|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Plans I: Bush Administration Seeks Missile Defense Partners The Bush administration is moving to form partnerships with allies and non-U.S. companies to develop missile defense systems — an effort that was largely prevented in the past by the now-defunct Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Washington Post reported Saturday. U.S. officials will probably face skepticism as they visit NATO capitals this month and later fly to Asian cities to discuss missile defense cooperation, the Post reported (see GSN, April 15). Pentagon officials have said, however, that allied support is key to developing an anti-missile system. “We need to start talking to our allies about what their desires might be, what our needs might be and see if we can come together in some agreement,” said Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, Missile Defense Agency director. The United States already has some experience conducting joint development of systems to defend against shorter-range missiles, including the Arrow program with Israel (see GSN, May 7), the Medium Extended Air Defense System with Germany and Italy and the Standard Missile 3 program with Japan. The talks, to be mostly exploratory, will focus on what foreign companies might have to offer and on the U.S. need to use allied territory to base radars and perhaps interceptors, officials said. U.S. delegates might discuss basing early warning radar in Turkey, stationing interceptors in central European countries or using British shipborne radar technology, the Post reported (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, June 29). In a cooperative missile defense system different allies would have different roles, including jointly developing system components, participating in testing or exercises or allowing the United States to use air fields or ports, according to the Los Angeles Times. Pentagon officials have said they plan to focus on persuading Japan and European countries, possibly including Russia, to participate in missile defense projects. The projects would initially focus on developing missile defense systems to protect deployed troops, which is less controversial. Why the U.S. Needs Its Allies Pentagon officials are seeking allied support in an effort to prevent potential enemies from leveraging U.S. action by threatening its allies, according to the Times. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could threaten London, Paris or Berlin to influence U.S. plans to attack the country, said Jacques Gansler, former defense undersecretary for acquisitions and technology. “We have always thought that a threat to our major allies was a threat to us as well,” he said. “It’s in our interest to protect these capitals as well as New York and Los Angeles.” Another reason for joint efforts is the tendency for the United States to fight wars in multinational coalitions, according to the Times. If a missile is heading toward allied forces, “you’re not going to say, ‘I wonder whose troops it’s heading for,’” Gansler said. “You’re going to need to protect the entire force.” Since many anti-missile systems perform better when their radar, sensors and interceptors are close to an enemy launch site, the United States would probably also need permission to move equipment through other countries’ territory. For example, the Pentagon might ask for permission to move Aegis cruisers through various ports and land airborne laser aircraft on bases in other countries, the Times reported (Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, June 29). China Too U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) indicated there might be opportunities for U.S.-Chinese missile defense cooperation, according to Defense Daily. When a congressional delegation recently visited Beijing, senior Chinese military officials did not express concern about U.S. missile defense plans or the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, Weldon said (see GSN, April 14). “This proves the real questions on the ABM Treaty were not in Moscow or in Beijing but with the liberals in the United States who warned the sky was falling,” Weldon said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, June 28). Potential Obstacles Despite U.S. interest in multinational cooperation, many U.S. allies have expressed little enthusiasm for missile defense programs. European defense spending has been in decline, and NATO members place spending priority on programs such as strategic airlift and precision munitions rather than missile defense, according to the Post (Graham, Washington Post). Allies might also be reluctant due to uncertainty over missile defense costs. The U.S. investment is estimated at $48 billion only through 2007, and many long-term costs will depend on which technologies are chosen for an actual deployed system (Richter, Los Angeles Times). U.S. leaders have not decided which technologies will be used, and some diplomats said allies would be hesitant to support a program without a more distinct concept of it will involve. “How far can dialogue and engagement go at this point without a clearer idea of the architecture?” one European diplomat said. Other potential obstacles include questions over what ability foreign firms have to contribute and U.S. legal barriers controlling access to sensitive information (Graham, Washington Post). Joint Sensor Project Meanwhile, U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin and Russia’s Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center have signed an agreement to begin joint work on missile defense, MDA Director Kadish and Representative Weldon said Thursday, according to Defense Daily. Under the agreement, the two countries would initially focus on developing sensors for missile defense (see GSN, May 24). The agreement is the result of one of several discussions regarding Russian-U.S. cooperation that have been taking place, Kadish said. An MDA delegation has also visited Ukraine to discuss ideas for cooperation, Kadish added. Senate Could Cause Major Delays Meanwhile, Kadish and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the House Armed Services Committee that the version of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill passed last week in the Senate would cut the missile defense program severely (see GSN, June 28). The bill would allow the president to apply up to $814 million in inflation savings to missile defense to offset cuts in made by the Senate Armed Services Committee. If inflation savings do not materialize, the missile defense program would be delayed, and U.S. President George W. Bush’s senior advisers would suggest that the president veto the bill, Wolfowitz said (Gildea, Defense Daily). For further information, see: U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget Federation of American Scientists Background on Arrow U.S. Fact Sheet on Withdrawal from ABM Treaty U.S. Defense Department ABM Treaty Summary
| ||||||||||
Back to top
