BASIC MEDIA ADVISORY
Wednesday, 31 May 2006
BASIC Calls for Declassification of
NATO's Missile Defence Study
At a press conference at NATO HQ in Brussels on May 10, Marshall
Billingslea, NATO assistant secretary general for defence investment,
presented the results of a four-year study of the missile threat
to Europe and how to defend against it. Although the report is classified,
Mr. Billingslea said it found missile defence for Europe technically
and financially feasible. Now, he said, it is up to NATO nations
to decide what to do.
How will that decision be made? On past precedent, it will be taken
behind closed doors at the next NATO Summit in Riga, Latvia, in
November with little or no prior scrutiny and debate in the elected
chambers of the 26 Member States. The groundwork for any decision
may well be made when NATO defence ministers meet in Brussels on
June 8.
BASIC is calling for this latest feasibility study and the numerous
other NATO and UK ballistic missile threat assessments and industrial
studies to be declassified and placed in the public domain to allow
for prior independent and parliamentary scrutiny.
The 10,000-page feasibility study funded by NATO (i.e. by European
and US taxpayers) was developed by an international consortium of
industries, led by the US firm Science Applications International
Corporation. The proposed system is meant to integrate with the
US Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system, which has so far cost
over $90 billion dollars.[1]
So when will European parliamentarians and the public get to see
this feasibility study? If NATO gets its way: never. The study remains
classified. NATO officials have even declined to divulge the cost
of the system or the time needed to build if it gets political backing.
This lack of transparency and accountability on such an important
issue is an affront to democratic traditions within NATO member
states.
Common sense would, of course, suggest that if the US interceptor
system could not reliably and consistently hit incoming warheads,
it would not be deployed. Yet, as history has shown, big military
programmes are rarely cancelled once governments and the contractors
are on board. Indeed, NATO is already pressing ahead with the proposal
in advance of a political decision. NATO is about to request industry
proposals to analyse various missile defence architectures and determine
ways to integrate the theatre missile defences some member states
already have, or are buying or developing. This integration process
is planned to start this year.
BASIC Executive Director, Dr Ian Davis said: "This NATO announcement
had the smack of yesterday's military men failing to recognise that
the world has moved on. It is apparent that the United States is
spending astronomical amounts on Ballistic Missile Defence, a system
that has a very low probability of functioning effectively, and
an even lower relevance to contemporary security risks. It would
be irresponsible for NATO to squander any resources on this expensive
'Maginot line in the sky' when there are higher priority defence
and domestic programmes that remain under-funded".
In a separate development, the US 2007 defence budget now before
Congress authorises funding for 10 interceptors for a European site,
although the money to start work on it may be cut in the Committee
stage. Poland and the Czech Republic are under active consideration
for the site, which the Pentagon wants to have operational by 2011.[2]
Despite earlier Pentagon interest, it now appears that the UK is
no longer a potential site for the interceptors, possibly because
of the political fall-out for Tony Blair.
Dr Ian Davis added: "Missile defence has been out of the news
for a while, in part because the US agency in charge of the programme
hasn't conducted a successful flight test of interceptors for nearly
four years. It is high time for the entire BMD programme to be terminated-in
the United States, NATO and in Central Europe. After $90 billion
in spending, the only concrete result of this technical dream has
been to further enrich the coffers of arms contractors".
For more information please contact:
Dr Ian Davis +44 (0)207 324 4685; mobile: 07887
782 389
Or
Nigel Chamberlain +44 (0)1768 898641
Or Refer To:
BASIC Notes, "NATO and Missile Defence: Stay Tuned This Could
Get Interesting", 30 June 2004, http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2004NATOMissileDefense-IstanbulSummit.htm
BASIC Press Release, "Is Britain About to Host US 'Star Wars'
Interceptor Missiles"? 4 April 2006, http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/060404.htm
BASIC Missile Defence Updates: http://www.basicint.org/update/MDU060323.htm
Notes for Editors
[1] Japan, Australia,
Israel, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, as well as other
US allies, are actively cooperating in Ballistic Missile Defence
(BMD) with the United States. Japan is by far the biggest partner,
contributing about $1 billion annually to research and development.
The United States is continuing to look at extending its Ground-based
Midcourse Defence (GMD) system into Europe by 2010. There are now
nine interceptors in silos at Ft Greely, Alaska and two at Vandenberg
AFB, California, with a total of 16 planned by December and 20 to
be installed in Alaska by the end of 2007. Missile-defence radars
are operational in Alaska and at Beale AFB, California, providing
coverage of the North Korean threat, and the upgraded Flyingdales
early-warning radar in the UK will become part of the GMD system
by the end of 2006, covering Middle East threats.
The US BMD programme has cost at least $90bn since 1985 and the
Pentagon plans to spend another $58bn in the next six years, according
to a recent congressional report, which also highlighted test failures
and criticised cost overruns and lack of transparency. In 2002,
President Bush claimed that the BMD system would be operational
in 2004, but to date there has been only preliminary testing of
some of its components and no formal declaration of an operational
capability. Dr Philip Coyle, a former US Department of Defense official,
noted in a recent article that: "The GMD system has no demonstrated
capability to defend the United States under realistic operational
conditions". Since the start of 2006 no less than seven US government
reports have faulted the BMD programme.
Britain already plays a crucial role in the BMD system through
the early-warning radar system at the Fylingdales base in Yorkshire,
facilitated by a UK-US memorandum of understanding on BMD signed
in 2003.
[2] The task of shooting
down missiles is broken down into three phases, with separate radars
and interceptors for each: "boost phase" (shooting down a missile
just after it's launched and the rocket lifts it through the atmosphere),
"midcourse phase" (as the missile arcs through outer space), and
"terminal phase" (as it plunges back through the atmosphere toward
its target). The interceptors envisioned for the European site-like
those at Fort Greely and Vandenberg in the United States-are designed
to shoot down ballistic missiles in the midcourse phase, i.e., as
they are heading toward someplace else. The existing sites in Alaska
and California are (in theory) ideally situated to intercept missiles
on their way from North Korea. The site in Europe would be well-placed
to handle missiles on a trajectory from the Middle East to the United
States.
|
