From: BASIC

23 July 2001 17:17

US Missile Defence Update

There are six items included in this mailing which will hopefully inform you of some of the key events over the last two weeks.

The first two items concern yesterday's joint declaration by President Bush and President Putin that the US and Russia will shortly begin talks on the issues of offensive and defensive systems. The first piece is the text of the joint statement and the second is an article by Michael Gordon of the New York Times. The article points out that the joint statement is a long way from being a breakthrough, and that differences between the two sides are vast. However, the announcement will go some way to placating opposition towards missile defence both in the US Senate and in Europe.

The third piece is a press release detailing the results of a recent MORI opinion poll on the British public's attitude towards US missile defence plans. The poll, which was commissioned by a coalition of UK-based NGOs, shows that 70% of the UK public thinks the plans will start a new arms race, while over 60% believe it will make multilaterally agreed nuclear disarmament harder to achieve.

Item four is an assessment of the recent mid-course interceptor test from the LA Times. While the test was generally reported as a success, the article reveals that crucial radar equipment failed to work correctly.

The fifth piece is another article from the New York Times outlining some of the current developments in US missile defence, giving special emphasis to the possible role of space-based systems.

The last item the text of legislation recently introduced into the US House of Representatives. The bill proposes that US allies who might one day be protected from a US missile defence shield contribute financially to its development. While still in its early stages, the Burdensharing Act could serve as a useful means of discovering precisely how much support for the proposed system there is amongst European allies.

1)Text: Bush, Putin Joint Statement on Upcoming Talks on Strategic Issues, 22 July 2001
2) White House Finding Putin A Friend Indeed New York Times, 23 July 2001
3) 70% of Britain Fears US-Driven Arms Race, BASIC Press Release, 18 July 2001
4) Crucial Radar Failed Missile Defense Test Los Angeles Times, 18 July 2001
5) Cast Of Star Wars Makes Comeback In Bush Plan?, New York Times, 22 July 2001, By James Glanz
6) Missile Defense Burdensharing Act of 2001 - 17 July 2001

1) Text: Bush, Putin Joint Statement on Upcoming Talks on Strategic Issues, 22 July 2001
The White House July 22 in Genoa, Italy, released the following joint statement by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin following their bilateral meeting at the conclusion of the three-day Summit of the Group of Eight.

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary, July 22, 2001 JOINT STATEMENT BY US PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION VLADIMIR V. PUTIN ON UPCOMING CONSULTATIONS ON STRATEGIC ISSUES

We agreed that major changes in the world require concrete discussions of both offensive and defensive systems. We already have some strong and tangible points of agreement. We will shortly begin intensive consultations on the interrelated subjects of offensive and defensive systems. (end text) 2) "White House Finding Putin A Friend Indeed" New York Times, 23 July 2001 - By Michael R. Gordon LONDON, July 22 -

When the Bush administration took office it was sceptical of the Russians and openly dismissive of President Clinton's brand of personal diplomacy with Kremlin leaders. President Bush delayed meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin. Russian diplomats were expelled for spying. Top Pentagon officials charged that Russia was selling dangerous military technology to the Middle East. Now, in a dizzying display of bonhomie Mr. Bush has embraced the Russian president as if they were the best of friends. At the Group of 8 meeting, Mr. Bush not only promised to consult with the Russians on his plans to build a missile shield and on the issue of long-range nuclear arms; he all but predicted that the talks would succeed.

"This is a man with whom I can have an honest dialogue," Mr. Bush said glowingly. "I'm optimistic that we can get something done."

In political terms, it is clear why the administration has a new-found enthusiasm for dealing with Russia. In Europe, the United States' allies are still not persuaded that there is an urgent missile threat from "rogue states" and they are dubious that the technology to combat it is at hand. But they are prepared to acquiesce in the Bush plans for a missile defense if it does not upset the West's relationship with Moscow.

So one goal of the administration's new policy of conspicuous engagement with the Russians is to persuade a skeptical Europe, as well as the lawmakers in Washington who control the purse strings for the Pentagon's missile defense program, that American-Russian relations are on a firm footing, and that the development of an antimissile shield will not lead to a new cold war. The Russians have their own reason for wanting to engage the United States. Drawing the Americans into talks, the Russians have long calculated, may be a way to limit the scope of the Bush administration's antimissile program and to pin Mr. Bush down on the bold cuts in strategic arms that he has promised in vague terms but has yet to specify. And the best way for Mr. Putin to influence public opinion in Europe is to present himself as a reasonable interlocutor and let the Americans take the heat should the talks fail. The key question, however, is whether Washington and Moscow are really willing to make the concessions on arms issues to cement an understanding. Certainly, the two sides now have an opportunity to come to terms. But there was no breakthrough today, and the gaps between the two sides are enormous.

On the positive side, Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin have agreed to begin high-level talks on antimissile systems and offensive nuclear arms. The United States has temporarily put aside its talk of withdrawing from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, a move that would create a political uproar in Europe, while Russia is playing down its threat to respond by putting multiple warheads on its missiles as a way to build up its offensive striking power. And in a terse joint statement the two sides issued today, they agreed that the issue of antimissile defenses and strategic arms cuts are related and, therefore, need to be dealt with as a package. Faced with huge budgetary problems and an aging nuclear force, Russia's long-range arsenal is shrinking and Moscow has long been pushing the United States to commit to deep nuclear cuts. So the joint statement points to one area where the two sides' positions are beginning to converge, though it remains to be seen if Washington is willing to go as far as Moscow in cutting its nuclear arsenal. But there is still a huge gulf on missile defense. Senior Bush administration officials said last week that they would like to do away with the ABM treaty, which they have called a legal anachronism.

As a replacement, they favor an arrangement in which the Russians would be informed about United States antimissile tests but which would not involve formal limits on the testing, development or deployment of a missile shield. Russian officials have suggested that they may be willing to make some adjustments in the ABM treaty to allow a limited defense. But Russian officials, who still cast the ABM treaty as a pillar of strategic stability, have said nothing to indicate that they are prepared to sweep away all of the accord's provisions and give the Pentagon a free hand to test, develop and deploy antimissile defenses. The Bush administration plans to test two types of space-based defenses - a laser system and missile interceptors - and Russia has long been concerned that space-based defenses could pose a special threat to the Russian nuclear deterrent and could be rapidly expanded. Nor is there much time for wrangling.

In a move that seems calculated to put pressure on Moscow and bring the debate over the ABM treaty to a head, the administration has announced an ambitious plan for testing missile defense systems that will conflict with the ABM accord in months, not years. As the two sides consult, they also will be engaged in a game of chicken. The Americans will be holding out the threat of withdrawing from the treaty, which can be done on six months' notice, if Moscow does not come to terms. And the Russians will be calculating that Washington may not have the nerve to do so, and face enormous political repercussions in Europe and in the American Congress. For all the upbeat talk today, even the form of the discussions masks some potentially serious differences. The joint statement issued today notes that the two sides will soon begin "intensive consultations." But Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, made clear today that those discussions will not be formal negotiations over detailed arms control limits. Rather, she said, they will be more like consultations among allies in which each side simply tells the other what programs they have in mind. "It is our view that these are more like defense planning talks, that you look at what is required for each side to insure itself," Ms. Rice said. The discussions themselves will involve parallel meetings between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and their Russian counterparts. The Russians, in contrast, are likely to insist that the process yield more formal and binding commitments by each side. As Mr. Putin put it today with considerable tact, "The differences in approach on a couple of topics are still there."

3) 70% of Britain Fears US-Driven Arms Race? - Press Release - 18 July 2001
A majority of the British public believes that America's controversial plan to build a missile defence system will start a new arms race, make nuclear disarmament harder to achieve, and may even make the United Kingdom a military target, according to a new opinion poll.* The poll, conducted by MORI on behalf of a coalition of UK-based arms control organisations,** shows that 70% of Britons voters agree that: ?The development of the US missile defence system will encourage other countries to build more advanced nuclear weapons?. Over 60% of those surveyed also believe that international agreement on nuclear disarmament would be harder to achieve in the wake of US plans to deploy the system. President George W. Bush arrives in the United Kingdom today for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The two leaders are expected to discuss missile defence plans which will be likely to involve the use of UK-based facilities. The British government recently confirmed the completion of two new radomes at RAF Menwith Hill in Yorkshire. The radomes form part of the ground relay station for a network of satellites and will likely become an integral part of a future US missile defence system. However, a forceful 72% of those polled feel that such a move could make the United Kingdom a target for an attack directed at the United States? system. In addition, while over half of those surveyed feel that denying use of UK-based radar facilities to be used in the system may harm transatlantic relations, less than a third think that it is in Britain?s best interest to cooperate. President Bush arrives in Europe buoyed by the successful intercept of a dummy warhead in a test early Sunday morning, and his administration is determined to press ahead with the controversial project in the face of strong international opposition. Allies were informed recently of Washington?s plans to violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty ?in months, not years?. Dan Plesch, Director of BASIC, one of the NGOs who commissioned the poll, said:

'The involvement of UK facilities would represent the biggest shift in UK strategic orientation since the World War II, yet Blair has neither sought nor gained a mandate for such a reorientation.' Mark Bromley, BASIC Analyst, added: ?'his opinion poll gives one of the first indications of the strength of the British public's unease, and it is a message that Blair must take to President Bush.'

For more information contact Mark Bromley at BASIC on +44 (0)20 7407 2977,
Nigel Chamberlain at CND on +44 (0)20 7700 2393,
Stephen Whiting at QPSW on +44 (0)20 7663 1061
 John Leaman or Andy Byrom at MORI on +44 (0)20 7347 3000 *

The MORI survey interviewed a nationally representative sample of 2,110 British adults aged 15+, throughout 193 sampling points, between 5-9 July 2001. Interviewing was conducted face-to-face in respondents? homes. Data has been weighted according to the GB profile. Results have a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. ** The UK Working Group on Missile Defence is an informal coalition of arms control organisations including Abolition 2000UK, the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB), Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), MEDACT, the United Nations Association (UNA), and Quaker Peace and Social Witness (QPSW) http://www.basicint.org/NMDpoll-pressrelease.htm

4) Crucial Radar Failed Missile Defense Test? Los Angeles Times, 18 July 2001
Military: Although initially called a success, the system's trial run on Saturday had a troubling glitch, some analysts say.
By Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer

Despite initial assessments that Saturday's missile defense test was a success, the Pentagon acknowledged Tuesday that a prototype radar was unable to tell ground controllers whether a kill vehicle had destroyed its target. The radar, a critical element of the controversial national antimissile system, falsely reported that the interceptor had missed the dummy warhead. Independently, several sensors set up to monitor the test showed a hit.

The Pentagon, which confirmed the radar problem, downplayed the incident as a computer programming glitch that easily could be fixed for the next interceptor test expected in the fall. "The software they installed just couldn't keep up with the information that was coming out," said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. "It wasn't a major problem. We just need to make some modifications." Defense analysts, however, said they were troubled by the radar's failure to make the so-called hit assessment. In addition to identifying real warheads from decoys, the $100-million prototype radar is supposed to help ground controllers determine whether they should launch backup interceptors in case the first failed to hit their targets. "If you are not able to make a kill assessment, you continue to have interceptors fired at targets that you've already hit," said John Pike, a defense policy analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan think thank.

Other analysts said the incident illustrated the immense complexity involved in developing the nation's most ambitious and costly military program, which some estimate could cost as much as $300 billion. "I think it indicates one of the big challenges that the program is going to face," said Philip E. Coyle, former Pentagon chief for testing and evaluation. "I think it's fixable, but the question will be what about when you get into a more difficult engagement. It's going to take a long time to sort through all this stuff." Pentagon officials said Tuesday that the radar system failure was not disclosed immediately after the test because it was "not a major concern." Initial statements from the Pentagon after Saturday's test indicated success when the so-called kill vehicle located and destroyed a dummy missile warhead in space about 144 miles above the central Pacific Ocean.

The 120-pound interceptor, launched atop a missile from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, was able to find the target flying at more than 16,000 mph and pulverize it in a blinding flash of light. It marked the second time in four tries since October 1999 that an interceptor had hit its target, and some analysts predicted it would bolster the Bush administration's push to accelerate development of a missile defense shield. The first such test led to a successful interception, though critics contended that the test had been oversimplified. In a second test, in January 2000, the kill vehicle missed its target after a clogged cooling pipe disabled its infrared sensors, which are used to distinguish the warhead. In the third test, last July, the kill vehicle failed to separate from the booster. Subsequent analysis showed that a software failure was part of the problem in this mishap. Two months later, then-President Clinton, citing test failures, postponed a decision about whether to go ahead with plans for a limited, land-based antimissile system.

The test involves huge financial stakes, for taxpayers and for the defense companies that are keenly interested in the biggest Pentagon development program now underway. Each test costs about $100 million, and the Pentagon has proposed to increase its schedule from one or two major flight tests a year to as many as eight. Congress is debating an administration missile defense plan that calls for a 57% hike in program spending to about $8.3 billion a year and accelerate testing of technologies that could become part of a layered antimissile system including airborne and space-based lasers. "We believe we have a successful test in all respects at this time," Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, said shortly after the test. But Air Force officials keeping tabs on the prototype "X-band" radar, also based at Kwajalein, weren't so sure. According to the Pentagon, the radar was able to help track the target and guide the kill vehicle to the dummy warhead, successfully distinguishing a balloon decoy that was launched with the target.

An early-warning satellite detected the launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base and alerted a missile defense command center at Colorado Springs, Colo., where battle managers then cued the prototype radar on Kwajalein 4,600 miles away. About 20 minutes later, the kill vehicle, using its own sensors and aided by the radar, slammed into the target. But the Pentagon's Lehner said the radar was unable to process all the information generated from the debris field. "When it swept to do a kill assessment, it just couldn't process all the information quick enough," he said. "The information was locked out, and it came back with a miss message." The actual confirmation of the kill came from eight sensor systems based on a satellite, a specially equipped 747 jet and on the ground. In a future missile defense system, however, those added sensors would not be available. The prototype radar is one-third the size of a production model that is under development by Raytheon Corp. at its Bedford, Mass., operations. Under current plans, the full-scale radar, encased in a dome and costing about $1 billion, would be constructed in Shemya, Alaska. The X-band radar would be one of the most powerful radars in the world. It would be able to discriminate and determine very precisely the number, characteristics and movements of objects in a cluster in space thousands of miles away.

The radar for instance can distinguish a golf ball 2,400 miles away, or the distance between Washington and Seattle, according to Pentagon officials. In Saturday's test, Pentagon officials contend the radar was too sensitive and tried to track all the debris, overwhelming the computer processing the data. But Raytheon officials differed in the assessment of what went wrong, saying the radar's computer was overloaded with information just seconds before the intercept causing it to lapse into a "coast" mode. When the intercept did occur, it was not able to relay the information instantly, although it was able to determine that the target had been hit during a review of the test. "We are very pleased with the performance of the radar. It met all of its test objectives," said Mark Day, a Raytheon spokesman. "However, as a result of the test, we learned that there were some minor problems which are solvable. This is why we do tests."

5) 'Cast Of Star Wars Makes Comeback In Bush Plan', New York Times, 22 July 2001,
By James Glanz HUNTSVILLE, Ala., July 18 -
Twenty years after President Ronald Reagan created an international furor by proposing to place weapons in space, the Pentagon has put nearly every major element of the original program back in the center of its plans as part of a national missile shield. Unlike the ground-launched interceptor that successfully pulverized a mock warhead above Earth's atmosphere a week ago, space-based defenses would be placed in orbit as permanent sentinels, waiting until an enemy warhead rose above the atmosphere before trying to obliterate the warhead, the missile carrying it or both.

Along with intensified work on the ground-based system, the Pentagon's new plan calls for the accelerated development of chemical lasers that would fly in space or high in the atmosphere, fresh research on an abandoned program to launch thousands of interceptors into space and the expansion of a project to place dozens of sensor-laden satellites into orbit. Those programs were once at the center of the Strategic Defense Initiative, derided by opponents as Star Wars. The goal, said Lt. Gen. Joseph M. Cosumano Jr., commanding general of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command here, is quite practical. "It is to build a family of missile defense systems that can defeat all types of missiles," he said. American plans being formulated for a missile defense by ground, sea, air and space are certain to come up for discussion on Sunday when President Bush meets with a principal opponent of the idea, the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, in Genoa, Italy.

But even some experts who support research on missile defense systems have reservations about the new initiatives. "We've now gone back to the S.D.I. era of the first Reagan administration," said Stephen I. Schwartz, publisher of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "It's clearly their intention to put weapons in space to both defend U.S. assets as well as attack enemy missiles and enemy satellites." Backers of the space shield, which military officials described in detail during a three-day briefing on missile defense here this week, say it would be a crucial part of the Bush administration's plans for a layered defense that would take multiple shots at a missile during various phases of its flight.

The shield, the officials said, would theoretically allow for 24-hour coverage of the globe, including the chance of knocking down missiles while they are still boosting - and therefore highly vulnerable - without having to station equipment near the launching site. "They're sitting up there, in orbit, available to use whenever," Robert Snyder, executive director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, said during the briefing. The Bush administration's proposed, $8.3 billion budget for missile defense pours new money into those technologies, while omitting some of the most wildly speculative concepts, like nuclear-powered X-ray lasers and high-energy particle beams. Under current plans, the most promising technologies are to be used against missiles in tests starting in 2003 and continuing at least over the succeeding decade. In a swift reawakening of the controversies generated by Mr. Reagan's program, critics of the plan fear that it could transform space from a placid zone of live and let live - where private communications satellites mingle with scientific experiments and the occasional astronaut, as well as with military surveillance hardware - into a potential battlefield. In this view, American weaponry in space would force other nations to counter with antisatellite weapons of their own, leading to an arms race in space.

Looming over all those worries are doubts that the proposed technology could actually function as designed and provide an effective shield. "Even developing and testing these space-based technologies is dangerous, because it forces our adversaries to do the same thing," said Tom Z. Collina, director of the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mr. Collina said that the advanced sensors, which if they work as designed would make it possible to track warheads from space for the first time, may not be seen as very different from ordinary spy satellites. But placing weapons like lasers and interceptors in space, he said, "will be met with opposition by virtually every nation on this planet." Military officials reply that the antimissile weapons are intended only for defensive use and so should be seen as no different from the spy satellites.

Because the space weapons program involves research and development and not immediate deployment, General Cosumano said, there is even less reason to be concerned about its potential consequences. "We don't have it now," General Cosumano said. "We're only planning for the future." The least contentious element of the new program may be advanced, space-based sensors that could track warheads in space but also perform other surveillance duties as well. The budget of one obscure and often delayed program to develop low-flying satellites for part of a so-called Space-Based Infrared System, or SBIRS (pronounced sibbers), was increased by more than a third, to $420 million, in the new budget. Existing early warning satellites peer down from high orbits and pick up the hot exhaust from boosting missiles. Once a warhead separates from its booster, however, it becomes nearly invisible if not tracked by powerful radars on the ground.

A swarm of roughly two dozen of the SBIRS-low satellites, which were once the centrepiece of a Star Wars- era program called Brilliant Eyes, would carry infrared sensors more attuned to the cool warheads and any decoys that might be thrown out to confuse defenses. A recent study by the General Accounting Office estimated the cost of the system at about $12 billion. Most arms control experts believe that the satellites would violate the ABM treaty's prohibition on space- based sensors that can substitute for ground-based radar. An administration official disputed that, saying "This is the kind of thing that's just never been well worked out, because there's never been a reason to work it out." Whether there will be a reason in the near future is open to question, since the accounting office study found that even after years of delays, technical challenges have put the program at risk of missing its most recent set of deadlines and cost estimates.

The new budget would also revive study of a Reagan-era plan called Brilliant Pebbles, which would have involved as many as 4,000 small interceptors stationed in orbit around Earth with the hope that they could rapidly maneuver and smash into enemy ballistic missiles - a so- called hit-to-kill defense system. Mr. Snyder said the system could be tested in space as early as 2005. Two existing programs that are expected to be given huge funding increases involve lasers carried by planes and satellites. The chemically powered lasers were one of the earliest technologies proposed for shooting down missiles in space under the Star Wars program. A program to develop the lasers has been inching along toward a planned test involving an attempted missile shootdown in space by 2013, but Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, said that the target date for a launching is now sometime between 2008 and 2012.

The lasers, which have been tested on the ground, fire when caustic chemicals are combined and generate a flash of intense light that is designed to burn through a missile's booster and cause it to explode. The program is expected to cost $3 billion to $4 billion through the shootdown test. "What we are is a science and technology project," said Col. Neil McCasland, director of the space- based laser program. "I don't really want to contribute to any overenthusiasm about building this." But another program, called the Airborne Laser, is much further along. Designed to destroy missiles as they are boosting through the atmosphere by firing a laser at them from the nose of a modified Boeing 747, the program is scheduled for a shoot-down test in 2003. Together, the two laser programs have been allotted $575 million in next year's proposed budget. Other proposed or existing programs involve radars in space, interceptors that would be launched to destroy satellites and computer warfare focusing on communications links with satellites.

Despite criticisms that the Pentagon was bringing back Star Wars, Colonel Lehner said the aim was simply to determine whether worthwhile ideas from the old Strategic Defense Initiative Organization had been abandoned too soon. "What we wanted to do was to go back and look at all of the technology that was developed since the beginning of the S.D.I.O.," Colonel Lehner said, in order to "see whether any of this technology would be applicable to a missile defense system now." Whatever the promise and problems surrounding the individual programs may be, it now appears likely that the taboo on space-based defenses is over, said Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center. "Every U.S. administration, with one exception, has sought to avoid an arms race in space - the exception, of course, was Reagan," he said. "Every other administration hedged against a competition in space but didn't lead. It now looks like the Bush administration will break that mold."

6) ?Missile Defense Burdensharing Act of 2001? - 17 July 2001
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107AiKwRq::
HR 2514 IH 107th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 2514
To provide for burdensharing contributions from allied and other friendly foreign countries for the costs of deployment of any United States missile defense system that is designed to protect those countries from ballistic missile attack.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 17, 2001
Mr. ALLEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To provide for burdensharing contributions from allied and other friendly foreign countries for the costs of deployment of any United States missile defense system that is designed to protect those countries from ballistic missile attack. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Missile Defense Burdensharing Act of 2001 '.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States has established burdensharing arrangements with Japan, member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and other countries to share the costs of common defense efforts and successfully solicited contributions from several countries to offset costs relating to the Persian Gulf War.
(2) The President has stated that a missile defense system should be deployed to protect allies and other friendly foreign countries as well as the United States.
SEC. 3.
DETERMINATION OF SCOPE OF MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM;
DESIGNATION OF PROTECTED COUNTRIES.
(a) DETERMINATION RELATING TO SCOPE OF MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM-
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President--
(1) shall determine whether any missile defense system to be developed by the United States is intended to protect the territory of allied or other friendly foreign countries, in addition to the territory of the United States, from ballistic missile attack; and
(2) shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report containing the determination of the President under paragraph (1).
(b) DESIGNATION OF PROTECTED COUNTRIES-
If the President makes a determination under subsection
(a)(1) that a proposed United States missile defense system is intended to protect the territory of allied or other friendly foreign countries from ballistic missile attack, the President--
(1) shall designate each allied or other friendly foreign country, with respect to which the system is intended to protect, as a protected country for the purposes of this Act , and shall so notify Congress in writing at least 30 days prior to the designation; and
(2) shall notify Congress in writing at least 30 days prior to the termination of a designation of a country.
(c) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO TERMINATION OF DESIGNATION OF PROTECTED COUNTRIES- (1) IN GENERAL-
As part of the notification to Congress with respect to the termination of a designation of a country as a protected country under subsection (b)(2), the President shall include a description of the reasons for the termination, including an assessment of the effect of the termination on the security relations between the country and the United States and on mutual commitments of the United States under bilateral and multilateral security arrangements, such as the North Atlantic Treaty. (2)
NOTIFICATION OF INVOLVED COUNTRIES-
The President shall transmit to the government of a country with respect to which the President has terminated the designation of the country as a protected country under subsection (b)(2) a copy of the notification to Congress with respect to such termination. SEC. 4.
BURDENSHARING CONTRIBUTIONS BY PROTECTED COUNTRIES.
(a) SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS- The President shall seek financial contributions from each protected country designated by the President under section 3
(b)(1) commensurate with the country's proportional share of protection from the United States missile defense system. (b) USE OF CONTRIBUTIONS- Contributions received pursuant to subsection (a) shall be used to offset costs incurred by the United States for deployment of the missile defense system, including costs relating to procurement, construction, operations, and personnel. SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORTS. (a) REPORT BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - (1) IN GENERAL-
The Secretary of Defense , acting through the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, shall submit to Congress an annual report that-- (A) identifies each foreign country that would receive protection under the missile defense system from ballistic missile attack, irrespective of whether or not the country has been designated by the President under section 3(b)(1) as a protected country; and (B) describes the nature and extent of the protection for each such foreign country. (2)
FORM- The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex. (b)
REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT- The President shall transmit to Congress as part of the annual budget request a report that-- (1) describes the extent to which each protected country designated by the President under section 3(b)(1) has provided financial contributions to the United States in accordance with section 4(a); (2) describes the proportion of actual and expected contributions by each protected country as a share of overall costs of the missile defense system; and (3) describes efforts by the United States to obtain payments from protected countries that have not fully contributed to their share of protection under the missile defense system.
SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
In this Act , the term `missile defense system' does not include a theater missile defense system that is designed or deployed to defend elements of the United States Armed Forces that are deployed outside the United States.

-Mark Bromley
Analyst
British American Security Information Council (BASIC)
Lafone House
11-13 Leathermarket Street
London SE1 3HN
Phone: +44 (0)20 7407 2977
Fax: +44 (0)20 7407 2988
Website: http://www.basicint.org