Related
Complex 2030: The Costs and Consequences of the Plan to Build a New Generation of Nuclear Weapons, a World Policy Special Report by William D. Hartung and Frida Berrigan, April 2007 (PDF)
---
April 25, 2007
Anti-Missile Missiles in Europe
By William D. Hartung
As Sen. Jess Trussme (a mythical political leader played by our good friend Ira Shorr) is wont to say, the beauty of missile defense is that it is “a weapon that doesn’t work for a threat that doesn’t exist.” This is doubly true for the Bush administration’s plan to put missile interceptors in Poland and anti-missile radars in the Czech Republic.By optimistic projections, the system would cost $3.5 billion and would be ready to go by 2013. U.S. officials involved with the project argue that this is early enough to deal with the highly touted Iranian threat, since they believe that Tehran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon and mount it on a ballistic missile until at least 2015. If this is so, there is much more time available to negotiate a cap on Iran’s nuclear program than Bush administration officials have officially acknowledged. Negotiations would not only be more effective, but they wouldn’t waste billions of dollars that could be used for far better purposes.
And what kind of system would exist by 2013, if - in a first for the missile defense program - it was actually developed on schedule? Most likely one that is no more effective than current missile interceptors, which have given no evidence that they can stop an incoming warhead under realistic conditions.
If the proposed system only wasted money, that would be outrageous enough. But it is also provoking a three-way political crisis among Europe, Russia, and the United States. One common objection has been raised by Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn of Luxembourg: “We don’t want to be a political football between Russia and the United States. We want the United States, Russia, and Europe to play together in a common defence project.” (Kristin Roberts, “Russian Official Dismisses U.S. Shield Cooperation,” Reuters, April 24, 2007).
While the Czech and Polish governments seem to be prepared to go along with the U.S. plans, nobody has asked the Czech and Polish people. A full 57% of Czechs oppose having U.S. anti-missile radars on their soil, versus 25% in favor. In Poland, the numbers are 68% against U.S. missile interceptors, versus 26% in favor.
As for the Russians, they are having none of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ arguments that they can “share” the project with Washington. From Moscow’s perspective, a system of ten missiles now could be expanded in the future in an effort to blunt their nuclear deterrent vis-à-vis the United States.
Given the obscene nuclear overkill possessed by both countries, the threat of US missile defenses may not be all it is cracked up to be.
But Russian leaders see it in the context of other provocative moves by the United States, from expanding NATO right up to their borders, to building military relationships with former Soviet Republics (and bordering states) from the Ukraine to Georgia to Kazakhstan, to seeking military bases in Rumania and Bulgaria. As the Washington Post put it, “it’s hard to think of a better way to revive the Cold War” than getting the U.S. and Russia into a tangle over the administration’s proposed missile deployments in Europe (”Missile Fantasies,” Washington Post, February 25, 2007).
The real danger of the whole missile defense effort is that it serves as a rationale for maintaining large, ongoing nuclear arsenals. As long as the illusion of a “technical fix” to the nuclear threat is kept alive, the urgency for reducing nuclear stockpiles is diminished.
Combined with the Bush administration’s “Complex 2030″ plan, which calls for building a new generation of nuclear weapons, missile defense represents a threat to peace, and ultimately a threat to all human life. The truth is that the only way to be truly safe from nuclear weapons is to get rid of them - all of them. This is no easy task, but if the U.S. government expended a small portion of the energy it is throwing into its misguided missile defense program into promoting nuclear disarmament, substantial progress could be made in relatively short order.
Showing posts with label missile defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label missile defense. Show all posts
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
America up to its old tricks again
Editorial
Published: 21/04/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)
Gulf News
The US has persuaded Nato that in their best interests, a missile shield should protect them from the danger of attack. The supposed source of such a deadly attack would, according to US intelligence, be both Iran and "others" in the Middle East.
As if things weren't bad enough through US policy, the thought of having armed missiles pointing towards the Arab world - just in case - is fearful. It is also more likely to lead to a rethinking and escalation of strategic defence in the region than a deterrent.
It also underlines the US attitude to foreign policy. Namely, to seek out and undermine all perceived threats, whether imagined or real. Such bravura performance reinforces the danger of the ill-conceived policies that emanate from the White House and the Pentagon.
Russia has already expressed alarm, and quite rightly so, at the prospect of 10 interceptor missiles being based in Poland, with an associated radar station in the Czech Republic.
Russia maintains that as there are no Iranian ICBMs, the installation of the missiles is primarily aimed as at Russia. Considering the US defence system will not protect all Nato members - Turkey and parts of Greece - it is likely that Russia's concerns are valid.
Published: 21/04/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)
Gulf News
The US has persuaded Nato that in their best interests, a missile shield should protect them from the danger of attack. The supposed source of such a deadly attack would, according to US intelligence, be both Iran and "others" in the Middle East.
As if things weren't bad enough through US policy, the thought of having armed missiles pointing towards the Arab world - just in case - is fearful. It is also more likely to lead to a rethinking and escalation of strategic defence in the region than a deterrent.
It also underlines the US attitude to foreign policy. Namely, to seek out and undermine all perceived threats, whether imagined or real. Such bravura performance reinforces the danger of the ill-conceived policies that emanate from the White House and the Pentagon.
Russia has already expressed alarm, and quite rightly so, at the prospect of 10 interceptor missiles being based in Poland, with an associated radar station in the Czech Republic.
Russia maintains that as there are no Iranian ICBMs, the installation of the missiles is primarily aimed as at Russia. Considering the US defence system will not protect all Nato members - Turkey and parts of Greece - it is likely that Russia's concerns are valid.
Friday, March 2, 2007
China demands US cancel planned missile sale to Taiwan
Friday March 2, 11:55 PM
AFP
China demanded Friday the United States scrap a planned sale of hundreds of missiles to Taiwan, warning the deal would harm regional stability and bilateral ties.
"We solemnly demand the leader of the United States... immediately cancel this weapons sale (and) avoid harming the peace and stability of the Taiwan Straits and Sino-US relations," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.
"The Chinese side expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to this. We have raised solemn representations with the US side."
The US Department of Defence this week notified Congress that it planned to sell Taiwan 421 million US dollars worth of missiles, which would help boost the island's defences against rival China.
"The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region," the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency said.
Acquisition of 218 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air missiles and 235 Maverick missiles would help Taiwan "modernise its armed forces and enhance its defence ability to counter air and ground threats," it said.
Qin said the sale violated US commitments to a "one China policy," which maintains that there is only one China with Beijing as its capital.
By selling weapons to Taiwan, Washington was also violating its promise to gradually reduce sales to the island territory, he said.
"By selling these missiles to Taiwan, the United States is violating ... its commitments," Qin said.
"This is rude interference into China's internal affairs."
China considers Taiwan a part of its territory to be reunified by force if necessary.
The United States is committed to providing Taiwan with defensive weaponry in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, a US law passed when it switched its political recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.
The proposed sale comes after US Vice President Dick Cheney last week expressed concerns over China's growing military might and as top US intelligence officials said Beijing was trying to achieve parity with the US in military affairs.
"China's continued fast-paced military build-up are... not consistent with China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise,'" Cheney said while on a trip to Australia.
Retired admiral Michael McConnell, the new director of US national intelligence, told Congress on Tuesday that "it's a matter of their building their military, in my view, to reach some sort of state of parity with the United States.
"They are a threat today, they will become an increasing threat over time."
US officials estimate China's annual defence spending at between 80 and 115 billion dollars, the highest in the world after the United States, and well above their stated defence spending of 35 billion dollars last year.
Following the barrage of criticism, China insisted this week that it posed no military threat to the rest of the world.
"China adheres to the role of peaceful development. We are an important force for maintaining peace and stability," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said when asked about Cheney's comments.
AFP
China demanded Friday the United States scrap a planned sale of hundreds of missiles to Taiwan, warning the deal would harm regional stability and bilateral ties.
"We solemnly demand the leader of the United States... immediately cancel this weapons sale (and) avoid harming the peace and stability of the Taiwan Straits and Sino-US relations," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.
"The Chinese side expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to this. We have raised solemn representations with the US side."
The US Department of Defence this week notified Congress that it planned to sell Taiwan 421 million US dollars worth of missiles, which would help boost the island's defences against rival China.
"The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region," the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency said.
Acquisition of 218 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air missiles and 235 Maverick missiles would help Taiwan "modernise its armed forces and enhance its defence ability to counter air and ground threats," it said.
Qin said the sale violated US commitments to a "one China policy," which maintains that there is only one China with Beijing as its capital.
By selling weapons to Taiwan, Washington was also violating its promise to gradually reduce sales to the island territory, he said.
"By selling these missiles to Taiwan, the United States is violating ... its commitments," Qin said.
"This is rude interference into China's internal affairs."
China considers Taiwan a part of its territory to be reunified by force if necessary.
The United States is committed to providing Taiwan with defensive weaponry in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, a US law passed when it switched its political recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.
The proposed sale comes after US Vice President Dick Cheney last week expressed concerns over China's growing military might and as top US intelligence officials said Beijing was trying to achieve parity with the US in military affairs.
"China's continued fast-paced military build-up are... not consistent with China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise,'" Cheney said while on a trip to Australia.
Retired admiral Michael McConnell, the new director of US national intelligence, told Congress on Tuesday that "it's a matter of their building their military, in my view, to reach some sort of state of parity with the United States.
"They are a threat today, they will become an increasing threat over time."
US officials estimate China's annual defence spending at between 80 and 115 billion dollars, the highest in the world after the United States, and well above their stated defence spending of 35 billion dollars last year.
Following the barrage of criticism, China insisted this week that it posed no military threat to the rest of the world.
"China adheres to the role of peaceful development. We are an important force for maintaining peace and stability," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said when asked about Cheney's comments.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
When cowboys don't shoot straight
| RUSSIA AND THE NEW COLD WAR When cowboys don't shoot straight Forget about "rogue states" such as North Korea or Iran. America's building of a missile defense system and deploying it in places like Poland (!) is aimed at achieving just one thing - nuclear primacy over the one other nuclear power in the world that still has the capability of destroying the US. - F William Engdahl (Feb 28, '07) |
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Missile Fantasies
The administration's rush to deploy missile defenses in Europe brings a sinister response from Russia.
Sunday, February 25, 2007; B06
THE EMERGING debate over the deployment of U.S missile defenses in Central Europe is based on a series of false pretenses. The Bush administration pretends that it is sensible to invest $225 million next year in preparing to install ground-based interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against an attack from Iran, even though the glitch-plagued defense system hasn't yet proved workable and Iran doesn't have a missile that could reach the United States or Europe. The Polish and Czech governments, eager to deepen strategic cooperation with the United States, pretend that they will benefit from hosting the systems, even though they have little reason to worry about threats from the Middle East and the Bush administration has been slow to reward their past collaboration in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The prize for cynical posturing, nevertheless, goes to Russia, which in the past few days has suddenly advanced a claim that it knows to be false: that the deployment of the antimissile system would weaken the Russian nuclear deterrent. As Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals know, even if U.S. interceptors in Poland could function according to the Bush administration's scheme -- which they can't, and won't anytime soon -- they would not be capable of stopping a single Russian intercontinental ballistic missile, much less the massive force that remains at Moscow's disposal. U.S. officials have met with Russian counterparts on at least 10 occasions to explain this.
Mr. Putin and his generals nevertheless are threatening that Russia might respond to the U.S. missile defenses by redeploying intermediate-range missiles that were banned from Europe by a 1987 treaty. An even more sinister comment came Monday from the commander of Russian missile forces, who said that if Poland and the Czech Republic hosted the U.S. rockets and radars, they would be targeted by Russia's strategic missiles. This crude attempt at intimidating Moscow's former Soviet satellites predictably produced a defiant response from the two governments and probably eliminated any domestic opposition to an otherwise questionable venture. As Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg put it, "The Czechs will now think the shield is even more necessary."
The Bush administration's pushing of this initiative, which would not result in the deployment of any interceptors in Europe before 2010, is probably motivated by the same political impulses that have driven missile defense since 2001. Administration officials are determined to create a program so literally set in concrete that it can't be stopped or reversed by future presidents -- as was the missile defense program of President George H.W. Bush. Whether the technology actually works or a threat exists that justifies the rush never seems to matter much.
Such sandbagging justifies close scrutiny by Congress of the Pentagon's $10 billion funding request for missile defense in next year's budget, including the funds for Poland and the Czech Republic. But the Russian gamesmanship is more worrisome. On the opposite page today, Mr. Putin's foreign minister denies any interest in confrontation. But at the same time Mr. Putin may use the U.S. defense program as an excuse to revive a major piece of the Soviet nuclear arsenal with which to threaten NATO members in Europe. It's hard to think of a quicker way to revive the Cold War.
Sunday, February 25, 2007; B06
THE EMERGING debate over the deployment of U.S missile defenses in Central Europe is based on a series of false pretenses. The Bush administration pretends that it is sensible to invest $225 million next year in preparing to install ground-based interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against an attack from Iran, even though the glitch-plagued defense system hasn't yet proved workable and Iran doesn't have a missile that could reach the United States or Europe. The Polish and Czech governments, eager to deepen strategic cooperation with the United States, pretend that they will benefit from hosting the systems, even though they have little reason to worry about threats from the Middle East and the Bush administration has been slow to reward their past collaboration in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The prize for cynical posturing, nevertheless, goes to Russia, which in the past few days has suddenly advanced a claim that it knows to be false: that the deployment of the antimissile system would weaken the Russian nuclear deterrent. As Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals know, even if U.S. interceptors in Poland could function according to the Bush administration's scheme -- which they can't, and won't anytime soon -- they would not be capable of stopping a single Russian intercontinental ballistic missile, much less the massive force that remains at Moscow's disposal. U.S. officials have met with Russian counterparts on at least 10 occasions to explain this.
Mr. Putin and his generals nevertheless are threatening that Russia might respond to the U.S. missile defenses by redeploying intermediate-range missiles that were banned from Europe by a 1987 treaty. An even more sinister comment came Monday from the commander of Russian missile forces, who said that if Poland and the Czech Republic hosted the U.S. rockets and radars, they would be targeted by Russia's strategic missiles. This crude attempt at intimidating Moscow's former Soviet satellites predictably produced a defiant response from the two governments and probably eliminated any domestic opposition to an otherwise questionable venture. As Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg put it, "The Czechs will now think the shield is even more necessary."
The Bush administration's pushing of this initiative, which would not result in the deployment of any interceptors in Europe before 2010, is probably motivated by the same political impulses that have driven missile defense since 2001. Administration officials are determined to create a program so literally set in concrete that it can't be stopped or reversed by future presidents -- as was the missile defense program of President George H.W. Bush. Whether the technology actually works or a threat exists that justifies the rush never seems to matter much.
Such sandbagging justifies close scrutiny by Congress of the Pentagon's $10 billion funding request for missile defense in next year's budget, including the funds for Poland and the Czech Republic. But the Russian gamesmanship is more worrisome. On the opposite page today, Mr. Putin's foreign minister denies any interest in confrontation. But at the same time Mr. Putin may use the U.S. defense program as an excuse to revive a major piece of the Soviet nuclear arsenal with which to threaten NATO members in Europe. It's hard to think of a quicker way to revive the Cold War.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Experts Warn About U.S. Plans For Missile Defense In Europe
US missile defence plan: a diplomatic shot in the foot?
by Pascal MalletWed Jan 24, 10:45 PM ET
The US risks unnecessarily inflaming Russia with its planned anti-missile defence system in eastern Europe, designed to intercept attacks from the Middle East and North Korea, experts warn.
"It is true that for intercontinental missiles fired from the Middle East -- from northern Iran for example -- the shortest way to reach Washington or New York passes over central Europe," said Bruno Gruselle, research specialist at the Paris-based Strategic Research Foundation.
But "the US military already has radar stations in Norway, in Greenland, and in Britain -- on top of its Defense Support System satellite alert system -- which permit the early detection of missiles, wherever they come from," he added.
Andrew Brookes, a space technology expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, echoed that the plan for radar sites in the Czech Republic and Poland "does not add anything to the US radar missile system".
"The Russians say 'this is my backyard. You need our cooperation'. They are right. You cannot stop Iran or contain Iran without Russia. You need the Russians onboard".
He deplored the possibility of unilateral US decisions "ignoring Russian sensitivities".
China is saying the same thing with respect to North Korea, the other perceived threat the US seeking to cover with the system, he added.
The United States on Monday confirmed it would soon begin formal talks on deploying a missile defence system in eastern Europe, had contacted the Czech Republic and Poland and would begin negotiations.
"No final decision has been made and no timetable for negotiations has been established; however, the United States and the Czech Republic expect that these negotiations will begin soon," the US embassy in Prague said in a statement.
The Pentagon hopes to be able to deploy a radar system and 10 interceptor missiles in the two EU countries, and former Soviet bloc states, by 2011.
The Kremlin condemned the US scheme as a "clear threat" to Russia and called for talks with US and European leaders.
Czech and Polish leaders rejected Russia's fears as groundless.
According to Ruslan Pukhov, director of the private Muscovite Centre for Strategic and Technological Analysts, "the attitude of Warsaw and Prague proves again that they retain the reflexes associated with the Cold War," as regards Russia.
For Brookes, outside of the Cold War shadows the Russians are seeking more cooperation and less unilateralism from Washington.
"What the Russians are saying is; 'Don't go unilaterally for the Czech Republic or Poland. Cooperate with us, use our systems, don't bring your own system into Europe'".
Moscow's strong reaction came as no surprise either at NATO or EU headquarters.
"Russia has for years insisted on being involved in all decisions which other powers might take to defend themselves against ballistic missiles, whether it be the United States or NATO," said one Brussels diplomat.
NATO spokesman James Appathurai refused to comment on the US defence scheme, calling it "purely a bilateral question" between Washington and the two European countries involved, even if they are all members of the Alliance.
Concerning NATO's own anti-missile system project "a feasability study has been carried out, but the 26 member states have taken no decision yet," he said.
Western diplomats are waiting to see what Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has to say on the subject of missile defence when he meets up with his Alliance counterparts at the upcoming NATO-Russia meeting in Seville, Spain on February 9.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)