Russia 110224 Basic Political Developments

U.S., Russia clash over shared missile program

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/23/us-russia-clash-over-shared-missile-program/

Moscow would get a role in NATO defense

By Douglas Birch

Associated Press

7:12 p.m., Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Talks between the U.S. and Russia over a new anti-ballistic missile system for Europe are stuck on a key point, with Moscow demanding to run the system jointly and Washington refusing to yield.

Russia is insisting on shared control of the missile defense program with the U.S. and NATO, which President Obama has flatly opposed because it essentially would give Russia responsibility for protecting NATO from nuclear missile threats. The U.S. is offering Moscow a more limited role.

After years of opposition, Russia agreed last fall to talk at least about cooperating on the anti-ballistic missile plan for Europe, which the U.S. says may be needed one day if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Analysts from both sides are scheduled to report on details of the proposal to defense ministers in July.

However, Moscow has refused to budge from its demand for joint control and has been keeping up the rhetorical pressure. In late November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said if the U.S. and NATO cannot reach an agreement on missile defense, Russia may deploy new offensive weapons, triggering another arms race.

Early this month, a Russian deputy foreign minister warned that anything less than a “joint system” could lead Russia to withdraw from the recently ratified New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and to “take other measures, including military-technical measures.”

Sergey Kislyak, Russia‘s ambassador to the United States, told an industry-sponsored conference in Washington recently that the two sides still have not reached a good understanding of how a joint program would work. He warned that his country was not interested in “cloning” decisions already made by the U.S.

Referring to Russian fears that the missile defense system could target Russian warheads, Mr. Kislyak said Moscow is determined to maintain a strategic nuclear balance with the West.

“We want to be reassured that whatever you do there doesn’t undermine the stability of deterrence, because deterrence is still with us,” he said Wednesday at the Nuclear Weapons Monitor Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington.

“We haven’t reached a state … between our two countries that would allow us to abolish it. We would like to see it happen. But that’s going to be a long way [off].”

The U.S. and NATO have proposed sharing radar and other early warning data, but Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, the top U.S. arms control negotiator, told the industry summit that Mr. Obama has decided that “NATO will protect NATO, and that’s the bottom line as far as we’re concerned.”

The issue could make or break the deal.

“The hardest question on missile defense in the end is who pulls the trigger,” said Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution, a veteran of U.S. arms control negotiations and former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. He nevertheless thinks that an agreement can be reached.

The White House had hoped that the New START limiting U.S. and Russian strategic weapons, effective Feb. 5, would be a springboard to further arms deals, including deeper cuts in strategic forces as well as reductions in short-range nuclear weapons and non-deployed warheads.

U.S. officials say that new limits on the strategic arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, which between them control 90 percent of the world’s deployed nuclear arms, are crucial to efforts to halt the spread of those weapons and promote disarmament worldwide.

Both U.S. and Russian officials have been vague about the details of Russia‘s proposal for a joint missile-defense system, which Mr. Medvedev has called a “sectoral” defense.

However, independent Russian military analyst Alexander Golts said the plan would give Russia responsibility for intercepting missiles headed across its territory toward Europe, while NATO would be responsible for missiles headed across its territory toward Russia.

The apparent aim is to ensure that NATO‘s interceptors are not aimed at Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), where they might cripple Russia‘s ability to respond to a first strike from the West.

Mr. Golts said the Kremlin may recognize that the U.S. could never agree to such a scheme but has adopted this position as a bargaining tactic. Russia‘s bottom line, he said, may be an agreement by the U.S. not to deploy ship-based missile interceptors in the Arctic region where, in theory at least, they could shoot down Russian strategic ICBMs headed for U.S. targets.

“If Americans are honest when they say that this missile defense is not aimed at Russian nuclear potential, why not?” Mr. Golts said.

Analysts say U.S. missile defense systems are not capable of posing serious threats to Russia‘s nuclear missiles and are intended to protect against any missile threats from Iran and North Korea. Russia has said it is concerned the current systems will develop into a full-scale missile shield.

Russia is not the only country skeptical of U.S. missile-defense goals.

“The Chinese are very, very concerned about missile defenses,” said Sharon Squassoni of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

“A moderately effective missile defense, which we don’t have yet, could really neutralize their nuclear capability, and they know that. We have to do this with the Russians because we’re going to have to do this with the Chinese later on.”

Agency Chief Outlines Threat Reduction Strategy

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62909

By Karen Parrish

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2011 – The Defense Threat Reduction Agency is at work around the clock to protect American forces and citizens from nuclear, chemical and biological threats, the agency’s director said today.

Speaking to the Defense Writers Group, Kenneth A. Myers III, who also is director of the U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, said the “lines of defense” strategy aims to detect, interdict and defend against weapons of mass destruction.

“How do we make it harder, how do we create more lines of defense between the threats and the American people?” he asked.

The value and effectiveness of countering any threat from weapons of mass destruction is much greater at the source, Myers said.

“The first line of defense is at the source. The second line is detection [and] interdiction of these threats before they reach the American people,” he said. “But the other major part of the DTRA responsibility is that last line of defense, here at home, and that’s consequence management.”

In the nuclear arena, one task his agency performs is nuclear inspections. With the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty now in force, Myers said, his people are trained and ready to take on the inspection duties it authorizes.

Carrying out nuclear weapons inspections in Russia is a verification mission, Myers explained, adding that his agency’s teams also will escort Russian teams on their inspections in the United States.

“It’s a mission that we’ve had for a number of years,” he said. “It is one that we’re constantly trained for.”

In recent months that training has intensified, Myers said, as inspectors prepare to verify stockpiles of Russian nuclear weapons.

“We’ve been involved with this treaty for quite some time,” Myers said. “We’ve understood from the beginning of the process what would be required, … [and] we’re ready to go.”

New START provides for fewer inspections than the previous START treaty, he said, in part because the new treaty combines some types of inspections, and also because “we’re talking about fewer weapons. The numbers are coming down.”

Judgments on treaty compliance are not part of his agency’s mission, the director said. “We are the inspectors -- we don’t make verification judgments,” he said. “We report the facts. Judgments on compliance are made by other members.”

His agency’s inspectors, Myers said, are the best in the world. “I’m confident we’ll get all the information we need,” he added.

While the first inspections have not been scheduled, he said, teams are “waiting for the call.”

In contrast to the verification mission his agency will perform under the new START, much of the threat reduction effort focuses on finding and countering risks involving weapons of mass destruction, Myers said. His agency is responsible for much of the science and technology development in countering chemical and biological weapons, he explained, and also is the banker for chemical and biological defense funds.

The threat is diverse, and countermeasure development is spread across a range of efforts, Myers said.

He explained that whether a threat involves samples of harmful viruses or stockpiles of fissionable materials, his agency aims to build as many walls as possible between that threat and American citizens and service members.

For example, in countering biological weapons, the agency works both to contain the possible spread of disease agents, and also to develop vaccines against those diseases, he said, adding that the Ebola and Marburg viruses are an area in which the agency has seen “first-level success.”

It may take 15 to 20 years for the pharmaceutical industry to develop an effective drug to mitigate a threat, he said. “Our No. 1 goal is to shorten these timeframes -- that is, to try to get solutions to the warfighter … and the American people, should we face these types of threats,” he said.

The potential for biological or nuclear weapons to be used against U.S. citizens spurs his agency to move quickly in putting defenses in place, Myers said.

“Our strategy is to cut the timelines, to move faster,” he said. “At the end of the day, you have a threat, and you have a solution. Trying to match them up as quickly as possible is the challenge.”

The Ebola virus, which occurs naturally in sub-Saharan Africa, may be as great a threat as a manmade weapon elsewhere, Myers pointed out.

“It’s hard for me to tell you that a biological weapon or a virulent disease is not a threat,” he said. “They’re all threats. A lot of the [relative risk involves] the likelihood of finding them in nature, and the ease or complex nature of manipulating them.”

Many health facilities in Africa store samples of diseases that occur naturally in the region, he said, noting such facilities often are close to areas that may be terrorist recruiting or operating grounds.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency develops tools for the services to use in countering weapons of mass destruction, Myers said, citing the “massive ordnance penetrator,” a weapon the agency funded, tested, found effective, then handed off to the Air Force. The weapon is designed to attack hardened concrete bunkers and tunnels, where weapons of mass destruction components may be stored, he explained.

“The goal is to hold deeply buried targets and other potential threats … at risk. … I think we’ve proven we can hold deeply buried targets at risk,” Myers said. “We want to work to change the behavior, change the efforts by some to use facilities to develop weapons of mass destruction.”

The fact that the United States has not suffered a serious biological or nuclear attack is significant, though the threat remains real, Myers said.

“I go to work every day with 2,000 people whose job is to stop that from happening,” he said.

Agency programs focus on developing tools and strategies to detect, interdict and counter weapons of mass destruction, he said, in line with the president’s focus on defending against nuclear and biological threats.

“I believe that the policies [and] the programs that we have in place are making a big difference,” Myers said. “I think the people [and] the skill sets that we have focused on this problem are making a big difference.”

One thing that makes the agency effective, the director said, is that it has both a research and development arm and a full operations side.

“You walk down the hallway and you have a nuclear physicist, a microbiologist, and a former Special Forces operator sitting there talking together, trying to solve problems,” he said. “It really is a very unique institution.”

His agency’s partners in defending against weapons of mass destruction include the military services, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and embassies around the world, Myers said.

“To protect the American people, we need to develop as many lines of defense as possible,” he said.