PRESS RELEASE

9 February, 2001

The Conservative Missile Defense Plan:
At What Cost? 

Iain Duncan Smith MP, Conservative Party defence spokesman, on Monday 12^th February will fly to Washington to reiterate his party’s unconditional support for, and intention to participate in, the controversial US National Missile Defense (NMD) program.

According to a statement in 5^th February issue of Defense News by a leading NMD advocate, Sen. John Kyl of Arizona, a NATO deployment of anti-missile missiles could begin with a ground-launched system and move onto sea-, air- and spaced-launched weapons.  Given recent statements, it must be assumed that a new Conservative government would want to participate in each stage.

In the United States, the Conservative Party stance is praised by Republican leaders as the first public support from overseas for US intentions.  At home, the move has placed the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair on the defensive, as UK leaders are constrained by relations with Washington from making any forthright response. 

The Conservative Party hopes to form the government of the United Kingdom in a few months time.  What would be the financial and local impact of a UK government decision to participate in NMD?

Budget-busting?
A myriad of financial considerations face Conservative leaders.  What budget provision will the Conservatives put in their long-term planning to pay for this political commitment?  Does unconditional support for extending the anti-missile missile system to Britain include an unconditional financial commitment by the British taxpayer to purchasing such a system?  Or, in reality would there be great strains on the tax system and the existing equipment budget of the armed forces?

One option could be that, as with the cruise missile deployments of the 1980s, the missiles would be American owned and operated.  Britain did not share the financial burden with the United States of the deployment at Greenham Common. However, such an option for NMD may not be likely.  While making grand offers to include allies in a future NMD system, US congressional leaders already have signaled that they would expect participants to pay their own way.

Any cost estimate made today of direct British participation in a future US NMD network can only be hypothetical.  For one thing, the United States itself has not decided on a proposed architecture for the system; nor has the Pentagon yet been able to prove the technology is ready.  Nevertheless, as BASIC Director Dan Plesch asserts, “existing information indicates that the price tag likely would be in the order of billions of pounds.”

Pentagon plans now show a potential first-phase, ground-launched anti-missile missile system could involve a land-based battery of 20 missile launchers.  The purchase and 20-year operating costs of just one 20-missile battery with all radars, satellites and ancillary technology has been estimated at $26.6 billion [£17.8 billion] by the Pentagon’s Director of Testing and Evaluation.  The cost of acquiring and operating a missile battery alone would be considerably less; however, one can assume that Britain also would be charged something for integrating its missile battery into the US target tracking network.

Any US or US-UK land-based system also would require the use of Fylingdales radar station in Yorkshire.  It remains unclear whether the radar site would simply be upgraded with new software, as earlier proposed by the Pentagon, or whether new radars would be built, as now under consideration by the US Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.  Would the United States cover the costs, or would the UK government be expected to chip in?

A sea-based system might involve the purchase of new destroyers or cruisers, or involve fitting a new type of missile into the Trident submarine.  A ship or naval-missile purchase would involve as yet un-designed technology and could not happen until many years in the future; thus, the price is nearly impossible to estimate.  As a reference point, however, the British Defense Review estimated that the entire lifetime cost of the UK Trident system at £12.5 billion [$18.8 billion].

Local Impact?
Outside of cost, the local impact of any decision to locate ground-based interceptors on UK soil would be considerable.  The already completed US environmental impact study of the limited ground-based system proposed by President Bill Clinton’s administration envisages interceptor sites of about a square mile, with additional support facilities to be located within existing military bases.

A number of existing bases in the United Kingdom might be used, and ways found to avoid placing the facility within a national park (as now the case with Fylingdales).  Some of the now barely used US Air Force bases in Southern England such as Fairford and Kemble might be suitable.

That said, a question arises as to the impact of whether the selected base were in England, Scotland or Wales.  Any prospect of a deployment in Scotland would meet strong resistance and increase demands for greater devolution or independence.  

Conclusion
Conservative support for Star Wars is firm.  The Conservative Party now has an urgent duty to explain how great a financial commitment it is prepared to make, and whether it is prepared to build new ballistic missile bases in Britain.

For more information, please contact:
Mark Bromley or Dan Plesch in London on +44 (0)20 7407 2977 or 
Theresa Hitchens or Christine Kucia in Washington on +1 202 347 8340

Links

DOT&E report on cost of NMD 

.
Back to British Nuclear Policy

Back to NMD home page