Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe

The Congressional Research Service, a department of the Library of Congress, conducts research and analysis for Congress on a broad range of national and international policy issues. Some of the CRS work is carried out specifically for individual members of Congress or their staff and is confidential. However, there is also much CRS compiled material which is considered public but is not formally published on the CRS website.

For that reason a number of other organisations try to keep track of these publications and make them publicly available via their own websites. Currently, ESO uses the following websites to track these reports and allow access to them in ESO:

EveryCRSReport.com
Federation of American Scientists (FAS)

In some cases hyperlinks allows you to access all versions of a report, including the latest. Note that many reports are periodically updated.Successive administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from rogue states. The Bush Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats, and questions whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration’s position on this issue remains unchanged after a recent reassessment that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003. The Administration has built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean
missile threats. Although the system has been tested, most agree that further testing is necessary. The Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in
a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a cost of about $4 billion.

The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country currently faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states — and possibly from Russia.

The Administration recently signed agreements with both countries permitting GMD facilities to be stationed on their territory; however, it is uncertain whether the two countries’ parliaments will ratify the accords. Some Europeans assert that the Bush Administration did not consult sufficiently with NATO allies or with Russia, which the Administration argues was not the case. Other European leaders, however, support the missile defense project.

NATO has deliberated long-range missile defense, and has taken actions that have been interpreted as an endorsement of the U.S. GMD system. The GMD plan has also affected U.S.-Russia relations. President Putin has argued that the proposal would reignite the arms race and upset U.S.-Russian- European security relations. U.S. officials dispute Russian objections, noting that Moscow has known of this plan for years and that the interceptors are intended to take out Iranian missiles aimed at Europe or the United States and could not possibly act as a deterrent against Russia. Some argue that Russia has been attempting to
foment discord among NATO allies. In mid-2007, however, Putin offered to cooperate on missile defense, proposing the use of a Russian leased radar in Azerbaijan, but urging that U.S. facilities not be built in Eastern Europe. President
Bush welcomed the apparent policy shift in principle, but insisted upon the need for the European sites. Despite ongoing discussions over the issue, sharp Russian
criticism of the program has continued.

In 2007, Congress examined the European GMD proposal and eliminated proposed funding for initial site construction for FY2008 pending formal agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic, independent studies on missile defense options for Europe, and DOD certification of the proposed interceptor. The FY2009 request for the European site is $712 million.

• Primary Source

EveryCRSReport.com https://www.everycrsreport.com/

Federation of American Scientists (FAS): Congressional Research Service [CRS] Reports https://fas.org/sgp/crs/index.html

---