Whether they buy into it depends on whether the potential for improved diplomatic ties with the Bush administration and any economic perks that come with it, make it worth their while.

Not at all disturbed by Wednesday's test failure, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker said Friday, at an American Foreign Policy Council conference, that even though the threat (from hostile states seeking to deliver weapons of mass destruction through ballistic missiles) is growing ... the technology (to counter them) is available. He added, Arms control and strategic stability will not be weakened by missile defense.

Since its controversial withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty a few months after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. strategic thinking has turned toward developing ways to outflank rogue states that might decide that packing nuclear warheads into ballistic missiles provide a better vehicle for attacking the United States. Freed from constraints to missile research and development posed by the ABM treaty, the Bush administration has been able to tackle deflecting long-range missiles such as North Korean Taepo Dong and Taepo Dong 2, Rademaker said.

David Trachtenberg, former deputy assistant Defense secretary for International Security Policy agreed. The administration's nuclear posture (after 2001) elevated the importance of missile defense, he said. The ABM treaty died with a whimper; in the post ABM treaty world, international missile defense cooperation presents an opportunity to bolster coalition alliance solidarity.

Despite international gnashing of teeth initially following the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty, many of the United States' allies seem to have had a change of heart. Rademaker listed India, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, Italy and the Netherlands as partners in various deals to increase cooperation with the United States on missile defense. One of the United States' most enthusiastic missile defense partners is Japan. Squelching speculation that Japan might seriously consider enhancing its own offensive anti-ballistic missiles and nuclear capabilities to stare down North Korean nuclear threats, Japanese Embassy Political Affairs Secretary Atsushi Ando said that Japanese investment in cooperative missile defense research and development with the U.S. could reach a combined $2 billion for 2004 and 2005.

We have ... to adjust our defense strategy to the new security environment, said Ando. Previously our defense capability placed an emphasis on its deterrent effect. Our new strategy must be capable of responding to ballistic threats.

According to Ando, Japan views the potential for more extensive security cooperation built on long-term missile defense framework as indispensable for our national security. Japan and the United States formalized the terms of their missile defense cooperation by signing a Framework Memorandum of Understanding on Friday, Ando announced.

The Bush administration however is facing a tougher sell with traditional U.S. allies in Eastern Europe. Trachtenberg admits that the administration has been shopping Eastern Europe for a third potential launching site for anti-ballistic missile interceptors. The two existing launching sites are on U.S. soil, at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. While the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland have been reported as being potential candidates, the United States appears not to have been able to sign any hosts, as of yet. Whether the Bush administration can convince any of its central European allies and fellow members of NATO to agree to a deal in the future depends on how much the United States is willing to bring to the table, according to Radek Sikorski, former Polish deputy defense minister and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The good news is that Central Europe feels comfortable with American leadership, both in general and in nuclear issues, said Sikorski. Central Europe feels that it is good to have missile defense because the United States is more likely to come to its assistance (in case of an attack).

The bad news, however is that ongoing hostilities in Iraq, the failure of preferential treatment for reconstruction contracts to materialize, and political retaliation from the European Union have left Central European countries such as Poland wondering whether cooperation with the United States in Iraq was worth it -- and how to make sure that benefits outweigh the costs in the future -- particularly with missile defense.

Because interceptor bases require such small staffs, they have little direct potential to stimulate the local economy, as do traditional military bases.

Sikorski said granting interceptor host rights to the United States amounts to ceding territory (for one country) to launch violence against another country to affect its strategic calculus. Anything less than a generous package -- which could include greater industrial and economic incentives according to Sikorski -- would be a difficult sell in the current atmosphere of Central Europe -- including Poland, said Sikorski. There is a growing feeling in the region that 'We are not doing Iraq again.'

Russia's response to U.S. missile defense overtures has been limited, and complicated by the persistence of Cold War attitudes, said Trachtenberg. Some have had the tendency to cast U.S. missile defense in an unfavorable context.

Trachtenberg said he was not alarmed by President Putin's pronouncements that Russia is developing long-range ballistic missiles, such as the submarine-launched SS-N-30 and the ground-based Topol-M, designed to outmaneuver the U.S. missile defense system by 2006.

There is no concern about this at all because Russia is no longer an enemy, he said.

Russian physicist and senior scientist at the University of Delaware Sergey Lopatnikov said he believes that Putin's announcements are largely a form of posturing, to reassure his generals and the domestic public of Russia's strength in the face of U.S. efforts in missile defense technology. He also believes that Russia's tradition of foreign policy -- which looks at capabilities, not intent -- is unnerved by U.S. missile defense system. In spite of being a defensive system, it's like a tank, he told United Press International. Once you have it, you can do whatever you want.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express