Missile Defence is a controversial issue that has troubled diplomats and military leaders alike for more than forty years. Ever since Ronald Reagan proposed the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), later nicknamed ‘Star Wars’ after the synonymous film and due to its alleged inclusion of Space-Based Interceptors, Missile Defence has largely become a popular term, even though the programmes predate that particular programme by more than fifteen years. More recently, its rebirth, through the efforts of people like Newt Gingrich and the very controversial Richard Perle, one of the loudest advocates of the 2003 Iraq war has attracted media attention after it caused a war of words between U.S. and Russian officials. Richard Perle recently appeared in America at a Crossroads, an 11 hour PBS documentary series that addresses both the rift between Islamic fundamentalism and the West, the reasons behind extremism, the situation in Iraq (both from the U.S. and Iraqi perspectives), U.S. social cohesion and the integration of its Muslim population and the general issue of security vs. liberty. His interview is perhaps characteristic of his out-of-touch view of the world, his ignorance of the facts that stare him in the eye and his insistence on a position that has long been proven wrong.
The documentary is an excellent, largely unbiased depiction of the outcome and side-effects of the war as well as the challenges facing the U.S. and by extension the world as a whole. It is highly recommended.
I recall having several long conversations on the subject of Missile Defence with friends just after the turn of the century, and later in 2002 when the U.S. withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty. The significance of the U.S.’s faith in the programme is quite high, both for its multilateral relations with Europe and Russia, but also for the European relations with their neighbours.
Interception
Missile Defence involves the destruction of incoming missiles (typically ICBMs) armed with one or more nuclear warheads, before they reach the lower levels of the atmosphere, and pose dangers to the environment or population. This is achieved primarily by tracking the missiles and launching smaller missiles to intercept them during their flight. The process requires the coordination of several ground tracking stations, satellites and ground intercept stations that actually launch the missiles. Due to the need for early detection and accurate tracking, as well as fast response, radar stations need to be positioned in relative geographical proximity to the launch region.
History
The Missile Defence programmes have been ongoing for several decades with little evidence of any results, until very recently. According to the PBS documentary ‘Missile Wars’, about US$100bn (€74bn) have been spent on such programmes and the underlying technology since the 1960s. There were two periods in which the programme was revived: the early 1980s when Ronald Reagan attempted to build a sophisticated Missile Defence programme (later dubbed ‘Star Wars’) and the mid to late 1990s when Clinton revived the programme for political reasons. Today Missile Defence is arguably as insufficient a defence against any probable threat to the United States as it’s ever been: several of the tests have failed and even when they work, they can only track and intercept a very small number of inbound missiles. Moreover, the main reason for its existence in the post-Cold War environment is — according to the U.S. military, defence against non-state actors; yet non-state actors are not very likely to use ICBMs to attack the United States as it turns out.
Poland and The Czechs
The 2004 accession of ten countries to the European Union was perhaps the first occasion when the absence of a constitutional (or reform if you’re that pedantic about the semantics) treaty and a common European foreign and military policy largely affected politics within and beyond the Union. Poland is arguably the most prominent example of why that is the case; a country deprived of freedom for the better part of a century, with deeply rooted sentiments regarding its past, its neighbours and its role, a country starving for wealth and prosperity, political and military might, it has largely demonstrated its complete ignorance on the raisons d’etre of the EU and aligned itself with the U.S. on most aspects of foreign and military policy. (Most recently Poland achieved the unenviable feat of becoming the ‘jerk’ among the EU states in the German Summit). It should come as no surprise then that Poland, along with the Czech Republic, were the two countries that agreed to host the U.S. Missile Defence installations.
It is clear that Poland and the Czech Republic expect to (and probably will) be rewarded for their loyalty by the U.S.. Yet, Missile Defence, as implemented today, is not as controversial as it seems. If anyone should be enraged by it it should be the citizens of the U.S.; for it is completely useless and at the same time immensely expensive.
Russia
While in the the European Union — and some European States — also expressed its objections to Missile Defence technology, it has recently remained silent on the matter. Russia, on the other hand, has long maintained its opposition to the prospect of a U.S. Missile Defence in Europe; Judging from what is publicly known about the system, there is no reason for Russia to complain, except perhaps as part of the regular diplomatic games between two large powers. Yet, earlier in 2007, Russian officials spoke of the possibility of a new arms race and even stepped up the rhetoric and threatened to target Europe with their nuclear weapons once more, if the U.S. Missile Defence plans proceeded.
It begs the question: Why is Russia so upset about it?
The Russian reaction to the U.S. plans is not immediately apparent. The Russian deterrent is not affected by the new system, nor is its capability to blow up everything on this planet several times. Unless there is something more behind the proposed U.S. installations — such as Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) capability that might intercept Russian communications for example — the Russian concerns seem only political/diplomatic in nature: an attempt by Russia to maintain its status as a powerful regional player that can exert influence over its neighbours, including Poland and the Czechs, and maintain some sort of influence over them. This could be a repeat of the Russian and U.S. attempts to sway Georgia on their side and keep their military bases on that country. Or, it could be something else entirely.
The Bottom Line
The reason put forward by the proponents of Missile Defence is effectively protection against a rogue state with limited capability launching a nuclear ICBM against the U.S. (and perhaps some of its allies). The current implementation of the U.S. Missile Defence system would not — in any circumstance — be capable to stop an all-out nuclear attack by some of the largest nuclear states and of course would be completely useless against a Russian nuclear attack. In this respect, the Russian reasons against it are completely unfounded as its deterrence capability remains intact.
Europe, on the other hand, should be concerned. For if Europe is to maintain a high standard of living in the 21st century, it will need to rid itself of the external military presence of and influence of both the U.S. and Russia and strengthen its military capability. A U.S. Missile Defence installation in Europe goes a long way against this. Moreover, Putin’s statement that ‘stuffing Europe with weapons’ would turn it into a ‘powder keg’ is somewhat related and a valid concern. Once again, as with the Iraq war and countless other occasions before it, the people, in their majority, disagree with the government. Both in the Czech Republic and in Poland the public is largely against the Missile Defence systems being installed on their land.
On the other hand, the sheer cost of the Missile Defence programme and its mediocre performance, coupled with the extremely low probability of an attack by a ‘rogue state’ or a (non-state) organisation against the U.S. using ICBMs renders it a very controversial system indeed. In the end, if anyone should be complaining about it that’d probably be the people of the United States. But that’s as likely to happen as an ICBM launch aimed at the U.S. by a non-state actor.