Missile Defence in Europe: Strategic, Political and Industrial Implications

20-05-2011

Since the original announcement made by former U.S. president George W. Bush to build Ballistic Missile Defence(BMD)’s third pillar in Central Europe, BMD has become a widely discussed and contested issue. President Obama’s review of the U.S. system (2009) paved the way for the construction of a multilayered system as a NATO capability which was endorsed by the Alliance at the Lisbon Summit (2010). Although the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) system proposed by the Obama administration is different from the original U.S. plans, it is now to be incorporated within NATO's Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) architecture and, in addition, Russia has now been invited to participate. However, there are still a number of outstanding questions. This expert study investigates three dimensions of missile defence in Europe, placing the project in its proper strategic context, inquiring into its political implications and finally it assesses the industrial opportunities and challenges. The authors introduce three modalities of deterrence, the logic underlying each of them and the roles for missile defence (both territorial and theatre) in each case. The modalities identified are (1) the renewed strategic deterrence between the USA and Russia, (2) the deterrence of third states in reaction to their asymmetric nuclear threat, and (3) the reverse deterrence from intervention in regional conflicts. Taking into account the EU’s securitization of ballistic missile proliferation, the new CSDP provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (especially the mutual assistance clause), strained EUNATO relations, as well as the political, economic, technological and industrial benefits of Europe’s increased participation, this study argues in favour of an EU role in missile defence that would facilitate Europe’s common action. It also identifies the European Defence Agency (EDA) as an institution that could enhance cooperation in this area. Pointing out U.S. techn

Since the original announcement made by former U.S. president George W. Bush to build Ballistic Missile Defence(BMD)’s third pillar in Central Europe, BMD has become a widely discussed and contested issue. President Obama’s review of the U.S. system (2009) paved the way for the construction of a multilayered system as a NATO capability which was endorsed by the Alliance at the Lisbon Summit (2010). Although the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) system proposed by the Obama administration is different from the original U.S. plans, it is now to be incorporated within NATO's Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) architecture and, in addition, Russia has now been invited to participate. However, there are still a number of outstanding questions. This expert study investigates three dimensions of missile defence in Europe, placing the project in its proper strategic context, inquiring into its political implications and finally it assesses the industrial opportunities and challenges. The authors introduce three modalities of deterrence, the logic underlying each of them and the roles for missile defence (both territorial and theatre) in each case. The modalities identified are (1) the renewed strategic deterrence between the USA and Russia, (2) the deterrence of third states in reaction to their asymmetric nuclear threat, and (3) the reverse deterrence from intervention in regional conflicts. Taking into account the EU’s securitization of ballistic missile proliferation, the new CSDP provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (especially the mutual assistance clause), strained EUNATO relations, as well as the political, economic, technological and industrial benefits of Europe’s increased participation, this study argues in favour of an EU role in missile defence that would facilitate Europe’s common action. It also identifies the European Defence Agency (EDA) as an institution that could enhance cooperation in this area. Pointing out U.S. techn

Autorzy zewnętrzni

Nik HYNEK (Research Leader, Centre for International Security of the Institute of International Relations - IIR, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC and Metropolitan University, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC), Vit STRITECKY (Institute of International Relations, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC, Centre for International Security and Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC) and Ondrej DITRYCH (Institute of International Relations, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC and Centre for International Security)