 |
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.
MISSILE
DEVELOPMENTS
US
MISSILE DEFENSE DEVELOPMENTS
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
vehicles.
• Micro satellites which can weigh as little as 20 pounds
and execute various
BMD related functions. Managed by revolutionary command and
control
features.
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)
RUSSIAN
MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS
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}
BALLISTIC
MISSILE DEFENSE IN OTHER COUNTIRES
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.
Japan
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}
Taiwan
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}
Israel
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}
India
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}
Canada
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}
|