International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Bulletin 18 - Moving Beyond Missile Defense

Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and Non-Proliferation Alternatives

A view from the Non-Nuclear Weapon State Egypt

Bahig Nassar

Nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament

The US nuclear build up and strategy have undergone deep transformations since the end of the Cold War era when the sharp nuclear confrontation between the US and USSR had been the prime edifice of its nuclear policy. Now, in the era of globalization, this policy is shifting towards defending and enhancing its investments and interests in all regions and worldwide. In addition to the traditional areas of US interests such as Western Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Japan, new areas of interest are emerging including the oil resources of the former Soviet Republics in central Asia and areas in Africa and Asia. As a result, countries in these regions are purchasing all types of weapons, and foreign powers are increasingly intervening in these regions. But most important among the new areas of interest is the fact that great markets are emerging.

"Few years from now, China, India, Brazil, Russia, and regional economic cooperation system in South Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia and in the Pacific region and Latin America will be huge markets. Some of these huge markets will be new big powers, and several of them will choose ways of development different and possibly contrary to the neoliberal free markets. They will be capable to absorb products of advanced countries of the North, which will be doubled ten years from now. They will absorb colossal amounts of manufactured goods and fast flows of capital and technological innovations, and consequently, will be major actors in the international division of labor, and will deeply influence the current globalization of the economic and financial process. Major clashes of interests will take place around them.

No doubt, the US continues to pressure Russia and China, limiting their political options and containing their influences. There is also a shift in US military strategy based mainly on confrontation with both Russia and China to a global strategy of protecting its 'vital interests' worldwide, a strategy that has emerged since the end of the Cold War."^[1]

As a result of this transformation, the US is not only occupied with nuclear armament and disarmament vis-a-vis Russia (the former USSR) and other nuclear weapon states (NWS) but also very much concerned over the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons (NW) and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) together with their delivery vehicles among states hostile to US interests in various regions. Since the US utterly refuses to free the world from nuclear weapons (NWs) and other WMD as the only assured way to prevent their proliferation, it has endorsed new policies to prevent by force such proliferation. To achieve this goal the following steps have been taken:

a)  Every effort was made by the US at the 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPR) Review and Extension Conference to ensure the adoption of the indefinite extension of this Treaty which prevents all non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) parties to the Treaty from acquiring NWs whereas there is no binding legal commitment to oblige NWS to abolish their weapons.

b)  The US officially declared a policy of Counter Proliferation according to which it will use military force combined with nuclear deterrence to prevent any state in any region hostile to its interests from acquiring NWs and other WMD, and their delivery vehicles. Already this policy has been implemented against Iraq and Sudan.

c)  NATO expansion to the East has put pressure on Russia. Nuclear capable forces within NATO have been deployed in the South, outside the traditional areas of NATO operations, a lesson drawn from the Gulf war of 1991 against Iraq. More vital to US current military plans is the interconnection between NATO and the Rapid Deployment Force of the US Central Command which operates in vast areas from the East Mediterranean to the entire Indian Ocean region. The latter is further connected to US arms build up in the Pacific Ocean and its military alliance with Japan. This huge military network is under the command of US Generals, and together with US fleets they project power on any region to protect the so called 'vital interests.'

d)  Intensive but calm efforts are being made now in the US Senate to allow the production of the B61-11, a very low yield nuclear weapon (less than five kilotons), which may be used in theater operations to defend US interests and forces should nuclear deterrence fail to achieve its goal.

In the era of confrontation between the US and the former USSR, steps for nuclear disarmament assumed priority and less attention was paid to the problems with the proliferation of WMD and their delivery vehicles. Of course, nuclear disarmament still deserves due attention in order to abolish all nuclear weapons, but peaceful and political steps to prevent proliferation of WMD should be equally taken.

A program to this end would include: the universality of the NPT; the quest to establish Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZs); the necessity of NWS to abide by all Protocols attached to NWFZ Treaties; the adoption of legally binding security assurances by NWS to NNWS; the repatriation of all nuclear weapons deployed by NWS in NNWS; a safeguard regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency accepted by all states, above all both official and de facto NWS; the effective and verifiable implementation of the Chemical Weapon Convention; a Verification Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention; and binding commitments by the US and other NWS to refrain from acts of aggression against other countries under the pretext of preventing proliferation. US designs to maintain nuclear weapons and at the same time use force, conventional and non-conventional, to prevent proliferation should be halted. Campaigns to this end are very much needed. Peaceful and political measures are the only effective means to prevent proliferation.

Both the program on disarmament and the program for non-proliferation are two sides of one coin and should be equally addressed, at present, because proliferation will continue unabated if NWS insist on acquiring nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, and refuse to implement Article VI of this Treaty.

National Missile Defense (NMD) and Theater Missile Defense (TMD)

The most horrible aggressive and offensive step endorsed by the US to prevent proliferation by force and trigger a new wave of arms races is its current plan to deploy Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems. Naturally these systems will function as instruments to change the strategic nuclear balance with Russia and to threaten China. These systems will be also used to undertake effective aggressive acts against any country hostile to US interests in any region which may try to acquire WMD. To sell this project to the public and to its allies, the US administration confines its propaganda to the alleged threats leveled by so-called 'rogue' States. Actually, these threats are not leveled at the security of the US and its people, but at the interests and investments of transnational corporations and banks in foreign countries. Weaponization of space is the next US pursuit to defend its "vital interests."

The question of Ballistic Missile Defense was raised in the 1970s. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the US and the former USSR entered into force in 1972. The ABM Treaty allowed the deployment of a very limited national missile defense to defend one site of each country's choice. Russia chose to deploy interceptors to defend Moscow, while the US chose a missile silo site in North Dakota which was closed down again 100 days after it had started operation. The ABM Treaty specifically prohibits a national missile defense that would cover vast territories. The increase of defensive capabilities would also increase the likelihood of the first use of nuclear weapons thereby undermining the other country's strategic deterrent.

During the 1980s, US President Ronald Reagan initiated a very ambitious project called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also called Star Wars, to weaponize space. Due to many technical failures and a robust international campaign against its deployment, SDI was abandoned during the Bush administration. However, research and development of ballistic missile defense systems continued. During the Clinton administration, a primarily ground-based system was pursued that could provide protection against 'limited attacks' by 'rogue' states.

The ABMTreaty is confined to intercontinental ballistic missiles and does not address medium range missile deployment. This has allowed US production and deployment of several missile defense systems for use in theater operations against its adversaries. A Patriot system was used in the Gulf War to destroy Iraqi Scud missiles. The Arrow system was deployed in Israel, thanks to US financial and technological assistance, to kill missiles of other Middle Eastern States. Also, Russia approved the deployment of these Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems as not in violation of the ABM Treaty. An agreement was concluded between Clinton and Yeltsin in regards to TMDs at their meeting in Helsinki on March 21, 1997, according to which velocity of a TMD system is limited to five km/sec and its range should not exceed 3,500 kilometers.^[2]

The development of TMD technology and its use in actual operations with Russian consent has encouraged the US to return to a new but simpler version of Reagan's Star Wars. Robust tests are now conducted to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) with 100 interceptors in the first phase with an increasing number of interceptors in subsequent phases. NMD is part of a broader US strategy, outlined in the US Space Command's Vision for 2020 document, to control and dominate outer space in order to protect US interests and investments in all regions of the world.

NMD will violate the ABM Treaty, and consequently Russia has threatened to abandon other arms control agreements including the START process if the system is deployed. Also, China strongly opposes NMD as the first configuration of one hundred interceptors could easily neutralize its 20 strategic missiles.

But if NMD and TMD systems are deployed, an unprecedented arms race will result. This race will not be confined to the US and Russia, as in the Cold War, but will spread through the Middle East and to all regions where missile defense systems, including TMD, are deployed. Consequently proliferation will not recede but will escalate among many NNWS of these regions to counter the threats leveled at them.

According to the new initiative the functions of BMD systems, both NMD and TMD, will be very flexible and interconnected. They can be land-, air-, or sea-based systems. In action, they will complement each other similar to other military systems. US attempts to deploy TMDs in friendly states such as Israel, Japan, Taiwan, and NATO countries are aimed to support operations of US systems. Also, TMDs can be developed to assume NMD functions by increasing their range or velocity or altitude and by adding other technical devices such as space-based sensors.

The process of space weaponization had already started with the deployment of TMD systems. Israel will eventually establish a space command and India is studying the possibility of a similar establishment. Therefore, it is impossible to separate NMD from TMD or overlook the dangerous consequences of TMD deployment. Even if TMD is only deployed in single regions, this step will lead to arms races and will prompt further proliferation.

NGO activities should not be relaxed. On the contrary, NGOs should further their campaigns to dismantle the systems already deployed and stop the future development and deployment of both NMD and TMD systems.

Ballistic missile defense and the non-nuclear weapons states

Nuclear and ballistic missile disarmament by nuclear weapons states (NWS) will assume utmost importance, and several intermediary steps should be taken towards a zero ballistic missile regime, such as missile freeze, prior notification, missile reduction, no-first use and de-coupling.^[3] In regard to non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS), other steps should be taken to ensure non-proliferation, which must now include the missile dimension. When a zone free from weapons of mass destruction is established, it should also be a zone free from their delivery vehicles, including ballistic missiles. Once the countries in the zone approve verification regimes to ensure the prohibition of all WMD, another verification regime to ensure the elimination of their delivery vehicles must be added and include legally binding security assurances by the NWS to the NNWS. Assurances should also include the non-use of ballistic missiles and other delivery systems produced for WMD, repatriation of nuclear weapons deployed by NWS in NNWS combined with the repatriation of their delivery vehicles, and naval units visiting NNWS ports should not carry WMD and their delivery systems, including missiles.

These peaceful and political non-proliferation steps should be in one package with other disarmament steps leading to 'zero ballistic missiles.' However, removing WMD and all their delivery vehicles (not only ballistic missiles) is necessary to remove all US claims and justification for the production and deployment of missile defense systems. This approach is also in the interests of developing NNWS, which need every penny to enhance politico-socio-economic and human development and to save their people from pending environmental calamities.

Alternatives to BMD deployment

Among the non-proliferation steps, two main alternatives are recommended to help prevent the deployment of TMD, NMD, or the global air- and sea-based defense system, which the Bush administration favors. A purely political solution to the problem of missile deployment is one of the options available. The Summit Meetings of the leaders of the two Korean States (north and south) are a good example. The continuation of close relations between them and their constructive development in various fields will render US claims about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as a 'state of concern' null and void. The same judgment can be made about other countries, such as Libya. Justification to threaten these states with US missiles and anti-missile systems will be unfounded and baseless. In addition, correct and clever polices pursued by states opposed to US hegemonistic practices in various regions could contribute to defeating designs of the US and its allies on NMD and TMD deployment. At the least it would unmask the aggressive character of these designs, and thus isolate the US and its policies and eventually lead to the defeat of these policies.

The second option is the consistent effort by peace forces to transform the regions where the 'states of concern' are located into zones free from weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles. The achievement of this goal will not only respond to an urgent demand of the people of the Middle East and Northeast Asia, which have been always pinpointed by the US as sources of threats to its security, but will also deal a strong blow to plans of the US and its local allies to deploy NMD and TMD systems. Establishing zones free from WMD and their delivery vehicles in regions where the so-called 'states of concern' are located is the proposed alternative to the deployment of NMD and TMD systems, allegedly claimed by the US as a means to prevent threats leveled by these 'states of concern.' This step will also prevent the squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars by the US and other states, large and small, on the new waves of arms races, which will follow deployment of BMD systems. Astonishingly, the US and its allies in the Middle East (Israel) which raise hue and cry against the threats of the 'states of concern' are the same powers which stubbornly prevent the establishment of the above mentioned zones.

All these peaceful and political steps on disarmament and non-proliferation should not exclude the right of all countries and peoples to peaceful uses of space for human development and progress, a matter which requires missiles, satellites, and continuous development of space technology. An international convention with an effective verification system is needed to prevent the use of such instruments and technology for military purposes.

A Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction

On June 29, 1996, on the day of the Egyptian Air Defense Forces, General Mohamed El-Shahat, the then commander of defense forces, spoke at a press conference and referred to efforts made by the Egyptian administration to acquire missile defense systems. He also spoke about lessons drawn from the 1991 Gulf war when the US used Patriot systems. Of course, current Israeli attempts to produce and deploy the Arrow and other missile defense systems, were on his mind. Also, reports were published on missile defense systems, including one on Israeli Arrow systems by Dr. General Ahmed AbdelHalim.^[4] Clearly Egypt has been very much concerned over Israeli ballistic missile defense deployed in order to further its nuclear deterrence and threats. A joint US-Israeli maneuver involving missiles and anti-missile systems was conducted in the Israeli Naqab Desert on February 19, 2001. As a result, an arms race was started and will further escalate.

Egypt and other Arab countries should allocate all their financial resources to enhance economic and human development and to eliminate all remnants of backwardness. Peace is their strategic option and equal security for all Middle East countries, Israel included, should be the goal. To this end, Egypt called in 1990 for the transformation of the Middle East into a zone free from all nuclear weapons possessed by Israel and other weapons of mass destruction acquired by other states. After Israel had successfully deployed, with US assistance, its Arrow and Patriot anti-missile systems, the goal is to free the Middle East from all WMD together with their delivery vehicles, including ballistic missiles. Achieving this goal will be the basis of equal security for all Middle East States and at the same time a major contribution to help preventing US BMD plans.

Each region has its specific characteristics and circumstances that must be taken into consideration. Circumstances prevailing in the Middle East are different from those of Northeast Asia, and both are different from those of Europe. The Middle East is different from other regions where nuclear weapons free zones have been established. All of the latter were already free from these weapons whereas Israel, a Middle East State, previously acquired a substantial arsenal of these weapons and missile defense systems. Other states of the region may seek chemical or biological weapons options and their delivery vehicles to counter deadly threats leveled by Israeli weapons. This is the reason why all 'states of concern' pinpointed by the US administration have been located in the Middle East region with the exception of North Korea. Therefore, establishing the Middle East zone assumes special importance in the campaigns to prevent the deployment of US BMD systems.

Transparency is totally absent in regard to Israeli nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles and also in regard to WMD, which may be possessed by other states in the region. To ensure complete transparency, Israel should accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and put all its nuclear activities under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification and inspection regime. All states in the region should abide by the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, and all delivery vehicles should be registered. These are preliminary and necessary steps in order to start implementing disarmament and non-proliferation measures.

Blind deterrence

The concept of traditional nuclear deterrence drawn from the former confrontation between the US and USSR has always been presented by academic studies as the only concept of nuclear deterrence. However, this deterrence is totally absent in the Middle East. Neither transparency nor means of accurate calculation and assessment necessary for the traditional deterrence to function are available. In the Middle East, there is 'Blind Deterrence' because all WMD are hidden in the basements. Consequently, threats can only be leveled by any party with blind eyes. Under these circumstances, the actual use of WMD is highly probable. Moreover, there will be various forms of deterrence such as laser deterrence, ballistic missile deterrence, and deterrence by developing capabilities to destabilize and jam computers and communication systems. Already the Palestinians and Israelis are jamming each other's communication systems.

Ballistic missile defense systems will not be capable of killing short-range missiles launched from sites close to Arab-Israeli boarders due to the very short time available for an interceptor to hit the missile of the adversary. Only a directed energy system using laser beams can detect, track, and destroy these short-range rockets. US Army PEO Missile Defense, the US Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), and the Israeli Missile Defense Organization are conducting, at present, tests on laser technology to destroy Katyusha rockets fired in rapid succession. Laser defense and offense systems together with short-range missiles produced to convey explosives should be abolished once the zone is established in the Middle East.

The future deployment of BMD systems in the Middle East will likely cover almost the entire region. In addition to the Patriot and Arrow systems deployed in Israel, the US is also encouraging the Gulf States to develop missile defenses. According to the Egyptian weekly Rose El Yousif (No. 3794), US Secretary of State Colin Powell, during his visit to the Gulf Arab countries, proposed the establishment of a net of missile defense systems. Costs will be covered by the countries of the region and will exceed several billions of dollars to defend oil resources. An arms race among other countries in the region will no doubt ensue. In addition, all of them will develop laser technology once the US and Israel introduce their systems into the region. The majority of these weapons will be purchased from the US. It should be noted that the main goal of US efforts to encourage the deployment of landbased systems in Israel and friendly Arab States in the Gulf Area is to seek their support for its sea- and air-based missile defense systems to defend US investments and interests in the Middle East. The same process will eventually take place in other regions.

Five verification regimes

Thus, non-proliferation and disarmament steps in the Middle East should be accompanied by five verification regimes:
zero nuclear weapons,
zero chemical weapons,
zero biological weapons,
zero ballistic missiles and other delivery vehicles for WMD,
zero laser weapons.

All these regimes may be integrated in one regional comprehensive system.^[5] This regional system will allow the states of the region themselves to undertake verification and inspection operations similar to the US and Russia in relation to the START process. It is advisable for the regional regime to be combined with the verification regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

BMD deployment and space weaponization are impediments, obstructing efforts to achieve equal human security for all peoples and destabilizing relations among states. Human societies facing each other behind conventional, laser and nuclear-capable shields would be a horrible and inhuman vision in a savage world in the 21st century.

This paper was written for the workshop "Moving Beyond Missile Defense" at Santa Barbara on March 19 - 21, 2001.