The following text is prepared by Edy Korthals Altes, Honorary President of the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP), vice-moderator of its Standing Commission on Disarmamament and Security - The Hague, together with Alyn Ware, Consultant at large of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy - New York.
The potential deployment of a Missile Defense System has much wider political and security implications than its modest title 'National Missile Defense' (NMD) suggests. The development of this Programme is in fact of crucial importance for the Weaponization of Space.
During the election campaign, President George W. Bush stressed his intention to push for a Ballistic Missile Defense or 'BMD'. His plans extend far beyond the previous NMD, which would have covered only part of the U.S. The new Administration is apparently considering creating something amounting to a global defense system.
The nomination of Rumsfeld to Secretary of Defense and his recent statements at the Munich Security Conference, confirmed that the Bush Administration is determined to move ahead.
Substantial objections of various kinds have been raised against this Program, which will be a highly destabilizing factor in international relations. It is bound to create tensions between the Atlantic partners and may antagonize large sections of European public opinion.
1 - BMD program will be stimulating a new arms race including a nuclear arms race and an arms race in outer space. It risks to abrogate the ABM Treaty of 1972, the cornerstone of the current nuclear arms control regime. Its weakening could have grave consequences for the control and elimination of nuclear weapons. It also implicates a flagrant violation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, in particular article 4.
2 - BMD would raise tensions in hotspots and could stimulate a military conflict.
The NY Times, January 28, 2001, cited Chinese experts as saying that "The United States says this is a defensive system, but everyone knows it will be used to strengthen your offensive capability," "It protects your troops so you can attack any time without fear of retribution." "If the United States feels 100 percent secure, it may believe it doesn't need to worry about a third world war," Mr. Yan said. "This will make the American military too brave, and that will be very, very dangerous for everyone." "The more the United States is emboldened militarily," he added, "the more pro-independence forces in Taiwan, too, may be encouraged to act. This could force Beijing to take drastic measures and lead to war."
3 - President Bush plans for an extended coverage of the BMD.
The Times, December 18, 2000, reported that: "Mr. Bush said that ballistic missile defences should also protect America's allies. The Republican platform promised that a Bush Administration would spend billions of dollars to research and deploy a robust missile defence system, including sea-based missiles, that would extend a shield around Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan."
4 - BMD as part of program for weaponisation and warfighting in outer space.
United States Space Command Vision 2020, specifically notes that National Missile Defence is a "key" to "Global Engagement Capabilities." "Global Engagement is the application of precision force from, to, and through space." Vision 2020 notes the rationale for NMD and global engagement: "The requirement for Global Engagement is based upon the increasing proliferation of missile systems ...", but then continues to give a much wider purpose; "Dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US national interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.
More recently a report from the US Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Managament and Organization headed by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommended that US president should "have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests." Maj. Gen. Brian Arnold, director of space and nuclear deterrence in the Air Force secretary´s acquisitions office, stated that "The Air Force strongly supports the space commission report and is already moving to implement many of (its) recommendations."
5 - New BMD programs are offensive and destabilising in the approach they would use and could trigger accidental war. It is virtually impossible to shoot down missiles which are travelling through space at thousands of miles per hour. In addition, once a missile is up in space, it can release dummy projectiles making the targetting of the real missile even more difficult. Thus, BMD programs are focusing on targetting enemy missiles in their boost phase, before they reach space and reach their high velocity. In order to do this, the BMD has to have accurate targetting of the 'enemy' country, and ability to shoot into 'enemy' country within minutes of any notice that a missile has been fired. This is an incredibly penetrative and offensive approach to security that will only make the other side that much more intimidated. It is also incredibly risky in that there would be no time to determine whether a missile launch is research based, space launch or a missile destined for attack. Thus, there is a very real risk of war being launched through mistake and miscalculation from genuine peaceful rocket launches.
6 - Alternative ways to address concerns of missile proliferation and terrorist threats.
7 - Nuclear disarmament.
Development of Missile Defense will lead to renewed testing and deployment of nuclear weapons, as well as intensify resistance to further reductions in existing nuclear arsenals. It would also signal that nuclear weapons will remain an enduring factor in international relations and thus increase the incentives for additional states to develop nuclear capabilities of their own, resulting in greater horizontal nuclear proliferation.
Finally, it should be noted that the major concern about missiles is not the missile themselves, but what they carry. A missile with conventional weapons is not so destabilising or threatening as a missile which carries a weapon of mass destruction, particularly a nuclear weapon. It is unlikely that a biological agent would survive the intense heat and pressure involved in a BM flight, and a missile would not be able to carry enough of a chemical to cause widespread damage. The way to reduce the possibility of a missile delivering a nuclear warhead is to move toward gloabl nuclear disarmament with strict international control and verification. The nuclear weapon states must enter into negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament and establishing international agency for monitoring and implementation of this. In fact, the International Court of Justice affirmed that they have an obligation to enter into and complete such negotiations. Once such a treaty was negotiated, the international sagency would have the authority to inspect any country to determine that they are not diverting fissile material to make nuclear weapons.
The obvious question is why a Programme is pushed with so much determination. A Program, which meets with so many substantial objections of a political nature, which entails so many security risks and poses so many technological problems. A Program, which involves enormous financial resources which are detracted from other, much more urgent threats to human security such as the prevention of violent conflicts, the fight against poverty and environmental degradation, the improvement of conditions of health and education in a large part of the world. Provisional cost estimates range between 50-100 Billion US dollars!
And all of this without even a reasonable certainty that civilians will be protected Part of the answer may be found in the huge interests at stake, well represented by powerful lobbies of corporations and laboratories. The linkage of the military-industrial- scientific complex with the political establishment is certainly a factor of considerable importance. Much more attention, however, is being given to the fears from U.S. citizens and policy makers of a sudden missile attack by 'states of concern' or terrorists. This threat perception is widely spread and politicians are supposed to come up with an answer. Whether BMD would guarantee security to the citizens is highly doubtful. Quite apart from the considerable technical problems, there are the official assurances to China and the Russian Federation that: 'BMD is not meant to protect against your missiles but only against a few incoming missiles from states of concern or terrorists'.
The official argument that BMD aims to protect civilians is not very convincing. Insiders know full well that there are many possibilities to circumvent even a 'perfect system' by employing other means of inflicting an unacceptable loss of life. It would be a fatal error therefore to assume that even an 'impenetrable shield' would guarantee safety to civilians. The missile threat should be seen as only one aspect of a much wider problem, namely the relationship with 'states of concern'. The primary questions should therefore be: 'How to develop ways and means which would bring these states ultimately in line with the concept of a peaceful world' ? How can'enemies' be induced to a change in motivation? Can this be achieved by another, less costly and problematic way - than with BMD? Can non-military means be uised?
Missiles are not the major problem but relations with certain 'unfriendly states'. As long as this is not solved, there will be no Scheme which will provide a definite security in our highly vulnerable modern society.
A clue is to be found in a recent report about a major war game at the Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado (International Herald Tribune 30/ 01/ 2001). This focussed on Space as the primary theatre of operations, rather than just a supporting arena for combat on earth. This may sound like 'science- fiction'. Unfortunately it is not. Since President Reagan in 1983 launched his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), considerable efforts have been made to develop space control and space force application.
Notwithstanding the problems around Reagan's Star Wars there can be no doubt that the next war will be fought in space, from space and into space. In the Publication of the Ministry of Defense:" Joint Vision 2020- America's Military Preparing for Tomorrow" a clear picture is given of the objective to achieve full Spectrum Dominance. Full Control of Space - at all times - is considered to be essential in our Information Age. Satellites are the eyes and ears of modern society. If these would be knocked out, complete chaos would occur.
Thinking and planning about future war fighting is in the U.S. far more advanced than on our continent. Our American partners act on the basis of the old wisdom: 'those who will occupy the high ground will prevail'.
It is of cardinal importance for Europeans to realize that supremacy in space will not only be decisive in the field of special military operations and security policies. Even political and economic relations will be affected! The discussion is so far focussed on defence against the threat of incoming missiles. Western governments - notwithstanding certain misgivings -avoid raising the deeper issues behind the NMD discussion.
The link between these two elements will - of course - be vehemently denied and some people will shrug it of as farfetched. But is it so unreasonable to assume that the enormous financial and scientific input now envisaged for MD will lead to results that could be of great value for the Weaponization of Space?
Even if the technological problems for an effective MD shield prove to be unsolvable, there will be a 'spin off' which will lead to advanced anti- satellites weaponry, space-based sensors, lasers and other devices.
Star Wars, NMD and now MD, are in substance a poisonous fruit from the old fashioned paradigm:' if you want peace prepare for war'. MD is nothing more than a finger exercise for a much larger game!
From this argument stems the active US interest in obtaining bases in a number of strategically well-situated countries. This is creating great problems, in particular for two major powers in Asia. In Japan, constitutional limitations on remilitarisation will be put under great pressure. In China, great concern is being expressed about a Program that will bring American power uncomfortably close! The danger of an arms race in East Asia looms!
Some politicians will welcome a Missile Shield, praising it as an important instrument for a strengthening of the Atlantic relations. Others, may raise critical questions such as: whether a shield with American space technology under American command would not make a mockery of any European Security and Defense policy? What would be its impact on a European Defense force? Is it realistic to assume that the political and economic interests run parallel? And finally- in view of a certain tendency of unilateralism- would it be wise to cement US supremacy far into this century?
European NATO partners should, on the basis of Atlantic solidarity, speak out frankly and:
The new paradigm in the 21-st. century should be: "If we want peace, prepare for peace". If this could be translated into policies and effective institutions, a much greater sense of security for all may be obtained, than even the most sophisticated weapons could ever hope to achieve.
Edy Korthals Altes [edyaltes@xs4all.nl] and Alyn Ware 04/05/2001
*General Joseph Ashy, commander in chief of the U.S. Space Command in 1996 (see Aviation Week and Space technology, August 5, 1996, p.51)