Abstract
Nations strive hard to protect their interests which sometime lead them into competition of imposing wills on each other. The 21st century power competition is no different and nations equipped with strong elements of power are striving to adopt all available means to compete with their challengers and competitors. This involves strategies that coin both soft and hard power. Though the use of soft power is more objective oriented it also requires a tangible support of hard power to deter the competitor. Even the 21st Century warfare is more hybrid and non-kinetic in its nature but again efforts supplemented through icons of war ensures reliability of power game. Among many soft power projections, diplomacy is at the top, which is now bridging the soft and hard powers, giving birth to diplomatic maneuverability. The sophistication of military hardware and technological incorporation into the strategic equation by powerful states provides an indication towards evolving diplomatic maneuverability. In other words, today’s diplomatic relations are trending to accommodate hard power equation into the matrix of strategic relations. To minimize the scope of diplomatic maneuverability and keep it very strategic in nature the concept of antimissile shield provides an interesting definition to the whole dilemma. Today, the antimissile shields have received an interesting value in the overall strategic relations among the powerful to feed the security anxiety of vulnerable nations. This article sheds light on the evolving diplomatic maneuverability which accommodates one of the most threatening technological devices in the shape of the antimissile defense shield. How the global antimissile shield is impacting negatively on the stability of peace and security is the question to investigate. To do so, this article would first chart out the bidders of antimissile defense shields along with their aspirations to keep it going and later evaluate how such an arrangement is causing instability to the greater audience.
Introduction
The term Missile Defense System broadly means a system that provides defense against any missile type, conventional or nuclear, by any country. Any mechanism which can detect and then destroy a missile before it can cause any harm is called a missile defense system (MDS). The role of defense against nuclear missiles has been a heated military and political topic for several decades. However, missile defense is no longer limited to interception of strategic nuclear weapons. The gradual development and proliferation of missile technology has blurred the line between the technologies for interception of tactical missiles, usually short to intermediate range with non-nuclear payloads and the interception of strategic missiles usually long ranged with nuclear payloads. High-performance tactical ballistic missiles carrying non-nuclear payloads now have the ability to affect strategic balance in conflict zones. Likewise, high-performance tactical missile defense systems can now influence force deployment strategies.
Countries such as Italy, France, UK, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UAE, China, Russia, and US have developed and installed antimissile shields on their territories. To better understand the security dilemma emerging out of antimissile defense shields, a cursory outlook on the defense developments of the listed states is given below.
1. Italy, France, and UK
Italy and France have developed a missile family called Aster or more precisely Aster 15 and Aster 30. Aster 30 is capable of ballistic missile defense. On 18 October 2010, France announced a successful tactical antiballistic missile (ABM) test of the Aster 30 missile and on 1 December 2011 a successful interception of a Black Sparrow ballistic target missile, which demonstrated the feasibility of destroying medium-range ballistic missiles. Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers and French Navy and Italian Navy Horizon class frigates are armed with Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS), using Aster 15 and 30 missiles. Also, France is developing another version, Aster 30 block-II which can destroy ballistic missiles with a maximum range of 3000 km. Moreover, Italy has developed a medium ranged ground-based Surface to Air defense system which is the development of Aster using batteries of Aster 30 missiles.
2. India
The Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Program is an initiative to develop and deploy a multi-layered ballistic missile defense system to protect India from ballistic missile attacks. It is a double-tiered system consisting of two interceptor missiles, namely the Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) missile for high-altitude interception and the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) Missile for lower altitude interception. The two-tiered shield should be able to intercept any incoming missile launched from 5,000 kilometers away. Along with her indigenous technological advancements to cater ballistic and cruise missile threats, India is also receiving support from Israel and Russia to enhance its antimissile defense shields.
3. Israel
Israel has a national missile defense against short to long range missiles using their Arrow missile system. The Arrow missile system is jointly funded and developed by Israel and the United States of America. The Arrow missile system is one of the best when it comes to technological advancement of antimissile defense shield. Apart from the Arrow missile, Israel has the Iron dome which is designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometers away and David’s Sling (formerly known as Magic Wand) that is designed to intercept medium-to long-range rockets and cruise missiles fired at ranges from 40 km to 300 km. David’s Sling is also jointly developed by Israel and the United States of America.
4. Japan
The Japanese have been jointly developing a new surface-to-air interceptor known as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) with the US. So far tests have been successful, and there are planned 11 locations that the PAC-3 will be installed. Along with the PAC-3, Japan has installed the US-developed Aegis ship-based anti-ballistic missile system. Japan is also in consultations with the United States to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and a ground-based version of the Standard Missile-3 interceptors mounted on Aegis destroyers. Japan’s intention is to create a four-stage anti-missile shield.
5. Taiwan
Taiwan has indigenously developed Tien Kung-II (Sky Bow) SAM system and Patriot-III missiles. It is also building up a missile defense shield in response to Chinese missiles pointed in its direction. The latest addition will be six Patriot III batteries and a long-range early warning radar system. Taiwan and the US are in negotiations to install Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.
6. South Korea
In reaction to North Korean missile tests on March 06, 2017, South Korea agreed to host the US THAAD systems on its territory. Currently, the AN/ TPY-2 radar, the fire control system, and all six launchers with 48 THAAD interceptors are fully deployed in South Korea.
7. United Arab Emirates
United Arab Emirates (UAE) has graduated its first two American Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) unit classes at Fort Bliss in 2015, and in 2016. Its first live-fire exercises with Patriot missiles took place in 2014. The UAE is the first Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) partner to possess an upper tier ballistic missile defense capability.
8. Afghanistan
Afghanistan currently is out of antimissile shields. Though, keeping in view its strategic position and intentions of USA and India which cannot be ignored who through bilateral agreements could install antimissile defense shields in Afghanistan.
9. China
The Chinese authorities have currently developed the KT series of anti-ballistic missiles and also have adopted limited anti-ballistic capabilities on the HQ-9, KS series, and HQ-16. The system is very successful. Moreover, China possesses four versions of the S-300, which are in service, the PMU, PMU1, PMU2 and the naval S-300FM Rif.
10. Russia
The Russian A-135 anti-ballistic missile system is currently operational and recently fresh tests have been conducted to upgrade the missile system. The A-135 anti-ballistic missile system is a Russian military complex deployed around Russia to counter enemy missiles targeting its strategic locations and cities. Moreover, the S-300PMU1 and PMU2 can intercept short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM), and the S-300V and S-400 Triumf systems are capable of intercepting a multiple intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) attack. These air-defense systems have been purchased by Turkey, India, China, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. Other countries which have also expressed interest include Iran and Belarus. The enhanced S-300VM/ VMK is capable of intercepting ballistic missiles with a range of 2,500 km, whereas the S-400 is claimed to be capable of intercepting ballistic missiles with a range of 3,500 km.
11. United States
When it comes to antimissile defense shield of USA, there is no single system. Instead, different systems are designed to intercept warheads at various stages, such as:
i. Patriot
The system is useful against conventional weapons only. The system is useless or more appropriately vulnerable against missiles equipped with nuclear devices as they deliver multiple warheads and decoys. Though, Patriot has a range of just 12 miles and works by intercepting missiles in the low atmosphere in their final approach toward the target, or terminal phase.
ii. THAAD
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system is designed to shoot down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. The system has a range of 124 miles and can intercept missiles both inside and right outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The THAAD system is currently deployed in South Korea, Guam and Alaska. Last month, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency announced that its THAAD system in Kodiak, Alaska, successfully intercepted an intermediate-range ballistic missile for the first time in a test. So far, the system has a perfect 14-out-of-14 record in tests since 2005.
iii. Aegis
The ship-based Aegis system can protect against short to intermediate-range ballistic missiles during the midflight or terminal stages, and its powerful long-range radar can be used to help improve the accuracy of the Patriot or THAAD. The Aegis can also hit land-based targets, submarines and surface ships. Currently, there are 84 U.S. Navy ships in service with the weapons system, while Japan and South Korea are in the process of updating their Aegis systems. There is also an onshore variant set to be deployed in Romania and Poland.
iv. GMD
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in midcourse flight but the test results are unsatisfactory. In May 2017, the antimissile system was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and successfully intercepted a target ICBM fired from the Marshall Islands. It was the 10th successful test in 18 attempts, but prior tests have failed, including two tests in 2010. When it comes to antimissile defense shield, the reliability of the GMD is seriously questionable.
v. Boost Phase
The USA has also considered laser technology to target the missiles during a ‘boost phase’ but due to expensive nature of the technology such an arrangement seems closed.
The above overview on the technological developments in the sphere of antimissile defense systems clearly reflects that most of the countries are managing the antiballistic advancements purely on defensive notes. Whereas, the Western block under NATO is creating a diplomatic maneuverability to develop an international chain of antimissile defense mechanism. The idea is lead and managed by the United States of America who through its diplomatic leverage is involving multiple states, propagating the idea of collective defense. Countries that are victim of security dilemma such as Eastern Europe, Japan, South Korea, India, and Israel are easy traps for the USA who through diplomatic maneuverability will cause direct implications on China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran.
Impact of Antimissile Defense Shields on the Global Stability
Global stability is very much connected with the policy priorities of major powers and the alliances they make in the rest of the world to generation diplomatic support. The debate of antimissile defense shield is controversial and has brought negative connotation for peace and stability for the global order. Therefore, it is important to understand the whole dynamics and strategic orientation of the defense shields spread around the globe before it is too late to respond. Keeping in view the above details, the subsequent paragraphs will shed light on the possible implications that arises out of alliance-based antimissile shields.
a. Italy, France, and UK
The antimissile defense shields of Italy, France, and UK do not pose any direct threat to peace and stability in Europe. Though their alliance with the NATO antimissile defense shield particularly driven by US aspirations has direct negative implications for the global stability.
b. India
The Indian antimissile defense shields provide her leverage to operationalize its limited warfare doctrine (the Cold Start Doctrine) against Pakistan under the nuclear overhang. Therefore, Indian defense mechanism is negatively impacting on regional stability. Moreover, the US intentions to engage India into the matrix of antimissile defense shields through diplomatic maneuverability would have direct implications on China, Russia, and Pakistan, leading the discourse of instability towards global peace.
c. Israel
Israel antimissile shield is solely a gift from the United States of America, which has strategic interest in the Middle East. The military superiority of Israel is leading an arms race in the Middle East particularly where Iran is concerned. The trickle-down effects of such an arms race will be causing direct impacts in the Middle East leading it towards global instability.
d. Japan
The antimissile defense shield in Japan has dual objectives, one for Tokyo and the other for USA. The antimissile defense shield does address security needs of Japan but it also creates insecurity for China and Russia. The US has successfully made a pearl of defense shields surrounding China and Russia. Japanese active involvement in this equation of antimissile defense shields would create greater insecurity rather serves the very basic requirement for stability in the Korean Peninsula.
e. Taiwan
The antimissile shield particularly THAAD would directly threaten Chinese strategic interests in the region. Moreover, presence of US weapons in Taiwan triggers syndrome of insecurity for Beijing which has always shown zero tolerance to Washington when it comes to overstretching her military muscles in the Chinese region. Most likely, this would ignite instability on multiple fronts such as in South China Sea and towards extended geography of Korean Peninsula.
f. South Korea
The South Korean extension of antimissile defense shield is solely due to her national security challenges arising from North Korea. As mentioned earlier installation of THAAD interceptors would have dual purpose, one for the South Koreans and the other for the USA. The presence of multiple forms of antimissile defense shields surrounding China and Russia would create permanent sense of instability in Beijing and Moscow making the whole continent a battlefield for new Cold War.
g. United Arab Emirates
The UAE has no direct usage of such an expensive weaponry neither does the tiny country face any direct threat from any regional country. It seems that based on superficial security anxiety, UAE wants to prevent any future threat arising from Iran. Whether such a security anxiety exists or not but for sure UAE’s decision to bring THAAD into the matrix of Gulf will create definite insecurity for Tehran. Moreover, the encirclement policy of US through creating a pearl of antimissile defense shields surrounding China and Russia will add more anxiety into the equation of instability for Beijing and Moscow.
h. Afghanistan
Kabul at this stage does not have plans for any antimissile defense shield. Though, chances of it ending up into an agreement with the US to install antimissile defense shield against Pakistan, China, Iran, and Russia is not out of scenario. The scenario also accommodates the possibility of Indian attempts to strengthen Afghanistan’s defense by installing its antimissile defense shield to counter Pakistan and Chinese missiles. It is important to mention here that Pakistan and China are committed to maintain peace and security in Kabul and do not have any military objectives in Afghanistan. The possibility of such a scenario makes the region instable and a likely response from Pakistan and Chinese side will be punitive to both India and Afghanistan.
i. China
The Chinese antimissile defense system is purely for its defensive needs and poses no threat to any other country. Keeping in view extension of US presence in the South East Asia and in South Asia through India will be an issue of strategic threat for Beijing. Availability of US antimissile defense shields in Japan, South Korea, South China Sea, and most probably in India is likely to trigger security anxiety for the Chinese military authorities. Such a situation is definitely going to lead to instability on regional and global fronts.
j. Russia
The Russian antimissile defense shield is a reflection of its strategic vulnerability in the wake of increasing US presence in Eastern Europe. Washington’s efforts to install antiballistic missiles at the front door of Russia in Eastern European countries is a direct threat to Moscow. Moreover, installation of antimissile shield with a purpose to surround Russia brings direct confrontation between the two traditional rivals. In case of failure of brinksmanship, the possible response of Moscow will invoke its military response against all those states who are hosting the US antimissile shields against Russia. This is the most possible scenario if US continues its policy of surrounding Russia with antimissile shield.
k. United States
Though, the US does not have one system of antimissile defense but through its multiple systems the country has created invincibility against possible threats. The US is the only country that has managed to develop a robust response against ballistic missiles. The most important feature of its multiple antimissile defense shields is its maneuverability. In other words, through the mobility of its antimissile system the US has declared the whole world as its homeland. It can take its missile system to any ocean, to any land, and to any airspace to directly engage its challenger. This is somehow not defense. In fact, it shows that the US has crafted a world where no one dares to challenge its writ. Such a global antimissile defense system spread everywhere and latterly covering every single inch of the land and sea, how can stability prevails. The US antimissile defense system is the key to instability, it ignites a never-ending arms race in the sphere of antimissile defense shields.
Policy Options for Pakistan
Any action that is undertaken to achieve strategic interests has somehow happened to craft events that always influences the fragile parties and creates a security dilemma. Each step can strengthen or misbalance a system at the same time. On the international level misbalancing means a lot if a sovereign state implements a policy, which is in some way unacceptable to the neighbor or even to a whole region it provokes others and gives the right to protect their interests.
Since history provides the best answer therefore we have to take lessons from it. The Cold War between US and USSR/ Russia is one of the best chapters from which we can learn how to prevent bad things from happening. An arms race has already become today’s reality not only for global powers but also emerging ones particularly in Asia. North Korea, China, India and Pakistan continue to strengthen their armies, striving hard to develop sophisticated missiles and what is more important all the four are nuclear states. The question of strategic stability is out of question and until now squeezes the very opportunity of balancing the imbalance. If the concerns are real to maintain balance then how to achieve it in the future?
It seems that US is also concerned regarding the issue and considers missile threat as a main source of danger. Obviously Chinese and North Korean ballistic missiles pose a direct threat to Washington. On the contrary, it is not easy to imagine India or Pakistan using strategic weapons against the US mainly because of the absence of any motives. However since there are a lot of missiles in the Asian region the White House believes it is necessary to build up a powerful Global antimissile shield to cope with the problem. Russian and Iranian missiles make this decision even stronger as well.
The US history of building this shield goes back to the 90s and today we have to admit that US has done a big job. Agreements on placing American antimissile weapons were signed with a number of European countries (Romania, Spain, Poland, Germany and Turkey). In Asia key allies are Japan and South Korea, they host variety of corresponding equipment and weapons. Unfortunately, Washington takes into consideration only its own interests, notwithstanding it proclaims to all and sundry that it contributes to the safety and security of the region.
In September 2017 US has placed on duty a modern THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defence) a very sophisticated and powerful complex able to hit any hostile ballistic missile. Officially the declared idea was to intercept North Korean ICBM flying to US mainland or military bases in Asia-Pacific region and also to protect its allies (South Korea and Japan). But in fact there are doubts regarding Washington’s true intentions. US foreign policy usually lacks transparency and foresight. First they create a problem and then they spend many years solving it and eliminating negative consequences with the help of unwillingly states. Has the Korean Peninsula become safer after THAAD? Definitely not! Tensions between the rivals has become even stronger. Pyongyang became more isolated and annoyed. South Korean society cracked in two parts one believes THAAD is a good protective mean, the other one is convinced that American involvement dramatically destabilizes the regional situation, brings mistrust between two Koreas and can provoke the annoyed nuclear possessor to use its arsenal in case of emergency. The same thing happened in Afghanistan in the 80s and we are still facing the consequences without clear chances of winning.
Bare facts are stronger that any arguments especially in an arms race. Any type of misbalance leads to retaliatory actions which only make things even worse. Obviously, North Korea does not have any expansion plans and is not going to conquer any neighbor or the US. Pyongyang develops its missile and nuclear program to protect its territory from aggressive US designs and to restore the balance of power in the region. The real goal of introducing Global antimissile shield is to deter China, Russia and to maintain American hegemony in the world, as the Us believes that the world should not be multi polar but follow one dictating superpower.
However, the situation is more complicated. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and their regional influence continues to rise. Considering Indian ties with the US, which continue to strengthen on strategic grounds, has given rise to instability in the region. Contrary to that, Pakistan’s relations with the US are deteriorating mostly because Washington does not like Islamabad’s independent policy and its alternative way of thinking and acting. Since all the American military bases in Afghanistan are in the range of Pakistani missiles like Ababeel, Shaheen-2 and 3; why not introduce a new segment of Global antimissile shield in South Asia, this is a definite goal for US and Indian strategic thinkers. Such step would neutralize Pakistani missile program and nullify the minimum credible deterrence policy because Islamabad would loose ability to retaliate with its strategic weapons to any Indian aggression all the missile would be intercepted and hit down. Who knows what other motivation or explanation will be used to justify the buildup of a new South Asian segment of Global antimissile shield.
Taking into account importance of the issue for Pakistani national interests, our policy makers should consider all the possible scenarios and use preventive denouncing rhetoric not to let the problem of South Asian segment of Global antimissile shield arise.
Conclusion
The implications are unprecedented as it provides a clear manifestation of military preparedness before a situation arises. Technological advancements in this sphere are only meant to prevent the threats against one’s own or allies’ defenses. On the one hand this arrangement is defensive but ideal capability through rigorous technological advancements weakens the ability of the enemy. Moreover, technological superiority on the front of antimissile defense is quite expensive and causes no technical backlog to others. Any state interested in the technology could one day get hold over it. So, is the arms race a solution to it? Obviously not! The arms race does cause economic burden on those who are competing alone but in case one makes alliances the cost is equally shared. Therefore, it becomes a shared security rather an imposed arms race. The experience of the United States of America shows this tendency in her policy of antimissile defense shield it has successfully installed around the globe. In case of USA, the competitors are China, Russia, and their allies. Washington has found a network of states surrounding China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran that face direct or indirect threats. Before a South Asian version of antimissile defense shield enters a real scenario, Pakistan along with its likeminded states should craft a robust regional and international response to negate such a possibility.
Bibliography
Ivanov, Igor. “The Missile-Defense Mistake: Undermining Strategic Stability and the ABM Treaty.” Foreign Affairs (2000): 15-20.
Livingston, Peter M., and Alvin D. Schnurr. “Laser anti-missile defense system.” U.S. Patent 5,198,607, issued March 30, 1993.
Fetter, Steve, Andrew M. Sessler, John M. Cornwall, Bob Dietz, Sherman Frankel, Richard L. Garwin, Kurt Gottfried et al. “Countermeasures: A technical evaluation of the operational effectiveness of the planned US national missile defense system.” (2000).
Carter, Ashton B. “Directed energy missile defense in space.” NASA STI/Recon Technical Report N 85 (1984).
Graham, Thomas W., and Bernard M. Kramer. “The polls: ABM and Star Wars: Attitudes toward nuclear defense, 1945-1985.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 50, no. 1 (1986): 125-134.
Nathanson, Harvey C., and Thomas E. Underwood. “Multi-mode missile seeker system.” U.S. Patent 5,061,930, issued October 29, 1991.
Hildreth, Steven A. Long-range ballistic missile defense in Europe. DIANE Publishing, 2010.
Longstreth, Thomas K., John Emory Pike, and John B. Rhinelander. The impact of US and Soviet ballistic missile defense programs on the ABM treaty: a report for the National Campaign to save the ABM Treaty. The Campaign, 1985.
Weitz, Richard. “Illusive visions and practical realities: Russia, NATO and missile defence.” Survival 52, no. 4 (2010): 99-120.
Pant, Harsh V. “India-Israel Partnership: Convergence and Constraints.” Middle East 8, no. 4 (2004): 61.
Auner, Eric. “Indian Missile Defense Program Advances.” Arms Control Today 43, no. 1 (2013): 33.
Koblentz, Gregory. “Theater missile defense and South Asia: A volatile mix.” The Nonproliferation Review 4, no. 3 (1997): 54-62.
