Thread: NATO warns US missile defense could divide allies

Even though these our systems may appear "offensive" from your point of view, I hope you understand it's not against you, and you won't complain.

MrFirst,

I pray that in your life time radical Islamists don't decide to start conducting terrorist acts against your country because I'm sure they are planning this as I type. When or if they ever do, you'll be in a for a rude awakening.

What I find funny is that nearly every week I take a look at fragments of 107MM Katuysha rockets manufactored in Russia that are shot at me. Then sold to Iran or Syria which in turn sells or distributes the rockets to the Mahdi Militia in Iraq or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Critics say the system, designed to knock down nuclear missiles fired at the United States, is elaborate, costly and unnecessary because so-called rogue states such as Iran don't have such offensive capabilities

You don't say?!? It's called pre-emptive counter to a credible threat.

TheChosenOne,

Terrorists have already conducted terrorist acts against my country in my life time, and even in my city, and the danger still exist. Thanks for your praying, but so what? Terrorists do not have ICBMs and they will never have that. How do you take a look at fragments of 107MM Katyusha? Do you live in Lebanon? As I know, Russia doesn't manufacture 107-mm rocket systems. Obviously you have been mistaken, these ones couldn't be produced in Russia.

I think any country has the right to defend its territory especially now that threat is there..so better prepared than regret..

Rethinking NATO's role in missile defense

Europe examines the cost implications for the continent if the US national missile defense system was tied into NATO command and control structure.

By Brooks Tigner in Brussels for ISN Security Watch (20/03/07)

The US government’s aim of augmenting its national missile defense system with new radar and interceptor sites in Poland and the Czech Republic throws into question the primacy of NATO's role in missile defense and longstanding notions about deterrence, according to government and industry officials in Brussels.


"In France, we ask: to what degree would this [extended US system] bring protection to Europe’s territory? This is a highly technical matter. Politically, we ask: what is the link to NATO? And would there be information-sharing by Washington about early warning data? Who would make the decision [to launch a missile defense attack]?”said Robert Ranquet, deputy director for strategic affairs at France’s Defense Ministry. “We need a better understanding of what US intentions are.”

Ranquet and others addressed a 19 March conference here focused on NATO's next steps regarding missile defense.

The US administration is building two missile interceptor sites in California and Alaska. Its objective in Europe is to establish a military base with up to 10 ballistic missiles in Poland and an associated radar system in the Czech Republic as part of its satellite-based anti-missile defense system known as National Missile Defense (NMD). The Polish/Czech "third site" would be the first outside the US and the only one in Europe.

Washington argues that the threat of long-range nuclear missiles fired from Iran or North Korea justifies the step.


Its decision has provoked Russia's ire and sparked a deep debate here about the need for such a system in Europe, the underlying perceptions about missile threats from beyond Europe and what the cost implications would be for the continent if the US system was tied into NATO command and control structure.

Take cost, for instance. The US government has offered to cover virtually all the costs associated with setting up its "third site" in Europe, leaving the latter only to pay for the cost of connecting national or NATO command-and-control systems to NMD.

If the 26 allies chose to connect their theater missile defense systems (TMD) to the US one, this would cost just over US$1 billion during 25 years, according to SAIC, the lead company in the trans-Atlantic consortium that is doing NATO’s first-phase TMD work.

Yet no one really knows what the final cost would be.

"It’s all guesswork, when you boil it down," one European defense industry executive told ISN Security Watch after the conference. “And it’s precisely because of that uncertainty that a lot of Europe's politicians don't want to talk about it too openly.”

Cost is a center-stage issue for a country such as France, for example.

"As a medium-size country, we have limited resources and we have to make priorities," said Ranquet. “Missile defense is not a priority for France, as we don't find its cost-effectiveness to be high enough.”

Aside from the cost uncertainties, European capitals are mainly focused on what the strategic link, if any, will be between NMD and NATO's effort to develop its own deployable medium-range missile defense system, known as theater missile defense (TMD).


First launched as a study concept in the early 1990s, NATO's deployable TMD is moving ahead quickly. A first-phase contract with industry was signed last year and work is now starting on development of a command-and-control testbed to knit together the various national short and medium-range deployable missile defense systems across the alliance. Working together with the same targeting and command-and-control communications network, these systems will enable NATO to protect its out-of-area troops from tactical missile attack.

The testbed is being developed in The Hague and, if successful, should allow the alliance to attain initial operating capability by 2010. The system will protect against lower-altitude ballistic missiles.

The US NMD system, by contrast, is being designed to detect and shoot down longer-range ballistic missiles at higher altitudes. Though the two systems address different threats, they would, if joined, offer a defensive shield capable of addressing a wide range of missile threats.

"TMD and [the issue of wider] missile defense are much more of a continuum than often reported in the press," said Ted Whiteside, head of NATO's Weapons of Mass Destruction Center. “The difference between tactical and strategic risk does not have significant meaning today. As research and development evolves in countries such as Iran or North Korea - and it will - the difference between tactical, medium- and long-range missiles will blur."

“TMD should be the model for NATO's acquisition of a missile defense capability over the next few years,” he told ISN Security Watch.

But should NATO's missile defense capabilities be yoked to those of the US? And if so, whose command structure would reign and whose rules of engagement would prevail? How would a joined US-NATO missile defense system react?


For Whiteside, there was no doubt. "NATO is beginning to grapple with this issue [of command and control]. It is not without precedent. NATO had concepts in place throughout the Cold War for dealing with threats. There were delegated rules of engagement. In this case, NATO has TMD embedded in its extended air defense [command and control system]. It's an integrated command system that already works and already has predefined rules of engagement,” he said.

Other participants were more concerned about the potential political obstacles to a unified NATO-US missile defense system.

"We need to ensure that a proper debate takes place with the alliance and in Europe," Edgar Buckley, senior vice president of the French electronics company Thales, told the conference. "The basic principle is risk-sharing and solidarity. Should we accept a system designed primarily for the United States, or adapt it for NATO and have a degree of control over its command-and-control function?"

If mishandled, Washington's decision could turn into a public relations disaster with grave consequences for trans-Atlantic solidarity in matters of defense, warns Norman Ray, president for Europe at the US defense company, Raytheon, and NATO's former assistant secretary-general for defense support.

"The allies have every right to engage Washington on all aspects of the debate: where to put the system, how to do this, what the cost will be and so on," he told ISN Security Watch. "If you're going to defend large populations, early warning is key. Will that be an exclusive US capability of a mixed NATO-US one? This leads very quickly to command and control issues. Who will have control over such a missile defense system? Will it lie with Washington or SACEUR [the alliance's top military leader known as Supreme Allied Command Europe] or a national command post? This could be a terrific distraction for NATO if it is not carefully handled."


The European allies have not forgotten that their offer to help the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was rejected, and that Washington led its war in Iraq as a "coalition of the willing" and not under NATO's flag.

Thus, the US administration's determination to protect its own population from a westbound missile attack by setting up a first line of defense in Eastern Europe sits uneasily with many European capitals. Not only does it carry imperialist overtones, but it also suggests yet another example of America’s maneuvering around NATO in favor of a bilateralist approach in service of US national interest.

"There are compelling reasons for NATO to become involved in missile defense," according to Tim Williams, head of the European security program at the London-based policy group, Royal United Services Institute. “The risk is that Europeans could be associated with - and dependent on - a US system that falls entirely outside the framework of NATO. And yet missile defense touches the core of NATO's purpose of collective defense."

If Europe finds itself under a US missile defense shield instead of a NATO one, then "this could bring NATO's whole raison d'etre into question," Williams told ISN Security Watch.


Based in Brussels, Brooks Tigner has reported on European and transatlantic security and defense issues since 1992, with particular emphasis on NATO and the EU's rapidly evolving military and homeland security policies. He is a regular contributor to the US weekly, Defense News, and editor of SECURITY EUROPE, a new monthly newsletter focused on European homeland security policy, technology and business.

ISN Security Watch - Rethinking NATO's role in missile defense

Highseas,

I hope you now get the true picture!

The ABM is surely not just for Iran and NK!

The US doth protest too much methinks!

Sorry, but my tentacles are always up when things look too innocent or too easy to believe!

Professional cynicism, if you will!

Originally Posted by xrough

I think any country has the right to defend its territory especially now that threat is there..so better prepared than regret..

Of course, you're absolutely right.
But the central issue is - at whose expense?

Originally Posted by Ray

Highseas,

I hope you now get the true picture!

The ABM is surely not just for Iran and NK!

The US doth protest too much methinks!

Sorry, but my tentacles are always up when things look too innocent or too easy to believe!

Professional cynicism, if you will!

I already have the true picture. It is you who is trying to paint it into something it is not.

No where in the article does it imply that the proposed eastern european installations are not directed at a mid-east threat. It only says that the NATO plan was to first concentrate on shorter range missile threats, which is just fine by us- we have THAAD for that, and our allies are welcome to it.

Methinks it is you who doth protest too much. The US hasn't protested about anything. It's the euros that are worried because the system won't be under their control.

Incidentally, this is laughable:

The European allies have not forgotten that their offer to help the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was rejected, and that Washington led its war in Iraq as a "coalition of the willing" and not under NATO's flag.

Thus, the US administration's determination to protect its own population from a westbound missile attack by setting up a first line of defense in Eastern Europe sits uneasily with many European capitals. Not only does it carry imperialist overtones, but it also suggests yet another example of America’s maneuvering around NATO in favor of a bilateralist approach in service of US national interest.

For one thing, NATO was no where to be seen when it came to Iraq, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Afghanistan, only to offer token assistance.

And then of course, we close with the standard "imperialist" claims, lolol. News Flash- the US isn't going to be dependent on such "friends" like France and Belgium for our national Security.

Wonderful article, sir....