Threat Assessment: Would Shield Spur Missile Race?

By Greg Seigle

Global Security Newswire

No matter what agreements are made between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush during the summit that begins in Washington today, the controversial missile shield that the United States aims to build in the next few years still faces stiff international and domestic resistance.

Russia appears poised to approve U.S. testing of a controversial intercept system in return for the Bush Administration agreeing to drastically reduce nuclear missile arsenals and not scrap the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see GSN, Nov. 12). Opponents, however, appear determined to try and verbally shoot down a missile defense system. They complain that the system would be unreliable, hence a waste of several billion dollars. 

Many detractors also argue that a national missile defense would spur a politically charged, potentially deadly missile race that would accelerate already active long-range missile programs in much of North Africa and Asia, including China.

Experts disagree on whether U.S. missile defenses would spark an arms race.

According to several ballistic missile experts from both sides of the political aisle, however, the pendulum would swing one way or the other depending on how advanced the U.S. anti-missile system is.

China is Key

Because Russia seems more flexible toward Washington’s proposals, most U.S. analysts believe that the worldwide response to further missile defense development hinges on China’s reaction.

Chinese generals have said that if Washington deploys even a limited national missile defense system with 100 interceptor missiles, Beijing would respond by increasing its ICBM arsenal to 100, possibly even 200.

For decades Beijing’s strategy has long been a simple yet serious gamble: as long as China can strike one or more U.S. cities with nuclear missiles, Washington would avoid any military showdowns. If Beijing perceives that U.S. defenses threaten China’s nuclear missile capabilities, then it might try to build around such defenses, a variety of experts say.

“The Chinese have not wanted to waste a lot of money on their deterrent,” said Robert Einhorn, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who served as the assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.

“I don’t think they would overreact … [But] they can go faster,” he continues. “They’re going to build up. The question is: ‘how much and how fast?’” he said.

Pike said the real concern about China’s response is whether the People’s Liberation Army would choose to dramatically upgrade its missiles.

“Will this be a qualitative expansion or will this be a quantitative expansion? No one really knows,” Pike said.

In order to overcome U.S. missile defenses, particularly the rudimentary system Bush wants to erect by 2004, China could easily equip its ICBMs not only with basic countermeasures such as simple balloons or chaff, but maybe even with advanced multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicles.

“They have in hand the capability to MIRV but I think they would want to do something more simple” and less expensive, such as disguising warheads as a decoys, said David Wright, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who is a senior Union of Concerned Scientists staff member.

In its last flight test in July, the U.S. missile interceptor used a system that aimed not for a warhead but for “anything that was not a decoy,” Wright said. China may increase its number of ICBMs tenfold to overcome any missile shield, but it would be easier and cheaper to take another route, Wright contended.

“They’ve been comfortable with a small number of missiles for a long time,” he said. “I think it would be a [financial] burden on them to build a lot more.”

The Cascade Effect

If China did respond to U.S. missile defenses by pouring more funds into its missile programs, most experts believe such a move would initiate a cascade effect: India would increase its production of Agni missiles, which would prod Pakistan to hasten its development of Ghauri missiles, which would goad Iran to rush its Shahab missiles and so on.

The latest versions of their missiles put these countries only a step or two away from ICBM capabilities. “It could spiral out of control real fast,” said a Pentagon missile defense official.

But other experts question whether U.S. missile defenses would really cause another missile race. Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said he believes the missile programs in China and elsewhere are “going quite fast already” and would be hard-pressed to speed up.

“I don’t think [a national missile defense] will start another arms race because there has already been an arms race for the last 10 years,” Lennox declared. “I don’t believe [China, North Korea and others] can go any faster because their budgets will not allow it.”

In addition to missiles, China is spending its money on a wide range of expensive items—ships, tanks, submarines and airplanes, Lennox noted.

Beijing “would not spend twice as much on missiles [as it currently does] because that would keep [it] from buying everything else,” he said. The same goes for North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and several other countries, he added.

Other Threats

The world of missile proliferation is a series of loosely knit partnerships between odd bedfellows, according to Einhorn.

China is believed to help missile production in North Korea and Pakistan while Russia is said to aid India, Iran and several others. The trickle-down effect leads the second-tier missile powers to assist other countries, including Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya and Sudan.

These partnerships are not always clear-cut, Einhorn said. For example, even though North Korea once helped Iraq build Scuds (also called al-Husseins), it is now aiding Iran, a bitter enemy of Iraq. Because China supplies missile technology to North Korea who in turn passes it on to Iran—and because the Shehab missile program also receives assistance from Russia—Iran soaks up knowledge from both Russia and China, the top two exporters of missile technology.

The Indian and Pakistani missile programs are not primary motivations for the United States to pursue missile defenses, but both countries are clearly engaged in a fast-paced missile race—cause for concern in Washington since both countries detonated nuclear bombs during surprising tests in May 1998.

U.S. Spending Could Win a Missile-Missile Defense Race

David Smith, a senior associate with CSIS and president of Global Horizons, a conservative consulting firm, said he believes the United States should take advantage of its economic prowess to “make it impossible” for China or any other country to keep up in a missile race.

“China wouldn’t [currently] be using all its diplomatic chips to defeat [U.S. missile defenses] if they thought it really isn’t going to work,” Smith remarked. “Why do you think they are screaming so much about this? If it’s not going to work, as they claim, then why are they so worried about it?”

North Korea, Iran and Iraq—plus the other countries pursuing long-range missiles that could eventually pose a risk to the United States—would not be able to keep up once U.S. missile defenses mature later in the decade, Smith said. Countries such as these would not be able or willing to funnel their already limited resources and funding towards missiles that may soon be rendered obsolete by U.S. wealth, technology and output, he added.

“The fact is that when the United States kicks into gear in a few years we will be able to shut these guys down,” Smith declared. “There’s no way North Korea or anyone else is going to outstrip the United States.”

Since North Korea fired the Tae’po Dong 1 into the middle of the Pacific Ocean in 1998 Pyongyang has faced a torrent of political pressure—coupled with U.S. financial aid—to halt its missile development. The efforts may be paying off, as North Korea has yet to test its Tae’po Dong 2 and doesn’t appear likely to do so anytime soon, analysts say.

“I really think North Korea wants out of this whole thing,” said Wright. “Their interest seems to have waned.”

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP