|
|
|
 |
|
|
| HOME |
| NUCLEAR AND WMD |
| TRANS-ATLANTIC SECURITY |
| WEAPONS TRADE |
| BASIC PUBLICATIONS |
| ABOUT BASIC |
 |
MISSILE DEFENCE UPDATE26 July 2007 In this issue:
Past editions of Missile Defence Update are available at: http://www.basicint.org/update/mdu.htm. EditorialThe Latest Snake Oil: Beware of the salesmen peddling missile defense for EuropeFirst appeared in the Prague Post on 13 June 2007. By Victoria Samson and Ian Davis. In the 1936 film, Poppy, W. C. Fields portrayed a Western frontier American snake-oil salesman, complete with a surreptitious crowd accomplice. Watch out, Europe. The modern-day equivalent, Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, is peddling something even more pernicious than a cure for hoarseness. The Pentagon is hoping to extend its missile-defense system all the way to Eastern Europe, with a radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland. In the background, senior NATO officials are craftily working the crowds. The U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system uses an interceptor missile to directly destroy an incoming long-range ballistic missile while it is arcing in outer space. There are currently 14 interceptors fielded in Alaska and two in California with the aim of meeting a future threat: intercepting a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) fired at the United States from North Korea. Now, the United States is arguing that it needs a third site in Europe to defend against an even more remote possibility: a single ICBM launched from Iran. Like all forms of grift, the sales pitch involves a combination of scare-mongering, boisterous marketing hype, the presentation of pseudo-scientific evidence (usually without independent peer review) and European accomplices attesting to the value of the product in an effort to provoke buying enthusiasm. But European leaders should exercise caution when listening to the pitch. First, while Iranian and North Korean missiles are a growing concern, neither country currently has the capability to launch an ICBM that can strike the United States. Even if one did acquire such a capability (worst-case scenarios suggest such a possibility by 2015 for Iran and perhaps sooner for North Korea), any use with a nuclear warhead would be a national suicide note, given the 10,000-plus nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. Moreover, crossing the ICBM threshold is a complex, time-consuming and expensive task, and putting a nuclear warhead on a primitive and unreliable ballistic missile would be a risky and costly business for a state with only a limited amount of nuclear weapon material. Second, it beggars belief that NATO members (who account for over half of global defense spending and with overwhelming conventional military supremacy) cannot contain such a threat, and preemptively destroy it with conventional munitions. Of course, direct U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran and North Korea is a more cost-effective way of mitigating both the missile and nuclear threat. Third, the missile defense system has never proven that it can reliably work in realistic real-world circumstances. During highly scripted testing, an interceptor made a successful intercept in only six out of 11 attempts. Satellite networks required for detecting and tracking an enemy missile launch are way over budget and years behind schedule. No real command and control network has been established. Fourth, the raison d’etre for the proposed European site seems to change with the wind. It started out as a defense for the continental United States; then, it was to defend the United States and also parts of Europe; and now authorities claim there will be a new interceptor designed specifically for the European site. This two-stage interceptor, instead of the more powerful and far-reaching three-stage interceptor that has been the mainstay of missile defense to date, will presumably defend only Europe against an intermediate-range ballistic missile attack. Outstanding questions abound. Is the United States so benevolent that it plans to spend $3.5 billion on a new missile-defense site that would only defend its European allies and not the United States? Who will develop it? Where will it be tested? Would such tests be illegal under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty? And, if it can’t be tested, how will we know if it is reliable? What are the timelines to deployment? The current three-stage GMD interceptor has been lurching between various tests since 1999 and continues to be dogged by operational uncertainties. Russia sees the prospective European deployment as a threat to its own national security, and fears the East European bases may trigger a new arms race. MDA downplays these fears, but the push for a European GMD site clearly accentuates anti-American hysteria in Moscow. As a final point, the United States is hoping to build a space-based interceptor test bed as part of its overall missile-defense system, and has asked Congress for funding to start on such a project next year. If this happens, then it’s possible the European radars would be included in this capability. Does Europe really want to be involved in putting weapons in space? Ultimately, Europe is being asked to buy into a costly (more than $100 billion and rising), destabilizing and unproven system, that includes an interceptor missile that is not yet on the drawing board, to meet a threat that does not yet exist. Attempting to sell this mother of all snake oils would make even W. C. Fields blush. Victoria Samson is a research analyst at the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C., and Ian Davis is co-executive director of the British American Security Information Council in London. United StatesBACKSTORY: The United States unveiled its plan in January to place a radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, as components of its missile defence system. Russia has voiced strong opposition to the proposed deployment. During a three-day visit to the US, Polish President Lech Kaczynski travelled to Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (on July 18) to take a closer look at the missile defence system similar to one the earmarked for construction in his own country. Both President Bush and President Kaczynski defended plans for the missile defence system. On July 14, Russia followed through with its threat to suspend application of the CFE Treaty (one of the key post-Cold War security accords in Europe). Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said the move was connected to NATO's eastward expansion and what he said were violations of the CFE Treaty by the NATO alliance. Earlier, in a domestic TV interview, Russian Deputy PM Sergei Ivanov described the plans for a missile defence system in Eastern Europe as creating “a new dividing line, a New Berlin Wall". A few days earlier, Czech President Vaclav Klaus began a three-day official visit to Poland, which included talks with Lech Kaczynski on the missile defence proposals. In June, the Czech Republic agreed to a US proposal to station anti-missile radar sites on its territory, probably to be located near Misov village, west Bohemia, some 90 km southwest of Prague (although the final decision on the radar location will be made by the Czech parliament). A number of referendums and polls on the radar base have been held in towns and villages in west Bohemia, including in Misov, and most participants have expressed disagreement with the base – sentiments echoed by most of the Czech public, with 61 percent of citizens opposed in the most recent opinion polls and seven in 10 supporting a possible referendum on the plan. Poland is yet to give a definitive answer to the US request; it has agreed provisionally to host the system and is currently negotiating terms of the deal which are expected to be concluded by September. A survey conducted between June 29 and July 2 showed that 55 percent of Poles are opposed to the shield, a fall from an earlier 60 percent recorded last month. 28 percent of those questioned expressed support, up slightly from 26 percent last month. If Warsaw does agree to the programme, US corporation Boeing would build the interceptor systems in Poland for around $600 million, Deputy Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said on July 5. “Whatever marginal benefit may be perceived to accrue from deploying a European component of GMD is clearly outweighed by its costs, both financial and political. The bottom line is a no-brainer: The third GMD missile defense site in Europe should be put on ice.” Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr., a former president of National Defense University; senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, 22 June 2007. Further reading: “No defence against missiles”, The Guardian Leader, 16 July 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127230,00.html “Missile Defense Collision Course”, Daryl G. Kimball, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_07-08/focus.asp “Obstacles Ahead for Missile Defense”, Christian Science Monitor, 9 July 2007. “Senate Panel Faults Missile Defense Plan - Location in Eastern Europe Is Criticized”, Washington Post, 5 July 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/04/AR2007070401490.html Transcript of Arms Control Association's 11 June press briefing on "Avoiding Renewed U.S.-Russian Strategic Competition", http://www.armscontrol.org/events/20070604_USRussia.asp ”Solid majority of Poles oppose missile defence”, Deutsche Presse-Agentur,
29 June 2007, ”Missile defence deal with US by September: Polish official”, Associated
Press, 27 June 2007, “Euro-BMD bad for U.S.”, Robert Gard, 22 June 2007, UPI Outside
View Commentator, "Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe," Congressional Research Service, 22 June 2007. “Villagers revolt as Bohemian hilltop set to be eyes and ears of
'star wars'”, Ian Traynor, The Guardian, 13 June 2007, “The Elephants of Missile Defense”, Frida Berrigan, 13 June 2007,
“Bush and Harper are dumb and dumber in Eastern Europe”, James
Laxer, 11 June 2007, ”What Missile Defense Has Accomplished”, Allen Ahearn, Letter to
Washington Post, 12 June 2007, “The United States vs Russia, again”, Paul Rogers, 7 June 2007,
“The Paradox Of Missile Defense”, James Carroll, The Boston Globe, 5 June 2007. On June 29 former President Bill Clinton cast doubt on the effectiveness
of US missile defence, deriding it as a "colossal waste of money".
"My impression is that we are creating a crisis here when none is
necessary," Clinton told a conference in the Ukrainian resort of
Yalta. He suggested it was more logical to return to the reasoning
of former US President Ronald Reagan's long abandoned "star wars"
project of the 1980s intended to counter hostile missile systems.
"He wanted the Russians to have it, he wanted everyone to have it,"
he told the conference. Reported by Reuters – see: http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/ The following is an extract of a letter from Noam Chomsky to Jan Tamáš, a member of the Czech humanist movement, and also the spokesman of "No to Bases", an initiative against the stationing of a US radar base in the Czech Republic (31 May 2007): The installation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe is, virtually, a declaration of war. Simply imagine how the US would react if Russia or China or Iran or in fact any foreign power dared even to think about placing a missile defense system at or near the borders of the US, let alone carrying out such plans. In these unimaginable circumstances, a violent US reaction would be not only almost certain but also understandable for reasons that are simple and clear. Taken from the website of the "No Base" Initiative in the Czech Republic (Iniciativa NE základnám) www.nezakladnam.cz BACKSTORY: The defence authorization bill for 2008 contains more than $9 billion for ballistic missile defence programmes, including additional ground-based interceptors in the United States or Europe, the Airborne Laser (ABL) programme, the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) programme, and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). The House Appropriations defence subcommittee is expected to cut $139 million, or more than a third, of Pentagon-requested funding in fiscal year 2008 for the US missile defence capability in Europe. The Pentagon sought $310 million in FY-08 as a down payment on a $4 billion, six-year plan to establish a radar site in the Czech Republic and missile interceptor silos in Poland. However, funding for the KEI is increased to $372 million (a $145 million addition to the Pentagon request). The House panel recommendations must clear a number of legislative hurdles and then be reconciled with a Senate appropriations bill in the Autumn. As reported in the last Update, the Pentagon has also asked for over $500 million for the ABL programme, an ill-fated effort to place a laser capable of shooting down missiles in a Boeing 747 airplane. Since the ABL programme was launched in 1994, the Defense Department has spent $4.3 billion on the work, according to the Congressional Research Service. Finishing development and buying a working fleet of the aircraft could cost an additional $11 billion, according to a February report from the Congressional Budget Office. The House Armed Services Committee cut the programme to $300 million. In June the Senate Armed Services Committee pressed for greater oversight of the US Missile Defense Agency, along with increased transparency by the agency itself, as part of its report for the FY 08 defence authorization bill. The Washington-based Center for Defense Information (CDI) has a
new table on its web site with details of the defence authorization
request and House versus Senate versions for various missile defence
and space programmes. The table is available at: Further reading: “Airborne Laser Program May Die at Hands of Legislators,” Albuquerque Times, 9 July 2007. “Democrats propose cutting funds for missile defense system”, Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers, 6 June 2007, http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17332441.htm On June 15 the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) completed a successful test-firing of the first stage rocket motor for the proposed Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). The MDA said in a statement that the static test firing was carried out at the Alliant Techsystems Inc. facility in Promontory, Utah. "This was the second of five planned first-stage rocket motor ground tests," the agency said. "Following continued developmental tests of rocket motor stages and interceptor equipment, the KEI plans to conduct its first flight test in 2008". Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the KEI programme. Further reading: ”BMD Focus: Kinetic Energy”, Martin Sieff, The Post Chronicle,
23 June 2007, On June 23 another successful test of a US sea-based missile-defence system took place in the Pacific with the interception of a ballistic missile in mid-flight. The test off Hawaii was the ninth success in 11 tries for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System and had officials looking ahead to operational deployment aboard US Navy war ships. The Associated Press reported on 28 June that a mostly Republican group of lawmakers set up an advocacy group to promote plans for US missile defence. The 34 Republicans and three Democrats are seeking to boost the programme at a time when Democratic leaders in Congress have sought to trim its funding. The mission statement said that despite the West's victory in the Cold War, "the principal military threat from this struggle unfortunately did not vanish along with the Soviet Union — ballistic missiles capable of delivering extraordinary damage to the United States." It said "rogue states and America's strategic military rivals" are building faster, longer-range and more sophisticated ballistic missiles, capable of hitting the United States. BACKSTORY: A new National Space Policy signed by President George Bush in October last year asserts that the United States has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests. The future of the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), a $11 billion space-based ballistic missile warning system, remains in doubt. SBIRS has experienced five major cost overruns and several years of delay On 23 May, the US Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held an oversight hearing to explore the Administration’s military and diplomatic policies toward the use of space. The hearing examined the 2006 National Space Policy (unclassified version) and the impact of Administration policies on the use of space by other countries, such as the January 2007 anti-satellite test by China. Ambassador Donald Mahley in his testimony said the Bush administration will oppose the creation of arms-control regimes that seek to limit US access to space or to impair US rights to conduct research, development and testing operations in space. Further reading: Transcripts and testimony to US Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs: http://nationalsecurity.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1326 “Pentagon Poised to Decide Fate of Sbirs” and “Krieg To Decide
SBIRS Path This Month”, Amy Butler, Aviation Week, 4 June
2007, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?
“Space and Security: China’s Antisatellite Weapon Test in Strategic Perspective”, Ashley Tellis, Carnegie Endowment Policy Brief, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/pb_51_tellis_final.pdf The US Navy has been seeking to convert Trident II D-5 SLBMs to carry conventional warheads. Although Congress eliminated the $127 million earmarked in the fiscal year 2007 budget for this purpose, the US Air Force and Navy continue to push for a so-called Prompt Global Strike capability. The Air Force is considering a land-based design using decommissioned Peacekeeper and Minuteman rocket motors on a Minotaur launch vehicle tipped with a conventional munition. But a recent study from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee says the Navy's Trident II D5 option appears to pose the least risk of technical problems. Included in the Navy's 2008 budget request is a proposal to demonstrate the ability to conventionally arm the Trident II D5 with four warheads. The Navy needs about $120 million in 2008 to proceed with fielding the capability within the next five years. The Navy notionally plans to dedicate two of 24 tubes in each of 14 Ohio-class submarines to the conventional Trident mission. The remaining tubes would continue to carry the nuclear-armed versions. Congress continues to be wary of such plans. Further reading: “Hardly Conventional - The Pentagon is looking for non-nuclear strike options, prompting new demos”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 2 July 2007. US 'Prompt Global Strike' Capability: A New Destabilising Sub-State Deterrent in the Making? Ian Davis and Robin Dodd, BASIC Paper No.51, June 2006. RussiaAt the annual G8 Summit in early June, Putin made a surprise offer of partnership with the US, proposing to share data from a Soviet-era air-defence radar system leased by Russia and located at Gabala in Azerbaijan. The offer was broadened during his meeting with President Bush at Kennebunkport, Maine, a few weeks later. The Gabala radar has been operational since early 1985, and with a range of 3,700 miles it is the most powerful in the region and can detect any missile launches in Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa. The Russians have also made other proposals, including for a global missile defence system to be created by 2020. First deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov in a television interview said: "We are proposing to create a single missile defence system for all participants with equal access to the system's control”. It would involve creating missile defence data exchange and early warning centres in Moscow and Brussels under the NATO-Russia Council's control. He also said “Russia is ready in the future to offer its new radar being built in the Krasnodar Territory [in southern Russia] for a joint data system". But if the US does not go along with Putin's "compromise", Ivanov said that Moscow will be forced to conclude that the US missile defence system is aimed at Russia and, therefore, to deploy new offensive nuclear missiles on the western borders and to aim them at Europe, in order to offset the system's "destabilizing" effect. The US response to the Russian proposals has been lukewarm at best. During a trip to Brussels on 14 June, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the Azerbaijan radar site would complement, not replace, the anti-missile radar system proposed for the Czech Republic. Other US officials noted that the radar was not sophisticated enough for the task. It could detect the launching of missiles, but it could not track them in flight. At Kennebunkport, Putin suggested modernizing the radar or building a new one, either in Azerbaijan or in southern Russia. However, the US administration remains unmoved. Stephen D. Mull, acting assistant secretary in the bureau of political-military affairs, confirmed on 10 July that the US is not considering the Gabala offer as an alternative to installing missile defence stations in Poland and the Czech Republic. He said: "We believe that those installations are necessary for the security of our interests in Europe, and both of those countries agree, and the entire NATO alliance agrees. And so we do not believe that the Gabala suggestion replaces that. We're still going to go ahead with the installation on those sites". Writing in the New York Times on 11 July, one of the US’ leading missile defence experts, Theodore Postol, argued that the data sharing offer made sense: “It should be obvious that when you use two systems with such different strengths and weaknesses in tandem, you will have a much easier time spotting and tracking missiles”. Further reading: “A Ring Around Iran”, Theodore Postol, New York Times, 11 July 2007 “Global missile defense system could be created by 2020 – Ivanov”,
RIA Novosti, 8 July 2007, “U.S. intends to go ahead with missile defense stations in Eastern
Europe”, “How Putin Played Bush in Kennebunkport”, Fred Kaplan, Slate,
5 July 2007, “Russia Vows Missile-Defense Response”, Associated Press,
4 July 2007, “Inside Russia's missile defence base”, Richard Galpin, BBC News,
Gabala, Azerbaijan, “Can US-Russian Missile Defense Cooperation in Azerbaijan Work?,
Richard Weitz, 14 June 2007, “Putin brilliantly calls Bush's bluff on missile defense system”,
Gwynne Dyer, 11 June 2007, “Putin 'not kidding' on missile threat, Yushchenko warns”, The
Globe and Mail, 11 June 2007, “The new cold war: Russia's missiles to target Europe”, Luke Harding,
The Guardian, 4 June 2007, AFP reported on July 16 that Russia intends to strengthen its missile defence around Moscow by deploying the long-delayed S-400 Triumph missile system. Russia successfully tested S-400 missiles, also known by their Nato designation SA-21 Growler, immediately before the Kremlin announced its suspension from the CFE Treaty. The missiles are designed to shoot down medium-range ballistic missiles and aircraft from as far away as 400 kilometres, twice as far as the US Patriot missile. On June 28 Russia successfully tested a new, sea-based ballistic missile. The Bulava missile was launched from the White Sea off Russia's north-west coast and hit its target on the Pacific Ocean peninsula of Kamchatka. Three earlier tests of the weapon in recent years had failed. The Bulava is designed to have a range of 10,000km (6,200 miles) and carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads. Reported by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6251082.stm Europe/ TransatlanticPlans by the Bush Administration to station missile interceptors and radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic were discussed at a public hearing in the European Parliament on 28 June. At the hearing there were sharp differences about the desirability of the missile interceptors, and the actions of Poland and the Czech Republic in agreeing to the US request. Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, the Polish European People's Party and European Democrats (EPP-ED) MEP who Chair’s the foreign affairs committee said we must "avoid new dividing lines between member states". He called for closer dialogue with Russia. Karl Von Wogau (EPP-ED), Chair of the security and defence subcommittee deplored the "deficit of information" on the issue and said there should be more cooperation with the Union, and with the US and within existing NATO structures. He ended by saying that "to have 2 zones of different security in Europe is unacceptable". In a resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 25 April MEPs stated that "the US system should be coordinated and interoperable with NATO's Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (TBMD) system". Further reading: BACKSTORY: NATO is developing a theatre missile defence system to protect its armed forces against short and medium range missiles. It is also looking at a more expansive missile defence system to protect population centres in member states, although concerns persist as to the lack of transparency in this process. NATO’s 26 nations have agreed to assess by February 2008 the political and military implications of the planned missile defence systems in Europe. Following up on decisions from NATO’s 2006 Riga Summit, the assessment will include an update on missile threat developments, taking into account the discussions about a US “third site” in Europe. “The NATO roadmap on missile defence is now clear,” said NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, “It is clear, practical and agreed by all.” US Defense Secretary Robert Gates attending the meetings at NATO HQ in Brussels said he did not hear criticism by allies of US anti-missile plans in Poland and the Czech Republic. Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s 14 June statement also said that the alliance will study the possibility of “bolting” NATO and US missile defence systems together to ensure that all 26 allies are protected effectively from future threats. “In essence, the alliance will pursue a three-track approach,” de Hoop Scheffer said in the statement. The three tracks include: continue the ongoing NATO project to develop by 2010 a theatre missile defence for protecting deployed troops; assess the full implications of the US system; and continue existing cooperation with Russia on theatre missile defence, as well as consultation on related issues. Further reading: “NATO to Assess US Missile Defense Plan for Europe”, Vince Crawley, 19 June 2007, http://www.mediaforfreedom.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=625 “NATO agrees on missile defence way forward”, http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2007/06-june/e0614a.html “NATO Struggles With Missile Defense”, Joris Janssen Lok, 10 June
2007. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp? BASIC Calls for Declassification of NATO's Missile Defence Study, BASIC Media Advisory, 31 May 2006. At the beginning of June, the WEU Assembly called for the development
of an 'antimissile concept, driven by European interests, that is
interoperable with the US MD system and amenable to Russian proposals
for cooperation' within the framework of the WEU and NATO. Presenting
a report entitled 'Missile defence - a common European position'
on behalf of the Technological and Aerospace Committee, Edward O´Hara
(United Kingdom, Socialist Group) stressed that the Assembly had
'concerns about the risk of a new arms race' following the decision
to deploy new elements of the US missile defence system in the Czech
Republic and Poland but considered that that the proliferation of
WMD was 'the essential source of the threat'. He welcomed the fact
that Javier Solana, EU High Representative felt that the EU should
debate antimissile defence given that the issue might affect European
security. See: http://www.epicos.com/epicos/portal/media-type/html/user/anon/page/ Also at the beginning of June, the Assembly called for the EU to take a united position regarding the growing possibility that weapons might be used in space and the arms race that such a development might provoke. Presenting the report entitled 'Weapons in Space: part II' for Rapporteur Alan Meale (United Kingdom, Socialist Group), Edward O´Hara (United Kingdom, Socialist Group) said 'Europe remains without any unified approach, nor any recognisable strategy on the matter'. Such is the confusion that 'the excellent, but largely civilian Galileo project remains steeped in doubt and difficulties'. This is despite the fact that 'Europe, particularly its influential economy, is especially vulnerable to any attack on its satellite architecture.' The report recommends that WEU members should take a number of
concrete steps to anticipate developments with weapons in space.
These included carrying out a study of possible preventive action
and responsive measures, the possibility of creating an international
organisation based on the International Civil Aviation Organisation
model to regulate space, European and national initiatives to develop
launcher families for the quick replacement of vital operational
satellites, and the creation of emergency reserves of launchers
in case a satellite is destroyed by anti-satellite or high altitude
nuclear detonation weapons. See: http://www.epicos.com/epicos/portal/media-type/html/user/anon/ Further reading: Missile defence – a common European position?, Assembly of WEU, Document C/1971, 15 May 2007 Weapons in space – Part II, Assembly of WEU, Document c/1966, 2 May 2007 For the past 18 months, a small British-built test satellite (Giove-A) has been beaming down information to Europe. It is intended to be the forerunner of a fleet of 30 EU satellites that will provide Europe with an alternative to reliance on US GPS technology, which is run by the US air force. However, the multi-billion-pound Galileo project is in trouble following the collapse of the consortium of European aerospace companies created to run it. The EU, which has already committed £2.5bn to the project, faces a bill of around £5bn to rescue Galileo and take it into public ownership. Some countries, including France, want each EU member state to raise cash to do this. Others, like Germany and Britain, want the money to be diverted from other EU projects. Some sceptics think the project should be axed completely. This autumn, the different sides will meet and do battle over Galileo's future in the EU corridors in Brussels. Further reading: “Sat-nav rival could crash and burn”, The Observer, 15 July 2007, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330196871-102285,00.html Japan: one minute warning of a North Korean ballistic missile attackJapanese defence officials are furious that the US Navy leaked details of a successful, top-secret missile defence exercise on 6 July. The exercise was to confirm the length of time it would take to inform Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's office that North Korea had launched a ballistic missile strike against the Japanese mainland. The time involved was only one minute the exercise concluded. North Korea has so far failed to test-fire any intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. But it has repeatedly successfully test-fired intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching cities in Japan. A strike against a Japanese metropolitan area by a nuclear armed missile could kill as many as 300,000 people -- more than three times the number killed in either of the 1945 A-bomb attacks that destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Further reading: “Ballistic Missile Defense: U.S. leak angers Japan”, UPI, 11 July
2007, http://wpherald.com/articles/5370/1/Ballistic-Missile-Defense-US- And finally.....Click to Play “Missile Defence”: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/07/nick/md5/index.html
Click here for a Printer-Friendly Version. |
|
BASIC
UK: The Grayston Centre, 2nd Floor, 28 Charles Square London
N1 6HT, +44-(0)20-7324 4680 |