frequently asked questions on missile defense

The Threat Level

Congressional Research Service Report on Proliferation Trends (02/20/08)

"Today, 27 foreign countries around the world have deployed ballistic missiles: Armenia, Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, France, Georgia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Syria, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Yemen. Last year, over 120 foreign ballistic missiles were launched. Nine of these twenty-seven countries have nuclear weapons, nineteen have chemical weapons and eight have biological weapons."

Q: Is Iran a threat to Europe?
A: The United States and world community share a concern that Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium under the cover of a civilian program and restart its clandestine nuclear weapons program.  Iran refuses to provide full transparency to the international community and increasing limitations and restrictions on the IAEA’s verification activities in Iran. This is not a conflict between Iran and the United States, but a matter of Iran rejecting the will of the international community as expressed through unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747.

While the United States joins the international community in seeking a diplomatic solution to this situation, U.S. defense policies also encompass deterrence, including proven hit-to-kill missile defense technology for the protection of U.S. and allied interests.  The more allies engaged in this effort, the stronger and deeper this defense becomes.

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard tests the long-range Shahab-3 missile during maneuvers in a central desert area of Iran, Nov. 2, 2006 (© AP Images)

The indication is that Iran will have long-range missiles that pose a direct threat to transatlantic interests and common security by 2015, whether they carry an atomic weapon or not.

Even now Iran has medium-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Eastern Europe, points in Israel, the U.S. and allied bases in the Persian Gulf.   If Iran gains access to advanced technologies through its connection with the North Korean government, Iran could develop this capability much sooner.  With respect to Iran, its leadership has openly spoken of a cataclysm involving a nuclear weapon, “while the detonation of even a handful of nuclear weapons over Iran would not matter because the revolution would continue.”

“We want to be very clear to the Iranian people that we don't have any disagreement with the Iranian people. They deserve to live in a better society than they do, one that's freer, and they certainly deserve to live in a society that can answer their aspirations. But as long as Iran's activities are as destabilizing as they are, we have to bring pressure on that regime to change its policies,” Secretary Rice stated again in July 2007.

Iranian technicians make adjustments to a 2,000-pound "smart" bomb at the production line for manufacturing them in Tehran, Iran, Aug. 26, 2007 (© AP Images)

Q: Is Iran being treated unfairly in comparison to other nations which have a nuclear program?
A: Asked about this Iranian claim, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns noted August 21, “That so many countries, including nonaligned countries, are voting for sanctions against Iran, is that countries don’t trust the Iranian government…I think the IAEA would be the first to say that for 18 1/2 years, Iran lied to the IAEA is now public knowledge about the secret nuclear research activities that respective Iranian governments had undertaken. We certainly don’t want to see an Iran that is violating Security Council resolutions and arming Hizballah and Hamas and the Shi’a militants in Iraq, with nuclear capabilities.
“Iran’s foreign policy is so mercurial, so violent and so destructive that no one wants to see a government of the type of government run by [Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad in possession of nuclear weapons. It’s as simple as that," he said in an interview with RFE/RL’s Persian Service. RFE/RL correspondent Parnaz Azima was among the several "soft hostages" this year who were unable to leave Tehran.  Iran authorities seized her passport during in January 2007, during a trip to visit her 90-year old mother, and did not return it until September 3.  Azima has worked for RFERL in Prague since 1998.

Q: Will the Czech Republic become the target of an attack because of the radar installation?
A: It is not likely that the missile defense radar installation itself would be targeted by a long-range ballistic missile.  It would require a great a degree of accuracy to strike a relatively small target like the radar installation from thousands of miles away.  Nevertheless, the Czech Republic would be protected by the system itself against a limited long-range missile attack. 

Some Czech commentators have posed the hypothetical question of whether the radar could attract terrorists. The radar installation would have the kind of perimeter protection that has proved effective in deterring terrorists.  U.S. military facilities across Europe have not been the subject of terrorist attack in decades.

Viewed from the broader perspective, the Czech Republic works through many means – including bilateral and multilateral cooperation - to protect its citizens and maintain its security.  The Czech Republic is a firm and increasingly active member of NATO and the EU.  Czech defense policy is rooted in the common, transatlantic defense strategy. The United States recognizes the bravery and dedicated efforts of the Czech military and security authorities in combating terrorism worldwide. 

Q: What are the risks associated with missile fallout?
A: The interceptors use kinetic energy to destroy offensive ballistic missiles, which is to say simply crash into the attacking missile, more than 100 miles above the earth in space.  The kinetic energy generated by a direct collision between the interceptor and the target warhead pulverizes both interceptors into mainly dust-like particles.  Many of the particles and other debris will burn up upon entry into the earth’s atmosphere.  Any potential damage caused by debris would be insignificant compared to the loss of life and property caused by the detonation of a nuclear armed ballistic missile warhead in Europe or the United States.

Q: Why did the U.S. withdraw from the ABM Treaty?
A: The world changed so dramatically between 1972 and 2001.  The principle of containing and deterring the Soviet arsenal has given way to a more complicated landscape. In 1972, when the United States and the Soviet Union signed the ABM Treaty, eight nations possessed ballistic missiles.  25 states now possess these weapons today.  The missiles and the technologies needed to build them have become widely available on the global market.  And they have been used in at least 10 conflicts since the mid-1980s.  Given this new reality, the United States made the strategic decision in 2001 to pursue a modern missile defense capability – an effort that could not proceed under the framework of the old U.S.-Soviet agreement. From the beginning, Russia has been fully informed about our reasoning and advancements in developing a modern missile defense shield.

 

next

previous