bush granted Russia notice that the US was withdrawing from the ABM treaty. This led to the creation of America’s Missile Defence Agency followed by ambitious plans to revamp NMD. Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 23 in 2002 which outlined plans to commence deployment of operational ballistic missile defence systems. The new name for NMD was changed to Ground-Based Midcourse Defence (GMD) which was effectively the land component of the NMD programme. In reality the NMD also consists of space-based and sea-based intercept programmes.

Then in 2007, the US started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning the construction of missile shield installations to facilitate America’s GMD System. The US justified its pursuit of GMD in these countries based on intelligence estimates that rogue countries, like North Korea and in particular Iran, were developing long range missiles that could carry nuclear war heads and threaten US interests in Europe and Israel.

Obama’s official announcement of not extending its missile defence programme in 2009 to Poland and Czech Republic, was in reality only a change from ground based missile interceptors, in favour of missile defence systems located on American Navy warships.

Despite having spent over $100 billion, the Pentagon still has not proved the system can work in realistic conditions. Independent scientific bodies in the US have said that tests of the system’s intercept capabilities have been highly scripted, with the defence being given detailed information about the attack beforehand. Some have argued that the defence system could be easily circumvented by potential attackers.

Missile Defence

National missile defence (NMD) is a military strategy consisting of various systems to shield an entire country against incoming Ballistic Missiles. The first component is the detection, tracking and interception of an incoming missile. This is achieved with very powerful radars that monitor the atmosphere within a geographical range and sophisticated command and control systems which analyses the trajectory and time it will take a missile to hit its intended target.

The second component is the interceptor missiles that engage the incoming missile. They can be intercepted by anti-ballistic missiles. They can be intercepted near the launch point (boost phase), during flight through space (mid-course phase) which is the longest part of a missile’s journey, or during atmospheric descent (terminal phase). The US, UK, Russia, France, China, India and Israel have all developed tactical missile defence systems with the US, Russia and Israel having deployed systems.

Whilst the NATO summit in Lisbon agreed to the construction of a missile defence shield, whether one materialises remains to be seen. In understanding this we need to understand the politics around missile defence:

• – The use of sophisticated powerful radar in a missile defence programme also acts as a surveillance tool and this is what makes this type of technology very useful but also gives its owner a major strategic advantage over its adversaries. It is no wonder the US continues in its quest to aggressively expand its missile defence shield.

• – The US has argued that rogue states such as Iran and North Korea may one day use their long range missiles against the US and their allies, therefore radar facilities are needed in Eastern Europe to monitor the airwaves for potential missile launches. Whilst Iran has made significant developments in missile technology since the Gulf War there are a number of question marks over its claims to have successfully developed long range missiles. The Shahab-3 medium range ballistic missile remains the mainstay of Iran’s missile programme with a range of 1,200 miles. Similarly North Korea’s ability to deliver a warhead to a hypothetical target is limited by its missile technology. Currently North Korea’s total range with its Taepodong missile is not enough to reach US shores. The US has constantly through various negotiations and summits reneged on the promises it has made to both states for giving up their programmes. The reality is the US has used this threat to achieve its other aims. Both Iran and North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems is for internal purposes; both nations have little political will on territorial expansion.

• – Many US policy makers saw the dismemberment of the Soviet Union as unfinished business. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West led by the US began working to push its boundaries in Europe rapidly eastward, destroying Russia’s ability to influence the region. The pro-Western lines moved to the east for the past two decades, via NATO and EU expansion, until they pushed hard up against Russia’s borders. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the US worked to dismantle the architecture established by the Soviet Union, worked to contain Russia by bringing all the former Soviet republics under its sphere of influence and for the next decade through money and aid it economically linked them to the West. This project to contain Russia continues today through the expansion of the missile defence shield. Russia has even offered the US the prospect of basing its radars next to Russian bases in Gabala Azerbaijan. The US flatly refused even though it was closer to Iran, the apparent threat the US is attempting to protect the West from. This shows the true objective of US missile defence continues to be the encirclement of Russia.

• – The EU has attempted for the last decade to construct its own security apparatus. Without the ability to construct its own security the EU will always be reliant upon the US, the very nation the EU was created to challenge. A leaked version of the Pentagon’s 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States “must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO … Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs.”[1]The US has worked to actively weaken the EU. The US has managed to maintain NATO as the worlds default security organisation as European attempts at creating an alternative security force has met numerous challenges by the US. The integration of European defence into NATO through the missile defence shield finishes the whole idea of an independent European security apparatus.

• – The US plans through the missile shield to spread its costs amongst participant nations, but would also place a large chunk of European security in the hands of the US, weakening Europe against it. In April 2010’s nuclear security summit the US argued for France to give up its nuclear weapons when the missile shield is expanded. Sarkozy explained the missile shield can only be a complement to nuclear deterrence, which France has no intention of abandoning. Similarly the US has used the divisions in Europe to play various nations against each other. Germany supports the missile defence shield and has gone beyond the USA in arguing all nuclear armed nations should replace their nuclear deterrence with the missile shield. If the US is successful in constructing this missile defence shield it will prevent Europe from being independent. This means the US will provide Europe’s security, which will make them reliant and dependent on US.

Conclusions

The US has managed through the Lisbon NATO summit to impose its hegemony on NATO participant countries. The US has prevented Western Europe from establishing an independent security apparatus separate from the US. This has strengthened the US and is a significant development, as for the last decade the Afghan and Iraq wars with the global economic crisis have only weakened the US position in the world. This will also aid the US in dealing with the emergence of the Khilafah which US central intelligence estimates have predicated in mock scenario’s to be established by 2020.

Further Information

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD): The most complex and costly component of the U.S. government’s missile defense system, the GMD, is designed to counter long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. territories, deployed forces, and allies. It seeks to detect, track, and destroy missiles in flight by launching a ground-based interceptor missile which releases into space a smaller projectile – the “Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle.” Once released, the kill vehicle would track and collide with the enemy missile. Currently, twenty-four interceptors are positioned in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The Pentagon had planned for a total of forty-four by 2011, though President Barack Obama’s decision to cancel installation of ten interceptor missiles in Poland could alter the total. But hardware problems associated with the kill vehicles halted a pair of planned tests in 2008, raising doubts about the GMD’s overall functionality. In total, six of the system’s fourteen tests have had some level of failure since their inception, according to the Center for Defense Information, which tracks missile defense developments.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: Considered the most effective element of the agency’s missile defense system, this sea-based component is designed to intercept short- and medium-range ballistic missiles after takeoff or just before impact. There are currently eighteen Aegis systems deployed on Navy warships, with the majority operating in the Pacific Fleet. Charles E. McQueary, director of the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation command, told lawmakers in February 2009 the Aegis system has “demonstrated the capability to detect, track, and engage simple short- and medium-range ballistic missile targets for a variety of mission scenarios.” The system utilizes Standard Missile-3 interceptors (SM-3) – a key component of President Obama’s revised European missile defense system–to target short- to medium-range missile threats. But Philip E. Coyle III, a senior advisor to the World Security Institute and former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, said the Aegis system has severe operational limitations, most notably a lack of closing speed. “The interceptors are too slow by half,” Coyle says, noting that missiles launched from North Korea, for example, would quickly outmaneuver Aegis interceptors. Since January 2002, four of the twenty test flights have failed, according to missile agency data.

Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD): This is a land-based, highly mobile system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles inside and outside the atmosphere. According to the 2008 Operational Test and Evaluation annual assessment, U.S. Strategic Command intends to deploy THAAD systems “to protect critical assets worldwide.” All five of the system’s tests since 2006 have been deemed successful by the missile agency, though cost overruns and design flaws have slowed development.

PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3): Operationally fielded by the U.S. Army, the PAC-3 is the successor to the systems deployed in the 1991 Gulf War and the most mature system in the missile defense arsenal. Rapidly deployable, the system is vehicle mounted and employs sensors to track and intercept incoming threats. The PAC-3 has been used during combat missions in Iraq, with mixed success. On March 20, 2003, a U.S. Patriot missile crew intercepted an Iraqi Ababil-100 missile targeting U.S. and British commanders. It was the first combat-target kill by a PAC-3. But two days later, a separate U.S. Patriot missile crew accidentally downed a British Tornado fighter jet, killing two British aviators. The Pentagon deemed it “perceived self-defence.”

[1] See http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kosovo-solution.html