Julian Palmore, a professor of mathematics and expert on international security issues, discussed U.S. plans for developing a missile defense site in Europe. Palmore participated in two international conferences devoted to the topic of siting missile defense systems in Europe at Wilton Park in Steyning, West Sussex, United Kingdom (an academically independent agency of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 2003). Palmore is currently planning a 2008 meeting at Wilton Park on “Missile Defense and the Transatlantic Alliance.” He was interviewed by News Bureau editor Melissa Mitchell.
With all the recent posturing between Russia and the United States over possible positioning of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic – purportedly as a defense against nuclear warheads that could be launched from Iran or other Mid-East locations – do you think a new arms race is on the horizon? Or is it more likely that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to aim Russian missiles at Europe was just a political ploy timed to stir up sentiments among European leaders on the eve of the recent Group of 8 summit in Germany?
It seems with the tentative agreement reached on June 7 at the G8 meeting between Presidents Bush and Putin on a joint missile defense venture for Europe that there will not be a new offensive arms race but rather a new defensive arms build-up to install missile defense worldwide to meet as yet unseen and undeveloped threats of missile proliferation. The Russian leader raised the possibility of the European missile defense system being acceptable to Russia if the radars were based in Azerbaijan rather than the Czech Republic. Whether this agreement holds or not when details are discussed in July at Kennebunkport remains to be seen.
How are missile-defense watchers in Europe responding to Putin’s threats?
The Russian threats have evaporated since the G8 summit. In any case, it seems the threats were a bit of bluster and could not be sustained. I think no one was really expected to take them seriously.
Backing up a bit, how do Europeans nations – and their citizens – view U.S. plans to site interceptors on their soil in the first place? What are the pros and cons associated with the plan, from their perspective?
The two principal concerns on basing a third U.S. missile site in Europe (in addition to existing ones in Alaska and California) are the issues of command and control and technology transfer. These were both discussed in 2004 and 2005 at meetings held by the U.S. State Department at Wilton Park, UK. For example, if a threat were to develop by a missile launched from the Middle East and an interceptor were launched from Poland, who commands the launch and where does the debris fall, since it certainly will impact somewhere? How can European countries participate in this venture with the strict regulations in the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) that prevent an abundance of technology transfer, including information technology, without stringent safeguards.
And what about U.S. domestic politics? Do you think the current administration’s goal of building missile defense systems in Europe will become an issue in the 2008 presidential campaigns?
As John Pike (director of GlobalSecurity.org) has said: “Missile defense is a system that doesn’t work against a threat that doesn’t exist.” This is less true today than when he said it many years ago since there have been successes with the Navy Aegis cruiser system defending against short range ballistic missiles, but the ground-based system is largely untested in any realistic setting. Many believe these systems are a waste. However, with enough interest in building missile defenses worldwide and with the real danger of worldwide ballistic and cruise missile proliferation, it may be that in the end missile defense systems will be seen as both necessary and sufficient to counter proliferation.
