Transcript Missile defense in Central Europe

Missile Defense
in Central Europe
New security
quandary
policy aspects,
elites vs.
population
and Russian
threat
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
What Missile Defense is?
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 groundbased 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)
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
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
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
How Europe could be protected
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
Policy issue: Who decides in
security - weak public support
Poland:
• 54 % against
• 32 % for
• Tendency:
falling antipathy
(IV./08 CBOS)
Czechia:
•
•
•
68 % against
24 % for
Tendency:
growing antipathy
(V./08 CVVM)
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
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
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
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 R&D and
antimissile and antiterror cover
• Polish view: better to have hardware for
army plus vague „strategic partnership“
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 ballance
breached
• Former USSR
sphere of influence
destroyed
Russian card 2:
Kremlin 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
Sources:
•
•
•
•
www.mda.mil
www.nato.int
www.protiraketovaobrana.cz
Rzeczpospolita:
http://www.rp.pl/temat/84379.html
Hope, we never need it