JavaScript Menu, DHTML Menu Powered By Milonic

25th Anniversary

Nuclear Proliferation

Middle East: Israel, Iran

South Asia: India, Pakistan

NE Asia: DPRK, ROC, Japan

Nuclear Forces

USA Russia UK France China

Nuclear Treaties

Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT

Fissile Material Limits

Comprehensive Test Ban CTBT


Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty SORT

Global Nuclear Disarmament


Preventing Weapons in Space

Space Weapon Systems


Missile Proliferation

Missile Tech Control Regime MTCR

Missile Defense Systems

Other WMD

Chemical Weapon Ban

Biological Weapon Ban

Radiological Weapons

Conventional Armaments

Arms Production & Trade

Arms Holdings & Forces

Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe CFE

Ban on Landmines

Small Arms & Light Weapons

Security Institutions

UN Disarmament Bodies

OSCE, Forum on Security

NATO, European Union EU


Peace-Building Tools

Cultures of Peace

Confidence-Building Defense

Global Action to Prevent War

International Negotiations

Nonviolent Action, Defense, Intervention, Conflict Resolution

Transparency, Confidence-Building Measures CBMs



Public Education




About IDDS



Missile Defense Programs


ABM Treaty. After three years of negotiation in 1972 the United States and the USSR reached agreement on an ABM Treaty. This allowed each side to deploy anti-ballistic missiles at two sites, one to protect the national capital and the other to protect an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch site.

A protocol signed in 1974 further limited the USA and USSR to a single anti-ballistic missile deployment site with 100 ABM launchers and missiles. The Soviet (now Russian) deployment site selected then was around Moscow; the US site was around the Grand Forks ND ICBM complex. The Soviet-era system remains operational and has been upgraded. The single permitted US ABM system became operational in 1975 but was dismantled in 1976. The 1974 protocol permitted each side to change the system location once. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States agreed that the four former Soviet republics would succeed the USSR as parties to the ABM Treaty.

Soon after President George W Bush took office in 2001, members of his administration broached the idea of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty so that US development of new anti-ballistic missile systems could proceed unhindered. In December 2001 Bush gave the required six-month notice of withdrawal based on national security needs and in June 2002 US abrogation of the ABM Treaty was formally completed.



Testing. In January 2003 the Missile Defense Agency began scheduling tests of an anti-ballistic missile interceptor missile {8.1.03}.

In February Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, disclosed at a committee hearing that the President’s FY04 budget proposal included a request for a waiver from the law requiring that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation certify that appropriate operational testing has been successfully completed before a weapon system can enter the production process {13.2.03}.

In mid-August the MDA successfully tested a developmental booster rocket design for use with the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system {16.8.03}.
On 22 September the Aegis ship-based anti-aircraft and anti-missile system completed extensive testing during two sea trials {22.9.03}.

On 27 January 2004 Orbital Sciences succeeded on the third launch of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense intercept vehicle {27.1.04}. In May the Army’s Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser destroyed a target rocket that was larger, faster, and higher-flying than previous targets {11.5.04}. This was followed in July by the successful completion of Aegis testing aboard an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer {20.7.04}. In November Raytheon successfully engaged two targets simultaneously with its Patriot System Configuration, in tests that simulated incoming ballistic missiles {23.11.04}. The same month the Airborne Laser passed a critical milestone—the simultaneous firing of all six laser modules of its chemical oxygen iodine laser {17.11.04}; and in early December the YAL-1A Airborne Laser aircraft successfully flew for 2 hours and 31 minutes, re-establishing its “airworthiness” {13.12.04}.

After several delays and a postponement due to the failure of a radio transmitter, the MDA conducted the first test in two years of a Ground-based Interceptor missile. The missile defense program suffered a major setback when the interceptor failed to leave its silo {16.12.04}.

Deployment. In February 2003 Thomas Christie, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Operational Test and Evaluation (OTE), reported that the operational capabilities of several missile defense systems scheduled for deployment in 2004 had not yet been established. Christie said that the ground -based interceptor system had not demonstrated an operational capability, the sea-based system was tested under “non-stressing” conditions, and the Airborne Laser and THAAD had little to no capability {3.3.03}.

On 11 April MDA Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish announced that the MDA would build ground-based interceptor installations at Fort Greeley AK (one unit), and Vandenberg AFB CA (four units) by the end of FY04 {11.4.03}.

On 17 October the United States activated a missile defense brigade at Peterson AFB in Colorado Springs CO, manned by National Guard soldiers. {17.10.03} In late January 2004 a US Missile Defense Space Battalion was formally activated at Fort Greely AK {30.1.04}.
In late April a GAO report on Missile Defense programs confirmed that the Airborne Laser was behind schedule and facing budgetary overrun. {24.4.04}

On 22 July Orbital Sciences Corporation announced the placement of the first interceptor boost vehicle at Fort Greely {26.7.04}. A second interceptor was placed in its Fort Greely silo on 14 September. This was follow by the installation of interceptors three, four and five in the following two weeks. {14.12.04, 16.12, 23.12, 27.12} The first ground based interceptor at the Vandenberg Air Force Base was installed on 10 December {10.12.04}.

Despite all their efforts the MDA’s Ballistic Missile Defense System was still inactive a month after its activation deadline {11.2.04}.

In December the sixth ground based interceptor missile was emplaced into its underground silo at Ft. Greely {12.11.04}.

On 21 December Raytheon said it had delivered the first five deployable Standard Missile-3 rounds to the Missile Defense Agency {12.21.04}.

Cost. In January 2003 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of the first phase of US ballistic missile defense could undergo a 40 percent escalation, raising the annual budget for the program by about $3 bn. The Pentagon currently plans to spend $7–$8 bn annually in 2003–2007 to develop an initial anti-missile system to be fielded starting in 2004 {8.1.03}.

In late September 2003 September Congress approved $160 mn more than the president requested for the new missile defense interceptors at Fort Greely {29.9.03}.

On 24 November President Bush signed the $400 bn Defense Authorization bill, which included the $9.1 bn he had requested for ballistic missile defense {24.11.03}.

According to a Missile Defense Agency budgetary overview in early 2004 the US Military wants 10 more interceptors placed at Fort Greely {2.2.04}.

On 19 February 2004 Lockheed Martin received a $505 mn contract for the production 159 PAC-3 Missiles {19.2.04}.

That same month SDI officially came back to life when it was reported that the Missile defense agency’s proposed 2005 budget allocated approximately $10 mn for a space-based test bed {23.2.04}.

On 22 June the Senate voted down an amendment which would have cut BMD funding by $515 mn {22.6.04}.

In early August the Congress achieved budgetary success regarding BMD by cutting funding for Lockheed’s Space Based Radar program and estimated that the program cost could top $60 bn; lawmakers also said that the SBR would not yield the results that the program’s supporters say it will {9.8.04}.

Spending continued on 16 November when the US Navy awarded Northrop Grumman a $470 mn contract to build an Arleigh Burke class Aegis destroyer {16.11.04}.

US Ballistic Missile Defense Components under Development
The United States missile defense program is divided into 3 platforms: Boost Phase, Midcourse and Terminal. Across these 3 platforms there is wide array of individual technologies and systems that contribute to the US BMD, each in various stages of development and deployment.
The primary elements in the Terminal Defense Segment are:
• Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD);
• PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3);
• Arrow, a joint effort between the U.S. and Israel; and
• Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a co-developmental
program with Germany and Italy.
The primary elements of the Midcourse Defense Segment are:
• Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD); and
• Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis BMD)
The Primary elements of boost defense elements are:
• Directed energy systems using high power lasers such as the Airborne Laser
(ABL) and the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL); and
• Kinetic energy interceptors.
There are also various Research and Development Programs such as the:
• High Altitude Airship which has multiple potential BMD capabilities. Such
as launch detection, tracking and even as a weapons platform.
• Miniature kill vehicle (MKV) system - based in the Midcourse the MKV
system consists of a larger carrier vehicle and multiple lightweight kill
• Micro satellites which can weigh as little as 20 pounds and execute various
BMD related functions. Managed by revolutionary command and control
Radar systems and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space, each in various stages of development and deployment include:
• Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS);
• Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites;
• Early Warning Radars (EWR);
• Sea Based X-Band Radar (SBX);
• TPS X Radar;
• SPY-1 Radar;
• Forward Deployable Radars (FDR);
• Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS High); and
• Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE)


On 15 January 2003 Russia announced that it was planning to develop Theater Missile Defense Systems. When Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov stated, “We will definitely develop theater missile defense systems.” Ivanov also addressed the US withdrawal of 1972 ABM Treaty, when he said “Russia is also free from the limits that were placed on strategic missile defense systems, by that document.” {15.1.03}

Just days later on 23 January the Russian Space Commander Anatoly Perminov said Russian interceptors “undergo a technical inspection every month and work is being done to prolong their service lifetimes. Perminov noted that in 2003–2005, the Space Forces would include 60–65 military satellites and 15–16 dual-use satellites, so that the Russian missile defense system would be without silent zones.” {23.1.03}

In early December it was made public that Russia and Belarus had met to discuss cooperating on Missile Defense – among other military partnering issues. {9.12.03}

It was announced on 15 December that the upgraded S-400 Triumf missile system will enter production for Russia’s air defense force in 2004. {15.12.03}

In February Russia and NATO released their plans to hold joint missile defense exercises in 2004 and 2005. {2.2.04}

On 1 April 2004 NATO and Russia held their first exercises to test jointly developed procedures to defend against strikes from short and medium range ballistic missiles. {4.1.04}

In May 2004 The House Armed Services committee Vice Chair Curt Weldon (R-Pa} suggested enhancing US Russian missile defense collaboration and praised the decade-old RAMOS program. {25.5.04}

On 13 August Russia’s new missile defense system designers, call the Samoderzhets or Emperor BMD was deemed “unbeatable” by Russian officials. {13.8.04}

More Russia BMD boasting took place on 14 September when Russia claimed that it made advances in development of S-400 Missile defense program. {14.9.04}

On 28 November it was announced Russia conducted a successful test of an upgraded version of its A-135 ballistic missile defense system. {28.11.04}

Days later it was revealed that Russia was continuing to peddle Missile defense technology in Southeast Asia. {1.12.04}

US-Russian Cooperation (603e5BMD)
In Early January 2003 US Ambassador Alexander Vershbow spoke of a possible US Russian missile defense partnership stating, “Given that Russia has tremendous scientific know-how and some experience with defense systems, we think this could be a really serious partnership that would benefit us both.” {7.1.03}

In May 2003 the sentiment of missile defense cooperation between the US and Russia was reinforced by Russian Defense Minister Ivanov who declared that Russia is ready to conduct dialogue with the US on missile defense cooperation, under the following conditions: “cooperation should not be directed against one another, the intellectual property of each of the sides should be preserved, the non-militarization of space, and complete transparency between our states in the antimissile defense sphere.” {21.5.03}

Then on 17 June Col. Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, First Deputy Commander-In-Chief of the Russian General Staff, said that Russia and the US will hold joint Missile Defense exercises in Russia, with observers from other NATO countries. {603e8BMD03 17.6.03}

On 28 July Col. Gen. Yury Baluyevsky said, He questioned the United State’s motives for upgrading radar facilities in Greenland and the UK, since these facilities would be useful for tracking missiles launched not from the Middle East or North Korea but from Russia. {28.7.03}

On 1 April 2004 it was made public that NATO and Russia held first exercise to test jointly developed BMD procedures. The exercise took place in Colorado Springs. {1.4.04}

In May The United States House Armed Services committee Vice Chair Curt Weldon (R Pa)
suggested enhancing US Russian missile defense collaboration efforts. {25.5.04}

On 28 September A US proposal made by Curt Weldon (R Pa) would enable the US and Russia to enable BMD data exchanges through bilateral working groups, and would utilize existing Russian radars to offer both countries with early warning data on foreign ballistic missile launches. {28.9.04}
All US, Russian BMD collaborations are not of the cooperative type. This was proven when it was reported on 22 November that The United States had acquired a Russian “S-300” air and missile defense system early in 2004 – without Russian knowledge. {22.11.04}


Note: Apart from the USA and Russia, no nation has developed an indigenously designed ballistic missile defense system. All programs outside the USA and Russia employ some technology provided by one (or both) of them.

On 17 February 2003 Japan and the United States announced a plan to test Anti-Ballistic Missiles for two years beginning in 2004. The two nations will develop a missile defense capability off the Hawaiian coast consisting of ground-based systems, interceptor aircraft, and Aegis missile destroyers. After completing the joint exercises in 2005, they will decide whether to proceed to full-scale development and deployment. {17.2.03}

On 27 February China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan stated that Japan should be cautious about adopting a BMD system. Quan noted that China opposes the deployment of a BMD system and expressed hope that Japan would deploy its defenses in a peaceful manner. {27.2.03}
3 Months later on 23 May President Bush and Japan’s Prime Minister Koizumi moved forward on Missile Defense when they agreed to step up cooperation as a response to the growing threat by North Korea’s nuclear program. {23.5.03}

On 6 August Japan released a white paper citing their need for a missile defense capability. It stated that Japan must accelerate “research and consideration” of ballistic missile defense. The report also calls on the government to beef up national defense to prepare for “more unpredictable” threats, such as terrorism and ballistic missile attacks. {6.8.03}

On 18 December it was announced that Japan may lift its self-imposed ban on arms exports in order to facilitate an eventual need for the importation of US made missile defense components and enhanced partnering. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said, “There is a debate on whether it is acceptable that we cannot exchange with the US the results of our research.” {18.12.03}

In January of 2004 the DPRK’s irrational estimate for the Japanese nuclear capability were aired once again when they stated that “Japan is now rounding off its nuclear weaponization at its final phase” and was capable of producing “thousands of nuclear warheads” overnight. {21.1.04}

Furthering tensions in March the United States Navy decided to deploy in the Sea of Japan, a guided missile destroyer to serve as a Long Range Surveillance and Tracking platform. {26.3.04}

In April the United States suggested that it was interested in placing Ground Based Radar in Japan. {21.4.04}

Japan and the United States are planning joint exercises to simulate their responses to a ballistic missile attack on Japan. At the same time various efforts are being made to coax Japan into altering their Arms Import/Export controls to enable the two countries to jointly develop and produce equipment for missile defense systems. {4.6.04, 7.6}

On the 31 August Japan’s defense agency requested a 35 percent jump in spending on missile defense and intelligence systems. {31.8.04}

Just a few months after the announcement of their intentions to deploy a US destroyer in the Sea of Japan, it was confirmed that the destroyer was in place on 1 September. {1.9.04}

On 17 November a detailed draft of Japan’s National Defense Program Outline set forth revisions to ease Japan's arms exports control policy thus allowing it to ship components and technology for its ongoing joint missile defense research with the United States. {17.11.04}

Japanese BMD efforts marched forward when Japan and the United States agreed in principle on the licensed production of Patriot Advanced Capability 3 surface-to-air missiles in Japan. {23.11.04}

In December North Korea accused Japan of moving past the danger line in its pursuit of Ballistic missile defense technology – among other efforts to weaponize. {13.12.04}

On 14 December Japan and the US signed an agreement allowing “comprehensive cooperation” on transfers of technologies related to missile defense systems. {14.12.04}

In late December the Japanese government began drafting the emergency legal steps to ensure a rapid Missile Defense response to defend against an enemy missile launch. {26.12.04}

In Mid-March 2003 Pentagon officials led by the Chief of Asia-Pacific Security Affairs arrived in Taipei to meet with Taiwan’s military leaders for talks focusing on effective missile defenses for Taiwan including the US-developed PAC-3 and early warning radar systems. {11.3.03}

On 7 December 2003 Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-Bian promised that his top priority upon reelection would be to buy more PAC-3 anti-ballistic missiles. Chen had promised to buy key PAC-3 equipment at a cost of $15 bn, though he had not yet obtained permission from the island’s Legislative Yuan. {7.12.03}

In February 2004 Taiwanese Defense Minister Tang Yao-ming speaking before the nation's parliamentary Defense Committee announced that Taiwan's Defense Ministry is creating a $15 bn special budget that will make possible the purchase missile defense systems from the United States. {18.2.04}

In March two key referendums related to BMD were placed in the hands of the Taiwanese voters. Question one asked if the Taiwanese people wanted to pursue peace talks with China and the second asked if the Taiwanese wanted to pursue a BMD build up to defend against the mainland. Both questions were nullified due to low voter turn out. In the week preceding the election China conducted multiple offensive missile tests. {18.3.04, 21.3}

On 22 October Taiwan displayed its ballistic missile defense system to the media for the first time and stated that it badly needed more advanced weaponry to counter the military threat from rival China. {22.11.04}

It was reported on 8 November that a large bunker being constructed in Taiwan is for the deployment of a PAC-3 missile system. {11.8.04}

Other Asia
On 10 June 2003 it was reported that Deputy Defense Minister for Policy Cha Young-Koo said that Seoul has mid- and long-term plans for theater missile defenses and that the country needed to develop its own TMD capability regardless of whether the US requests that South Korea to join the US BMD program. {10.6.03}

Addressing the needs of South Korea in September the United States announced that it would be upgrading its Missile defense capability in South Korea as part of an $11 bn effort. {26.9.03}
Such plans were reconfirmed by US military sources when it was announced that The United States would be deploying Patriot advance capability Missile defense systems in South Korea later in 2004. {30.4.04}

On 12 August Russia shipped four batteries of its advanced air and missile defense system, the S-300PMU1 to China. {12.8.04}

Later in the month on 24 August it was reported that China had purchased more S-300PMU air defense systems from Russia {12.24.04}

On 30 November the US military completed deployment of Patriot Missile Batteries in South Korea as part of an $11 bn upgrade. {30.11.04}

On 31 July 2003 Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told Knesset members that the Arrow Missile is capable of countering any threat from Iran’s Missiles. It was reported that same day that Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom accused Tehran of “trying to do everything” to build a nuclear weapon and warned that Iran will pose a threat to all nations unless it is stopped. {31.7.03}

In another step forward for US, Israeli missile defense partnering, officials at the US Missile Defense Agency and the Israeli Missile Defense Organization announced in early August that the first test of the Arrow missile defense system went as planned. {4.8.03}

Early in March 2004 US, Israeli BMD partnering was furthered by the initiation of an Israeli based Lockheed Martin Airship program similar to the US version which is envisioned as an eventual platform for missile tracking technologies. {4.3.04} Just one month later the US and Israelis were conducting joint tests of the Tactical high energy laser on US soil at White Sands. {30.4.04}

On 4 August it was announced that the US-Israeli Arrow Anti-Missile System successfully downed a target missile over the California coast line. {4.8.04}

Other Middle East
In late May 2003 the United Arab Emirates Air Force and Air Defense Commander Maj. Gen. Khaled Al-Bu Ainain said that the Gulf Cooperation Council States were seeking to acquire a BMD system. Ainain also stated that “we are evaluating systems on both the multinational level for the collective defense of GCC states, and on national level for defense of each Gulf state.” {26.5.03}

In line with the needs of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the UAE said it was accessing the Russia S-400 Triumph and the US PAC-3 missile defense systems. In Abu Dhabi, officials said the system they will select in 2004 must be capable of defending against regional threats, particularly Iran’s Shahab-3 missile. {12.9.03}

On 16 January a spokesman from the US State Department said the US was willing to talk about ballistic missile defense with Pakistan. One month later US Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker stated that BMD technology for Pakistan would contribute to its regional stability. {16.1, 21.2.04}

Russia continued its efforts to proliferate BMD technology in the Middle East in 2004 by reaching a tentative $700 mn arms and technology deal with Yemen. {15.7.04}

On 15 February 2003 Israel proposed that India invest $100 mn for the development of the Arrow 2 Missile Defense system. Shortly after this announcement Pakistan expressed its concern to the Bush administration, the US congress and others through diplomatic channels, regarding Israel’s dealings with India. {15.2.03}

In May during a meeting between Indian National Security Advisor Mishara and US Deputy Secretary of State Armitage the possible sale of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 was discussed. It was again a topic of discussion during the visit of US Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Rademaker to India’s capital. {22.5.03}

Subsequently on 12 August 2003 the United States announced it had no objection to Israel transferring the Phalcon Airborne Early Warning System (AWES) to India. {12.8.03}

On 12 January 2004 US President George W. Bush stated that the US and India are collaborating on Ballistic Missile defense in their combined effort to promote global peace and prosperity. {12.1.04}

Results of US, Indian talks emerged in early December 2004 when The United States formally offered military hardware, to India including a Patriot anti-missile defense system – concerning neighboring Russia. {3.12.04}

In February 2003 Prime Minister John Howard discussed Missile Defense partnering with the US stating “It’s very complicated, it’s very expensive, it’s very technical; but it might, if it were developed, it might provide countries with the ultimate defensive shield against a missile attack,” Howard commented. “If we are concerned about North Korea, and we have reason to be concerned about North Korea, our first responsibility is to investigate ways of protecting Australia against dangerous behavior by North Korea,” {ACR 603e5BMD03 27.2.03}

Soon after on 28 February China expressed opposition to the possible development of Missile Defense in Australia. According to a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Canberra Feng Tie, Australian participation in the US missile defense program would be aimed more at China than at any other nation. TMD would destabilize the global strategic balance and lead to “a new round of arms race.” {28.2.03}

Despite the lack of a BMD need the government of Australia announced its decision to participate in the US missile defense program on 4 December 2003. Australian Minister of Defense Robert Hill said: “The government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened by long-range missiles with mass destruction effect.” {4.12.03}

On 16 January 2004 it was announced by the Australian President that he hoped Australia will soon sign a memorandum of understanding with the United States for a missile defense system. {16.1.04}
In a response to Australia’s BMD aspirations, Indonesia's foreign ministry accused the US and Australia of encouraging a new arms race. {24.1.04}

It was made public in February 2004 that Australia was already taking steps to assist the US on BMD in December 2003 in the form of upgrades to the Jindalee Operational Radar Network. {24.2.04}
On 7 July Australia’s immediate BMD needs were contradicted when Defense Minister Robert Hill stated that Australia had no current ballistic missile threats. {7.7.04}

United Kingdom
In June 2003 the United Kingdom allowed the United States to use the RAF Flyingdales Radar Station for BMD purposes according to the Ministry of Defense, who not only confirmed that there had in fact been an agreement but that the agreement assures “fair opportunities to be given to UK industry to participate in the US BMD program.” {12.7.03}

Then on the 20 June British, American BMD partnering advanced further with the signing of a Memorandum of understanding which according to British Defense Minister Geoffrey Hoon “facilitates bilateral information exchanges on missile defense matters, establishes a top-level management structure to oversee cooperative work, and prepares the way for fair opportunities to be given to UK industry to participate in the US program.” {20.6.03}

Just one month later the UK set up a Missile Defense center as a joint initiative of British government and industry to provide an interface for the US MDA and to facilitate the exchange of ideas between US and British firms. {18.7.03}

On 21 January 2004 it was reported that the UK had been secretly spending millions on ballistic missile defense years before a formal request by the United States to use RAF Fylingdales for BMD purposes. {21.1.04}

Details regarding the potential locations for US BMD technology in the UK were mentioned when it was confirmed that the UK is in fact being considered by the US as a location for ground based interceptors. {7.5.04}

On 17 October reports in the media stated that an agreement was already reached between President Bush and President Blair to base interceptors in the UK. {17.10.04}

The Russian government angrily responded the secret deal to site US interceptor missiles in Britain as part of the Ballistic Missile Defense program. {24.10.04}

The US Missile Defense Director Lt-Gen Henry Obering confirmed that the UK is in the running to host at least 10 ground based interceptors. {21.11.04}

Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems (UK) signed an agreement to explore partnering opportunities on Ballistic missile defense “worldwide,” while benefiting the “United States and NATO allies.” {17.12.04}

On 6 May 2003 Canada announced that it had reconsidered its support for US BMD. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said, “the situation has changed and this is no longer the ‘Star Wars’ program envisaged by former President Reagan. This is a project that is limited to American territory to defense against missile attacks.” He said Canada should take part in missile defense discussions because “we are part of America.” {6.5.03}

Just two weeks later on 29 May it was reported that Canada had decided to enter talks with the US to discuss its possible participation in BMD. Minister of National Defense John McCallum said in the House of Commons that Canada must meet the “goal of protecting Canadians and preserving the central role of NORAD in North American defense and security.” {29.5.03}

In early February 2004 Canadian Defense Minister David Pratt stated that “there is no deadline for Canada to sign on to the US missile defense plan.” {6.2.04}

On 30 April 2004 it was reported that by Canada Converting NORAD to into an expanded aero-space early-warning system they would be unwilling participants in United States BMD. {30.4.04}

On 21 August it was reported that Russia had warned Canada that the US missile defense plans would eventually militarize space. {21.8.04}

In mid October a poll determined that a slim majority of Canadians opposed Canada’s participation in missile defense. {19.11.04}

On 30 November US President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Martin discussed Ballistic Missile Defense, the future of NORAD and how that organization can best meet emerging threats while safeguarding North America against attack from ballistic missiles. {30.11.04}

Clear comments on BMD finally began to come out of Canada when Prime Minister Paul Martin stated in December that he believed BMD will be ineffective in the event of a ballistic missile attack, while demanding assurance from the US that BMD would not lead to the weaponization of space. {2.12.04, 15.12}

Other Europe
In early March 2003 the Danish Government stated that it had not made a final decision to give the United States permission to upgrade the Thule radar Station; but would do so at the end of April or in early May. {4.3.03}

During the Russia-NATO Council meeting Russia and NATO agreed to establish a cooperative missile defense system. All 20 nations on the council reached an agreement to finance the program. {603e4BMD03 13.5.03}

The Czech Republic is seeking active participation in the US missile defense development said Foreign Minister Cyril Svobada. {30.7.03}

On 9 October it was reported that the US was considering the installation of missile defenses in Europe to guard against a potential attack by Iran. Washington also expressed concern that Iran is developing a satellite launch capability, which could be converted to an ICBM capability. {10.9.03}

US and European industry leaders and government officials discussed the lack of European participation in the US missile defense program at a conference in Italy. {7.11.03}

In October Russia agreed to supply Belarus with the S-300 surface to air missiles. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said he expected the government to approve the transfer soon and that the step was important “not just for Belarus but also for Russia for the effective defense of common air space.” {603e4BMD03 23.10.03}

On 1 July 2004 the US State Department confirmed that the US and European missile defense collaboration talks had already begun. {1.6.04}

Two weeks later on 13 July Polish and Czech Republic government officials confirmed that the US administration is negotiating with Poland and the Czech Republic to create the largest missile defense site outside of the US. {13.7.04}

On 6 August the US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller signed off on the THULE upgrade agreement. {6.8.04}

Success in European collaboration efforts were set back on July 13 when Romania and the US ended missile defense collaboration talks {13.7.04}

In Mid-July Poland and the United States held Preliminary talks for installing a US missile defense system on Polish soil. Poland stopped far short of an agreement. {15.7.04}

In October 2004 Germany made plans to spend $1.25 bn on the development of a new missile defense system over the next eight years. {21.11.04}

On 12 December 2004 Spain announced that it is planning to deploy 64 ground-to-air Patriot missiles which would face the Mediterranean following their purchase from Germany. {12.12.04}

European BMD activity proceeded on 17 December when Lockheed Martin signed A Memorandum of Understanding with Polish defense contractor PIT. {17.12.04}

The first study on the longer-term ballistic threat to NATO was presented to Foreign Ministers at the 8 December 2004 meeting of the North Atlantic Council. {17.12.04}

On 30 December it was reported that the United States and Hungary were involved in ballistic missile defense collaboration talks. {30.12.04}


2005 IDDS, 675 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge MA 02139, USA