Missile Defense in Central Europe

1
Missile Defensein Central Europe

• New security quandary
• policy aspects, elites vs. populationand Russian
  threat

2
History of Missile Defense

• 80s - Ronald Reagan Star Wars
• Dec 7 1993 - Defence Counterproliferation
  Initiative (DCI)
• 1999 Bill Clinton approves missile defense
  strategy
• October 1999 First succesful test
• 2004 bases in Alaska and California
• Outlook system to be prepared in 2013
• Iran threat - 2015

3
What Missile Defense is?
4
How it works

• The proposed 3.5 billion system would use
  "hit-to-kill" technology in which an array of
  sensors and radar would detect an enemy missile
  in flight and guide a ground-based interceptor to
  destroy it.
• Without using explosives, the interceptor would
  ram an incoming warhead at a closing speed of
  15,000 miles per hour (24,000 kph) in a process
  likened to hitting a bullet with another bullet
  in space.
• The MDA says tests show the technology is sound.
  But critics say the evidence is misleading, many
  tests were made in controlled circumstances not
  resembling real attacks, and more results are
  needed to prove the system works. (Reuters)

5
The Debate 1 - For

• New threats
• Ballistic missiles in the hands of terrorists
• Rogue states Iran, North Korea
• Unstable regimes with technology - Pakistan
• General arguments
• Nuclear proliferation
• Cover for Allies (NATO)
• Hidden argument Russia, China

6
The Debate 2 - Against

• Technology not proven
• Money wasted (Democrats in Congress)
• Russia it is to neutralise our arsenal, answer
  system without warheads is no match to Russian
  arsenal, numbers 10 interceptors vs. 1000s of
  Russian warheads
• Ideological cover for spreading US influence

7
What is NATO role?

• 1998 decision to project defense of battle field
  (short and middle range missiles)
• 2010 to be operational
• Ballistic missile defense feasibility study in
  2005
• Now being under review
• Base for NATO US projects
• Rice in Prague contribution to NATO common
  security

8
How Europe could be protected
9
Shield in Central Europe

• 2002 First consultations in Czechia
• 2006 Start of public debate
• 2007 Start of official negotiations
• 8.7. 2008 Signature in Prague
• Poland? due
• to internal fighting
• not known result

10
Policy issue Who decides in security - weak
public support

• Poland
• 54 against
• 32 for (IV./08 CBOS)
• Tendency
• falling antipathy
• Czechia
• 68 against
• 24 for (V./08 CVVM)
• Tendency
• growing antipathy

11
Problems in Czechia

• Comparison with Soviet occupation
• Weak coalition
• - depends on leftist deputies
• - firm position of ODS
• - hesitant Greens (NATO cooperation)
• Aggresive left
• - Against, following polls
• - Under Russian influence, not to provoke Moscow
• Question Will it be ratified by parliament?
• Answer Probably yes, in exchange for Lisbon,
  after local elections or with support of
  dissident social democratic MPs

12
Problems in Poland

• Public tired of war in Iraq and Afghanistan,
  Poles do
• not see they got anything in exchange
• Liberal (government) politicians yes, but we
  want something real in exchange antimissile
  defense (Patriot, THAAD)
• Conservatives (president) yes, without any big
  hesitations
• Left No, but very weak support among voters
• Big infighting between president and prime
  minister
• Question Did negotiatiors put their demands too
  high? Will there be successful conclusion?
• Answer Demands are high, game is played very
  hard with the US (Lithuania point), most probably
  end of negotiations during July with result
  Patriots under US command stationed in Poland

13
Costs

• Radar in Czechia moved from Marshall Islands
  plus 0,5 bil USD
• Interceptors in Poland 2,5 bil USD
• Fully paid by the USA
• Democrats afraid of wasting money - cuts in
  recent budget proposals
• New president will continue

14
Benefits strategic asset

• After entering NATO the most important step in
  strategic security move from Russian sphere of
  influence
• Czech view better to have long term cooperation
  with US in RD and antimissile and antiterror
  cover
• Polish view better to have hardware for army
  plus vague strategic partnership

15
Russian card 1

• Kremlin Real target is Russia (conspiracy
  theory US wants to have net of antimissile sites
  around world to neutralize Russian and Chinese
  nuclear threat)
• Strategic ballancebreached
• Former USSR
• sphere of influence
• destroyed

16
Russian card 2Kremlin strikes back

• Russia suspends its participation in Convetion
  forces in Europe treaty
• Tests of new missiles and systems
• Harsh rhetoric
• Energy weapon energy security threat for Central
  Europe, but this approach undermines Russian
  position as EU business partner

17
Sources

• www.mda.mil
• www.nato.int
• www.protiraketovaobrana.cz
• Rzeczpospolita http//www.rp.pl/temat/84379.html

18
Hope, we never need it