Missile Defense Briefing Report: No. 207

OUT OF STEP ON MISSILE DEFENSE
Back in May, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee put a crimp in the Pentagon's missile defense plans when it refused to authorize funds for a European basing location for American interceptors. Now, Inside the Army (September 18) reports that the Bush administration is taking another crack at winning Congressional hearts and minds on the issue. On September 8th, the Department of Defense lodged an official appeal with Congress to reconsider the funding cut. "The House action will cause a 12- to 18-month delay in deploying this important defense capability and leave the nation as well as our European friends vulnerable to ballistic missile attack," the Pentagon request says.

Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, momentum for missile defense cooperation appears to be building. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization "can, and should, do more" on missile defense, writes Marshall Billingslea, NATO's assistant secretary general for defense investment, in the September 18th Wall Street Journal Europe. "As capable as our theater missile defenses are becoming, they are not able to protect against intercontinental range ballistic missiles (ICBMs), or even some kinds of medium-range systems... our Alliance has several options. We can continue to limit NATO to dealing with the shorter range threats... Or we can choose to address the whole range of threats together, and develop a common defense for the entire Alliance."

TWEAKING THE STRATEGIC TRIAD
The Bush administration is contemplating a new weapon in the War on Terror: ICBMs. According to Reuters (August 27), the Pentagon is exploring the possibility of converting a portion of America's arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles from nuclear to non-nuclear use. The conventional warheads would enable the missiles to be used for a variety of new purposes, including preemptive strikes on terrorist encampments.

During his meeting with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov in late August, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stressed that the review of current U.S. missile protocols had become a priority in light of North Korea's growing belligerency and the outcome of the month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the future, if either Russia or the U.S. faces attack by weapons of mass destruction, it will be necessary "to have available a conventional weapon that could attack that target swiftly and accurately and precisely," Rumsfeld explained to his Russian counterpart.

PLANNING FOR THE WORST IN SEOUL
The August 16th edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports that the South Korean government has announced plans to develop an air-launched weapon capable of disrupting electrical power lines, electricity substations and power plants. The "Black Bomb," a smart munition believed to be similar to the U.S. BLU-114/B, is intended to provide Seoul with the ability to knock out North Korea's underground military facilities in the event of a military conflict between Pyongyang and Seoul, South Korean defense officials have confirmed.

PYONGYANG CHANGES PROLIFERATION TACKS
North Korea, meanwhile, appears to be shifting its proliferation strategy. Worldtribune.com (August 30th), citing a new report from Monterrey's Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), reports that the DPRK - which previously supplied its client states largely by sea - has begun shipping missiles and missile components by air via Russia. The new trafficking route appears to be an effort to circumvent the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which has succeeded in significantly curtailing North Korean missile trade over the past three years.

The new air shipments, the CNS study says, have allowed the regime of Kim Jong-il to make "more rapid shipping deliveries" while making successful interdictions "much more difficult." The role of Russia in this proliferation dynamic is also problematic. "In some instances, this has been accomplished with private-sector Russian assistance, thereby calling into question the Russian government's ability and/or willingness to control North Korea's missile proliferation," according to the paper.