Order Code RL34051
Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe
Updated July 24, 2008
Steven A. Hildreth
Specialist in Missile Defense and Non-Proliferation
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Carl Ek
Specialist in International Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe
Summary
Successive administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to
protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from rogue states. The Bush
Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats, and questions
whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration’s position
on this issue remains unchanged after a recent reassessment that the Iranian nuclear
weapons program was halted in 2003. The Administration has built long-range
missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean
missile threats. Although the system has been tested, most agree that further testing
is necessary. The Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course
defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in
Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10
interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in
a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a cost of about $4 billion.
The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European
countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither
country currently faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD
facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue
states — and possibly from Russia. It is uncertain whether the Czech and Polish
governments will approve the plan. Some Europeans claim GMD is another
manifestation of American unilateralism, and assert that the Bush Administration did
not consult sufficiently with NATO allies or with Russia, which the Administration
argues was not the case. Other European leaders, however, support the missile
defense project. NATO has deliberated long-range missile defense, and has taken
actions that have been interpreted as an endorsement of the U.S. GMD system.
The GMD plan has also affected U.S.-Russia relations. President Putin has
argued that the proposal would reignite the arms race and upset U.S.-Russian-
European security relations. U.S. officials dispute Russian objections, noting that
Moscow has known of this plan for years and that the interceptors are intended to
take out Iranian missiles aimed at Europe or the United States and could not possibly
act as a deterrent against Russia. Some argue that Russia has been attempting to
foment discord among NATO allies. In mid-2007, however, Putin offered to
cooperate on missile defense, proposing the use of a Russian leased radar in
Azerbaijan, but urging that U.S. facilities not be built in Eastern Europe. President
Bush welcomed the apparent policy shift in principle, but insisted upon the need for
the European sites. Despite ongoing discussions over the issue, Russian criticism of
the program has continued. Russian cooperation in missile defense could remove an
impediment to the program and dampen criticism by European leaders.
In 2007, Congress examined the European GMD proposal and eliminated
proposed funding for initial site construction for FY2008 pending formal agreement
with Poland and the Czech Republic, independent studies on missile defense options
for Europe, and DOD certification of the proposed interceptor. The FY2009 request
for the European site is $712 million.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Debate in Poland and the Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
European Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Congressional Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fiscal Year 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fiscal Year 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Presidential Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense
in Europe
Introduction
In the FY2008 defense budget, the Bush Administration requested about $310
million to begin design, construction, and deployment of a ground-based midcourse
defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe.1
According to the Administration, the proposed GMD European capability would help
defend U.S. forces stationed in Europe, U.S. friends and allies in the region, as well
as to defend the United States against long-range ballistic missile threats, namely
from Iran. For FY2009, the Administration requested $712 million for development,
fielding, and military construction of the European GMD element.
The proposed system would include 10 silo-based interceptors to be deployed
in Poland, a fixed radar installation in the Czech Republic, and another transportable
radar to be deployed in a country closer to the Middle East. Deployment of the GMD
European capability is scheduled to be completed by 2013 at an estimated cost of
$4.03 billion (includes fielding and Operation and Support).
The prospect of a GMD capability based in Europe raises a number of
significant international security and foreign policy questions. Central to the debate
for many is how the proposed U.S. system might affect U.S.-European-Russian
relations. For FY2008, Congress eliminated funding to start construction of the
European site pending final approval of international agreements with Poland and the
Czech Republic and an independent study of alternative missile defense options for
Europe.2 Congress’s decision on whether to fund the European site proposal in the
FY2009 defense budget continues to revolve around its assessment of broader
security and foreign policy issues and technical concerns related to the proposed
European GMD system.
1 Some were calling for such an effort in Europe before the Administration formally
requested funding in early 2007. For instance, in October 2006, Sen. Sessions noted NATO
steps in developing an Alliance-wide theater missile defense capability, and encouraged the
deployment of a U.S. long-range missile defense system in Europe. See “U.S. Missile
Defense Site in Europe Needed to Support Alliance Strategy,” Space News, October 9, 2006,
p. 19.
2 “Rep. Ellen Tauscher Applauds House Passage of Defense Authorization Bill,” Press
Release, Office of Rep. Ellen Tauscher, December 12, 2007.

CRS-2
The Threat
The Bush Administration argues that North Korea and Iran constitute major
strategic threats. North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear device and has a
ballistic missile program. The Administration argues that Iran continues to acquire
and develop ballistic missiles of various ranges.3 Until recently, the Administration
argued that Iran had an active nuclear weapons development program. In November
2007, a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated that “in Fall 2003, Tehran
halted its nuclear weapons program,” but that Iran is also keeping open the option to
develop nuclear weapons at some point. The Iranian nuclear weapons program
reportedly also included developing a warhead that could fit atop an Iranian ballistic
missile.4
The Bush Administration continues to regard both countries as unpredictable
and dangerous, and does not believe they can be constrained by traditional forms of
military deterrence, diplomacy, or arms control. On a trip to attend a meeting of
NATO foreign ministers in early December 2007, Secretary of State Rice told
reporters: “I don’t see that the NIE changes the course that we’re on” to deploy a
European missile defense system.5 Accompanying her on the trip, Undersecretary of
State John Rood, lead U.S. negotiator for the European missile defense talks, added:
“the missile threat from Iran continues to progress and to cause us to be very
concerned.... Missile defense would be useful regardless of what kind of payload,
whether that be conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.”6
According to unclassified U.S. intelligence assessments, Iran may be able to test
an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) or long-range ballistic missile capability
by 2015 if it receives foreign assistance, such as from Russia or China. Many in
Congress and elsewhere share this specific assessment, or that the potential threat
may not emerge by 2015 but is sufficiently worrisome to begin addressing it now.
Many therefore believe it prudent to move forward with plans to deploy a long-range
missile defense system in Europe to defend U.S. forward deployed forces in Europe,
friends and allies, and the United States against long-range ballistic missile threats.
Some in the larger international security policy and ballistic missile proliferation
community argue that evidence of an Iranian ICBM program is scant and
unpersuasive. Additionally, the Iranian government reports (which cannot be
verified) that Iran has a limited missile capability with a range of about 1,200 miles7
and that it has stopped development of ICBM range missiles.
3 CRS Report RS22758, Iran’s Ballistic Missile Programs: An Overview, by Steven A.
Hildreth.
4 David Sanger and Steven Lee Meyers “Details in Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran, U.S.
Says,” New York Times, December 6, 2007
5 “Iran Report Won’t Slow Missile Defense,” CBS News, Brussels, Belgium, December 6,
2007.
6 “U.S.: Iran Still Poses Missile Threat,” Associated Press, December 6, 2007.
7 There are reports that Iran is developing other medium-range ballistic missiles with ranges
greater than those now deployed, but short of what is considered ICBM range (i.e., more
than 5,500 kilometers).

CRS-3
Although some Europeans have expressed concern about Iran’s suspected
nuclear weapons program, some U.S. friends and allies in Europe question the
Administration’s assessment of Iran’s potential ICBM capability. Hence, some
question the need for a GMD element of the U.S. BMDS in Europe.
The System
The U.S. Department of Defense began deploying long-range missile
interceptors in Alaska and California in late 2004 to address long-range missile
threats from North Korea. Currently, the U.S. GMD element of the BMDS includes
about 20 silo-based interceptors in Alaska and several in California. As part of an
integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) capability, the United States
also has a number of ground-based radars in operation around the world, space-based
assets supporting the BMDS mission, command and control networks throughout the
United States and the Pacific, as well as ground-mobile and sea-based systems for
shorter-range BMD.
What remains necessary as part of the global BMDS, according to the
Administration, is an ability in the European theater to defend against intermediate-
to-long-range ballistic missiles launched from Iran. The Department of Defense
(DOD) argues it is important to U.S. national security interests to deploy a GMD
capability in Europe to optimize defensive coverage of the United States and Europe
against potential threats both into Europe and against the United States.
There have not been a large number of intercept flight tests of the deployed
GMD element. Nonetheless, the Administration and many U.S. military leaders have
expressed confidence in the deployed system.8 Most agree there is the need for
further operational testing. Some observers continue to question how much
confidence there should be in the system’s potential operational or combat
effectiveness based on the types of tests conducted and the test results to date.
The current GMD program began flight tests in 2002. This effort was built on
several earlier long-range BMD programs with decidedly mixed results themselves
8 For instance: 1) General Cartwright, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, said the July
4, 2006 North Korean missile tests spurred a limited operational activation of the BMD
System. “We learned that the ballistic missile defense system, procedures, and personnel
performed well, and demonstrated a credible operational missile defense capability for
homeland defense.” Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 21,
2007; 2) Admiral Mullen, on his nomination hearing to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, said he believes the U.S. “Has a viable initial operational capability and we are
maturing the system toward a full operational capability.” “Answers to Advanced Policy
Questions,” Senate Armed Services Committee, July 26, 2007; and 3) Dr. Charles
McQueary, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, said: “I can state that the ballistic
missile defense system has demonstrated a limited capability against a simple foreign threat.
Coupled with the successes of other element-level testing and MDA’s integrated ground
tests, the BMD system is definitely maturing. My assessment is bolstered by the fact that the
MDA is increasing the operational realism of each successive test.” Testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee, April 11, 2007.

CRS-4
since the early 1980s. Since 2002, some GMD intercept flight tests have taken place
with mixed results.9 In each of these tests, most all other flight test objectives were
met.
In 2002, the GMD moved to the operational booster and interceptor. The
interceptor system flew two developmental tests in 2003 and 2004, and the GMD
element of the BMDS was deployed in late 2004 in Alaska and California. Two
planned intercept flight tests of the new configuration for December 2004 and
February 2005 were not successful. After technical review, the interceptor
successfully demonstrated a booster fly-out in 2005. In September 2006, a successful
flight test exercise of the GMD element as deployed took place. (Although a missile
intercept was not planned as the primary objective of this data collection test, an
intercept opportunity occurred and the target warhead was successfully intercepted.)
Additional intercept flight tests of the deployed element whose primary objectives
were intercepts of long-range ballistic missile targets were originally scheduled for
later in 2006, but then subsequently postponed. Then a May 2007 intercept test was
scrubbed when the target missile failed to launch as planned. A follow-on attempt
scheduled for summer 2007 was completed successfully on September 29, 2007.
Supporters and many military officials have expressed confidence in the
deployed system, but some continue to question the system’s potential effectiveness
based on the intercept flight test record. Most observers agree, however, that
additional, successful flight testing is necessary. Supporters add that a significant
number of non-flight tests and activities are conducted that demonstrate with high
confidence the ability of the GMD element to perform its intended mission.10
What would the European element of the BMDS look like? The proposal is to
deploy up to 10 Ground-based Interceptors (GBI) in silos at a former military base
in Poland. It should be noted that the proposed GBI for the European GMD
capability will not be identical to the GBI deployed now in Alaska and California.
Although there is significant commonality of hardware, there are some differences.
For example, the European GBI will consist of two rocket stages in contrast to the
9 Two tests in March and October 2002 using an older interceptor successfully intercepted
their intended targets. Three flight tests (IFT-10, IFT-13c and IFT-14) using the GBI in
planned intercept attempts failed in those attempts for various reasons: 1) December 2002,
the kill vehicle failed to deploy; 2) December 2004, the GBI launch aborted due to a
software error in the interceptor; and 3) February 2005, the GBI did not launch due to
problems with the test facility launch equipment. In the May 2007 flight test, the target
missile second stage booster failed in flight, so the interceptor was not launched as planned.
In September 2006 and 2007 successful intercepts were achieved.
10 The Administration maintains that since 2002 it has fielded a long-range BMD capability
where none existed previously. Furthermore, the United States now has operationally
capable upgraded early warning radars, command, control and battle management systems,
Navy cruisers and destroyers capable of conducting long-range ballistic missile search and
track missions, and about 20 GBI fielded in Alaska and California. This element of the
BMDS was transitioned to alert in July 2006 when North Korea launched several ballistic
missiles, including a long-range ballistic missile.

CRS-5
three-stage GBI deployed today.11 This particular 2-stage configuration has not been
tested and is a basis for additional questions about the proposed system’s
effectiveness. Proponents of the system would argue that the 2-stage version is
fundamentally the same as the 3-stage system, however.12 In Europe, the GBI
reportedly will not need the third stage to achieve the range needed to intercept its
intended target.13 This issue has raised the question for some observers as to whether
other U.S. systems designed for shorter or medium-range ballistic missile threats,
such as Patriot, THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), or Aegis (sea-based
BMD) might be more appropriate for addressing the current and prospective Iranian
ballistic missile threat to Europe. DOD’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) believes
these systems would not be adequate to counter prospective Iranian ballistic missile
threats.
Deployment of the silos and interceptors in Poland is scheduled to begin in 2011
with completion in 2013. A final decision on specific locations will take into
consideration a detailed site and environmental analysis, as well as an overall security
and support assessment. The field of the 10 interceptors itself is likely to comprise
an area somewhat larger than a football field. The area of supporting infrastructure
is likely to be similar to a small military installation. In addition, an American X-
Band radar (a narrow-beam, midcourse tracking radar), currently being used in the
Pacific missile test range, would be refurbished and transported to a fixed site at a
military training base in the Czech Republic. The X-Band radar with its large, ball-
shaped radome (radar dome) is several stories in height. A second, transportable
forward acquisition radar would be deployed in a country to be determined, but closer
to the Middle East. Some European press accounts have mentioned the Caucasus
region, but the Administration has not publicly indicated where this radar might be
located. Additionally, the proposed GMD European capability would include a
communications network and support infrastructure (e.g., power generation, security
and force protection systems, etc.) A few hundred U.S. personnel would be engaged
in securing and operating both the interceptor and radar sites. The Administration
intends for the United States to have full command authority over the system.
The FY2008 request was $310.4 million for the proposed European GMD
across several program elements of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget. The
total estimated GMD costs for the European site are about $4 billion (FY2007-
FY2013), including Operation and Support costs through 2013. Although relatively
small in U.S. defense budget terms, this year’s request represented a significant
commitment to the proposed European system. The FY2009 request is for $712
million.
In 2007, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees asked for
studies of alternatives to the Administration’s proposed European GMD deployment
11 Boost Vehicle Plus. Report to Congress. March 1, 2007. Missile Defense Agency. For
Official Use Only.
12 The Orbital Boost Vehicle 2 (OBV/2) is a modification of the existing, tested OBV/3
achieved by removing the 3rd stage from the existing missile.
13 More accurately, according to MDA, two stages provide the enhanced performance and
burnout velocity required for the mission.

CRS-6
(see section on congressional actions). Some, such as Representative Tauscher, have
suggested the Administration consider instead a combination of sea-based (Aegis
SM-3) and land-based systems (PAC-3, THAAD). MDA Director General Henry
Obering has argued that most of the current Aegis fleet would be required to defend
Europe, and that the cost would be considerably greater than the current Bush
Administration proposal.14 Separately, the Center for Naval Analyses (a federally
funded research center) is conducting an analysis of alternatives for the Navy’s next
big surface combatant ship.15 That review reportedly includes recommendations
about future naval BMD requirements that might bear on any discussion of
alternatives to the proposed European GMD plan.
The Location
In 2002 the Bush Administration began informal talks with the governments of
Poland and the Czech Republic over the possibility of establishing missile defense
facilities on their territory. Discussion of a more concrete plan — placing radar in
the Czech Republic and interceptor launchers in Poland — was reported in the
summer of 2006. The issue was increasingly debated in both countries. In January
2007, the U.S. government requested that formal negotiations begin. If agreements
are struck, and if the Polish and Czech parliaments approve the projects, construction
on the sites could begin relatively soon, according to MDA officials. The two
governments have grappled with several issues as the debate has evolved.
Poland

Some analysts maintain that in Poland the notion of stationing American GMD
facilities was more or less accepted early on in the discussions and that the main
questions subsequently have revolved around what the United States might provide
Warsaw in return. Some Poles believe their country should receive additional
security guarantees in exchange for assuming a larger risk of being targeted by rogue
state missiles because of the presence of the U.S. launchers on their soil. In addition,
many Poles are concerned about Russia’s response. Both of the past two Polish
governments reportedly have been requesting that the United States provide batteries
of Patriot missiles to shield Poland against short- and medium-range missiles.16
Any future base agreement will require the approval of the Polish parliament.
Formal negotiations began in early 2007 under the populist-nationalist Law and
Justice (PiS) party, led by Jaroslaw Kaczynski. As talks began, Civic Alliance (PO),
then the leading opposition party, had questions about the system — particularly the
command and control aspects — and urged the government to ensure that it be
14 See [http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1539/how-many-aegis-ships-to-defend-nato].
15 “U.S. May Build 25,000-ton Cruiser, Analysis of Alternatives Sees Nuclear BMD
Vessel,” Defense News, July 23, 2007, by Christopher P. Cavas.
16 U.S. Missiles in Poland — Risks and Benefits. Rzeczpospolita. In BBC European
Monitoring
. November 15, 2005. Sikorski Exit Is Bad For MD Bid. Oxford Analytica.
February 8, 2007.

CRS-7
integrated into a future NATO missile defense program. The former ruling leftist
party supported deployment of the missiles, but also called for greater transparency
in the decision-making process. The smaller parties of the governing coalition
expressed some skepticism, mainly for reasons of sovereignty, and indicated support
for a public referendum.17
In snap elections on October 21, 2007, Poles turned out PiS and replaced it with
a center-right two-party coalition led by PO; its leader, Donald Tusk, became prime
minister. During the campaign, Tusk indicated that his government would not be as
compliant toward the United States as PiS, and that it would seek to bargain more
actively on missile defense.
As he left office, former Prime Minister Kaczynski urged the incoming
government to approve the missile defense proposal, arguing that an agreement
would strengthen relations with the United States. In a post-election news
conference, however, Tusk was cautious about the plan: “If we recognize that the
anti-missile shield clearly enhances our security, then we will be open to
negotiations.... If we recognize, jointly in talks with our partners from the European
Union and NATO, that this is not an unambiguous project, then we will think it
over.” Two weeks later, however, newly minted Defense Minister Bogdan Klich
stated that Poland should again “weigh the benefits and costs of this project for
Poland. And if that balance results unfavorably, we should draw a conclusion from
those results.”18 Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski later indicated that the new
government would discuss the project with Russia.
Talks between Warsaw and Washington resumed in early 2008. Some
observers forecast that the new Polish government would strongly renew the
argument for the United States to provide additional air and/or short-range missile
defenses.19 On February 2, 2008, during a visit by Sikorski to Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Secretary of State Rice voiced support for strengthening Poland’s air defenses.
Although there was said to be agreement “in principle” on the missile defense issue,
an accord was not signed when Prime Minister Tusk visited the United States in the
following month.20
17 Polish Politician Weighs Up Pros and Cons Of US Radar Plan. Gazeta Wyborcza,
February 5, 2007. In: BBC Monitoring European. February 6, 2007. See also: Don’t Take
Poland For Granted. Radek Sikorski [former Polish Defense Minister and current Foreign
Minister]. Washington Post. March 21, 2007.
18 Poland’s Likely Next Prime Minister Open To Talks On U.S. Missile Defense. Poland
Business Newswire
. November 6, 2007. Poland’s New Defense Chief Wants To Reconsider
U.S. Missile Defense Request. AP. November 19, 2007.
19 Poland Said Likely To Launch Tough Missile Defence Talks With USA. Gazeta
Wyborcza
[in: BBC Monitoring European.] December 5, 2007.
20 “Poland Says U.S. Shield a ‘Foregone Conclusion.’” Reuters. July 16, 2007. Poland
Signals Doubts About Planned U.S. Missile-Defense Bases On Its Territory. New York
Times
. January 7, 2008. No Poland-US Missile Deal Next Month: Defense Minister. AFP.
February 2, 2008.

CRS-8
The major sticking point in the negotiations has been over the question of U.S.
assistance for Poland’s military “modernization,” mainly in the form of PAC-3 air
defense. During President Tusk’s visit to Washington DC in March 2008, however,
President Bush declared, “Before my watch is over we will have assessed [Poland’s]
needs and come up with a modernization plan that’s concrete and tangible.”
Nevertheless, the meeting of the two leaders did not result in a deal being struck. In
addition, Poland is anxious that the two projects not be too explicitly linked, for fear
of further alienating Russia. Concerning the likely future of the program, Polish
Ambassador to the United States Robert Kupiecki told a Polish parliamentary
committee that “there are serious reasons to think that the project will be continued”
by Bush’s successor, no matter whom it might be. A Czech newspaper reported that
MDA Director Obering “said [on April 2 that] the United States will be interested in
stationing the radar in the Czech Republic even if it does not reach agreement with
Poland.”21 What this means for the overall system without the interceptors in Poland
is not clear. However, there are suggestions that the radar would be useful if used in
conjunction with other medium-range BMD systems, such as Aegis, in the absence
of the GMD interceptors based in Poland. In addition, Bush Administration officials
reportedly held discussions on the interceptor basing issue with the government of
Lithuania.22 In early July, the Polish media reported that a meeting in Washington
between Foreign Minister Sikorski and Secretary Rice failed to produce an
agreement.23
Polls have consistently indicated that a majority of Poles disapprove of a missile
defense base being established in their country. Most objections appear to be based
on concerns over sovereignty, as well as over the belief that the presence of the
system would diminish rather than increase national security and might harm
relations with neighboring states and Russia.
Czech Republic
In September 2002, the Czech defense minister, a member of the Social
Democratic Party (CSSD), announced that he had “offered the United States the
opportunity to deploy the missile defense system on Czech soil.”24 In June 2006,
inconclusive elections toppled the CSSD government and replaced it with a shaky
coalition led by the center-right Civic Democratic Party (ODS). As with the outgoing
government, the new one voiced support for GMD. However, the CSSD, now in
21 Bush, Poland’s Tusk Discuss Missile Shield Plans. Agence France Presse. March 10,
2008. Game For US Shield Begins. Polish News Bulletin. March 14, 2008. Next U.S.
Pres. Unlikely To Axe Proposed Central European Missile Defense Project — Polish
Diplomat. Poland Business Newswire. April 2, 2008. Czech, USA Agree On Main Treaty
On U.S. Radar On Czech Soil. CTK Daily News. April 3, 2008.
22 As Poles Balk, U.S. Eyes Lithuania As Site For Missile Shield. New York Times. June
19, 2008.
23 No Progress On Shield Talks. Polish News Bulletin. July 8, 2008. Date Of US-Poland
Treaty On Missile Base Still Unknown. Poland This Week. July 11, 2008.
24 Czech Republic Seeks Joining Missile Defence Shield Project. BBC Monitoring
European
. September 17, 2002.

CRS-9
opposition, began to backpedal on its support as polls showed increasing public
skepticism, and by mid-2006 only the ODS was unambiguously backing deployment.
When a relatively stable ODS-led government was finally formed in January 2007,
the ODS apparently persuaded its coalition partners to support GMD (the Greens
made their agreement contingent upon NATO approval). In January 2007, it was
announced that the United States had requested that official negotiations be started,
and in March the Czech government formally agreed to launch talks.
In October 2007, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Prague to discuss
several issues — including the proposed radar installation — with Czech leaders.
During the visit, he reportedly proposed that, in the interest of transparency, Russia
be allowed to station personnel at the radar site. Czech Prime Minister Topolanek
had no immediate comment but appeared to concur with Gates’s observation that the
presence of Russians on Czech territory would have to be approved by Czechs first.
Gates also suggested that activation of the missile defense system could be delayed
until such time as there was “... definitive proof of the threat — in other words,
Iranian missile testing and so on.” On the same day, however, President Bush
delivered a speech in which he called the need for the missile defense project
“urgent.” Some analysts argued that the U.S. proposal to include Russia might
complicate Topolanek’s efforts to secure approval for an eventual agreement with the
United States.25 On March 19, 2008, a State Department official announced that the
Czech Republic had agreed to join in proposing to Russia an agreement that would
permit reciprocal inspections of missile defense radar facilities.26 However, during
an April 7 interview, Czech Foreign Minister Schwarzenberg said, “If Russians want
to check something on our soil, they will have to speak with us first.”
On December 5, 2007, the Czech Foreign Ministry issued a statement asserting
that the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Iran had suspended its nuclear
weapons program in 2003 would not affect Prague’s decision to host the radar
facility, as the threat has the potential to re-emerge in the future.27 In late January
2008, Jiri Paroubek, leader of the opposition CSSD party, argued that, because of the
high and increasing public resistance to the radar, the government should freeze
negotiations until after the results of the November 2007 U.S. presidential elections
are known. He also urged that Prime Minister Topolanek report on the substance of
his upcoming talks on the issue with President Bush.28
During a visit to Washington in late February 2008, Topolanek said that the two
sides were “three words” away from an agreement. On April 3, 2008, during the
NATO summit in Bucharest, Czech media reported that Foreign Minister Karel
25 US May Delay Missile Defense System. AP. October 23, 2007. Administration Diverges
On Missile Defense. Washington Post. October 24, 2007. Gates Causes Missile Defence
Flap. Oxford Analytica. October 24, 2007.
26 US Offers Mutual MD Checks. Oxford Analytica. March 20, 2008.
27 Czechs Say Report On Iran Nuclear Program Not To Influence Missile Defense Talks.
Associated Press. December 5, 2007.
28 Select Briefing Europe East. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Vol. 5, No.
3. February 1, 2008.

CRS-10
Schwarzenberg had announced that Prague and Washington had reached an accord
over the terms of the proposed U.S. radar base, and that a treaty would be signed in
May. The scheduled signing was postponed due to scheduling conflicts, and later
took place on July 8, during a visit by Secretary of State Rice. As part of the deal,
the United States reportedly agreed to provide ballistic missile defense — from Aegis
system-equipped U.S. Navy vessels — for the Czech Republic.29
The agreement must now be ratified by the parliament, and approval is not a
foregone conclusion. In April, Schwarzenberg said that he thought “the conclusions
of the NATO summit regarding US MD should be sufficient for the junior
government Green party to vote in favor of the radar.” However, a Czech newspaper
stated that “[a]t the moment the government lacks at least five votes.” Although the
Green Party leadership reportedly called for its members to oppose the radar despite
the NATO summit declaration, some members reportedly intend to support the
project.30 On July 9, 2008, Czech Deputy Prime Foreign Minister Tomas Pojar
expressed confidence that parliament would ratify the treaty by the end of the year
or early in 2009, and added that “it is probable that the [ratification] vote will be after
the election in the United States, however, that does not mean that it would be after
the new (U.S.) President takes office.”31
Public opinion surveys consistently have shown strong (60%-70%) opposition
to the plan among Czechs, who share many of their Polish neighbors’ concerns.32
Some Czech officials believe that public disfavor may be the result of a lack of
knowledge about the program, and argue that the U.S. government has not provided
sufficient information about the planned facilities. The CSSD has called for a public
referendum on the issue, and a summer 2007 poll showed that three-quarter of
Czechs would like to have a referendum.33
29 Czechs, USA Agree Radar Treaty To Be Signed In May. BBC Monitoring European.
April 3, 2008. U.S. To Give Czechs Ballistic Missile Defense. Washington Post. July 16,
2008.
30 Czech Minister Sees ‘Virtually No Opposition’ in NATO, EU to US Missile Shield. BBC
Monitoring European
. April 7, 2008. US Set To Sign Main Czech Radar Deal: Embassy.
AFP. April 7, 2008. Czech Senator To Vote For Radar Base Against Greens’ Call. CTK
Daily News
. April 15, 2008.
31 Czechs See Anti-missile radar Ratified By Year-end. Reuters. July 9, 2008.
32 Czech Poll Indicates Number Of Missile Defense Radar Opponents Declines. AP.
September 26, 2007. But see also: Many Czechs Love U.S., But Say ‘Hold the Radar.’ New
York Times
. October 1, 2007. Poll: 70 Percent of Czechs Oppose U.S. Missile Defense
Plan. Associated Press. January 8, 2008. Majority of Czechs Against U.S. Anti-missile
Radar System. Poland Business Newswire. July 9, 2008.
33 Paroubek Says U.S. Ambassador Told Him On His Govt Talks On Base. CTK Daily
News
. July 8, 2007. Czech Opposition Leader Watns to Know Contents of Talks with
Bush. CTK Daily News. January 30, 2008.

CRS-11
Policy Issues
U.S. proponents of the missile defense program note that the bases being
planned would be part of a limited defensive system, not an offensive one. The
missiles would not have explosive payloads, and would be launched only in the event
that the United States or its friends or allies were under actual attack. Critics respond
that Europe does not currently face a significant threat from Iran or its potential
surrogates, but that Polish and Czech participation in the European GMD element
would create such a threat. If American GMD facilities were installed, they argue,
both countries would likely be targeted by terrorists, as well as by missiles from
rogue states — and possibly from Russia — in the event of a future confrontation.
Debate in Poland and the Czech Republic
Some proponents of the proposed GMD European capability system assert that
cooperation would help consolidate bilateral relations with the United States. In
Poland in particular there is a sense, based in part on historical experience, that the
United States is the only major ally that can be relied upon. Therefore, some Poles
argue, it would be beneficial to strengthen the relationship by becoming an important
U.S. partner through joining the missile defense system. In addition, some Czechs
and Poles believe that the missile defense sites would become a prestigious symbol
of the two countries’ enhanced role in defending Europe. Some would argue that the
Czechs and the Poles see this formal U.S. military presence as an ultimate security
guarantee against Russia; when asked shortly before Poland’s October 21, 2007,
parliamentary elections about the missile defense issue, former Prime Minister
Kaczynski singled out Russia as a threat.34
Opponents, however, contend that this is not a valid reason for accepting missile
defense facilities because the two countries, which joined NATO in 1999, already
enjoy a security guarantee through the alliance’s mutual defense clause. Polish
missile defense skeptics also maintain that their country does not need to improve its
bilateral security relationship with the United States because it has already shown its
loyalty through its significant contributions to the military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism. Some Polish and Czech political
leaders reason that the United States will proceed with missile defense with or
without them, so they may as well be on board. However, the missile bases are
unpopular among the Czech and Polish public, and any government that agreed to
host such facilities might lose political support. Some Czechs and Poles may be
speculating whether it would be worthwhile to expend political capital on the GMD
bases, as the issue may become moot. If GMD proponents are voted out of office in
the United States and the project is discontinued, “Poland will become an
international laughingstock.”35 A Czech member of parliament noted that, if the U.S.
34 Polish PM: Hosting U.S. Shield May Counter Russia. Reuters. October 18, 2007.
35 Polish Daily: US Missile Defence in Poland Means ‘Local Arms Race’ With Belarus.
BBC Monitoring European. November 18, 2005.

CRS-12
Congress determines not to fund a European arm of missile defense, “[t]he USA will
thus solve the problem for us.”36
Some Czechs and Poles have argued that the extra-territorial status of the
proposed bases would impinge upon national sovereignty. However, the Czech
position is that the base “would be under the Czech Republic’s jurisdiction.”37 In
addition, some have raised questions over command and control — who would
decide when to push the launch button and what would the notification system be?
Polish and Czech government leaders reportedly acknowledge that the time between
the detection of the launch of a missile by a hostile regime and the need to fire off an
interceptor would be so brief as to preclude government-to-government
consultations.
Opponents have also cautioned that the interception of a nuclear-tipped missile
over Polish or Czech territory could result in a rain of deadly debris. Supporters
argue that an enemy missile would not be intercepted over Eastern Europe, and that
even if it were, the tremendous kinetic energy of impact would cause both projectiles
to be obliterated and any debris burnt upon atmospheric reentry. Skeptics note,
however, that testing of these systems is never performed over populated areas.
European Response
The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European
countries and beyond. Some critics claim that the program is another manifestation
of American unilateralism and argue that, because of opposition by major European
partners, Polish and Czech participation in the GMD program could damage those
countries’ relations with fellow EU members.38 Supporters, however, counter that
the establishment of a missile defense system would protect Europe as well as the
United States.
Some European leaders have asserted that the Bush Administration did not
consult sufficiently with European allies or with Russia on its GMD plans. German
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier faulted the Bush Administration for
failing to adequately discuss the proposal with affected countries. Former French
President Chirac cautioned against the creation of “new divisions in Europe.” Bush
Administration officials, however, maintain that these arguments are disingenuous,
as they have held wide-ranging discussions on GMD with European governments,
36 USA Wants To Deploy Missile Defence Radar On Czech Territory — Foreign Minister.
CTV [Czech news agency]. In: BBC Monitoring European. November 29, 2006.
37 That Missile Debate of Ours. Pravo. September 9, 2006. In: BBC Monitoring European.
September 12, 2006. Any US Missile Base On Czech Territory Subject To Czech Laws —
Czech Ministry. BBC Monitoring European. August 18, 2006. State Security Council
Okays US Radar. Pravo. In: BBC European Monitoring. January 26, 2006. Czech Premier
Reminds Opposition Its Cabinet Started Talks On US Radar Base. CTK Czech News
Agency
. In: BBC European Monitoring. February 1, 2007.
38 Missile Shield: Poland’s Security Better Served By Supporting Ukraine’s Western
Ambitions Than By Building Another Maginot Line. Polish News Bulletin. December 22,
2005.

CRS-13
and with Russia, both bilaterally and in the framework of the NATO-Russia
Council.39 In addition, critics charge that establishing a European GMD base to
counter Iranian missiles implies a tacit assumption on the part of the Bush
Administration that diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile
aspirations are doomed to failure, and that Iran’s future leaders will be undeterred by
the prospect of nuclear annihilation. Finally, an analyst with the Swedish
Transnational Foundation Research Center has argued that the U.S. missile defense
system is being built in order to enable the use of a first strike.40
Europeans also have raised questions about the technical feasibility of the
program as well as its cost-effectiveness. According to a wire service report,
“Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn called the U.S. [missile defense]
plan an ‘incomprehensible’ waste of money....”41
Other European leaders, however, including those of Denmark and Britain, have
indicated that they support the missile defense project as a means to protect Europe
from threats from rogue states. In addition, some European allies do not appear to
be averse to the missile defense concept per se. Foreign Minister Steinmeier
indicated that Germany and other countries were interested in building a comparable
system, but lacked the technological know-how.42
NATO has also been deliberating strategic missile defenses. A feasibility study
of such a program called for in the 2002 Prague Summit was completed in 2005. In
the final communique of their 2006 Riga summit, NATO leaders declared the
alliance study had concluded that long-range BMD is “technically feasible within the
limitations and assumptions of the study,” and called for “continued work on the
political and military implications of missile defence for the Alliance including an
update on missile threat developments.” Supporters contend that the U.S. facilities
currently under negotiation in Eastern Europe are intended to be a good fit — and
therefore not inconsistent with — any future NATO missile defense. However, other
policymakers have recommended that the establishment of any anti-missile system
in Europe should proceed solely under NATO auspices rather than on a bilateral basis
with just two NATO partners. U.S. officials maintain that “the more NATO is
involved in [GMD], the better.”43
39 Where Does Germany Stand? Spiegel Online. March 26, 2007. US Build Pressure On
Europe Over Bases. Financial Times. February 21, 2007. France Calls For Dialogue on
US Anti-Missile System. Agence France Presse (AFP). February 21, 2007. U.S. Officials
Brief On Missile Defense. February 23, 2007. U.S. Embassy Warsaw.
40 Swedish Expert Says US Missile Shield Meant To Allow Nuclear First Strike. BBC
Monitoring
. January 8, 20080.
41 NATO Stepping Up Talks On Missile Defense Amid Concerns Over US Plans. AP.
March 12, 2007.
42 Danish PM Supports US Anti-Missile Shield. AFP. March 7, 2007. Blair: We Need To
Look At Missile Options. Press Association National Newswire. February 28, 2007.
Europe Considers Missile Defense System: German Minister. AFP. February 19, 2007.
43 This program should be distinguished from the theater missile defense system intended
(continued...)

CRS-14
Some observers have suggested that the Bush Administration chose not to work
primarily through NATO because consensus agreement on the system was unlikely.
However, in mid-June 2007, alliance defense ministers did agree to conduct a study
of a complementary “bolt-on” anti-missile capability that would protect the
southeastern part of alliance territory that would not be covered by the planned U.S.
interceptors. American officials have interpreted the move as an implied
endorsement of the U.S. GMD plan and an adaptation of NATO plans to fit the
proposed U.S. system. In addition, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
stated “The roadmap on missile defense is now clear.... It’s practical, and it’s agreed
by all.”44
The Bush Administration hoped that NATO would endorse missile defense at
its 2008 summit meeting, held April 2-4 in Bucharest, Romania.45 The Summit
Declaration states that the alliance acknowledges that ballistic missile proliferation
poses an increasing threat. It further affirms that missile defense is part of a “broader
response,” and that the proposed U.S. system would make a “substantial
contribution” to the protection of the alliance. It declares that the alliance is
“exploring ways to link [the U.S. assets] with current NATO efforts” to couple with
“any future NATO-wide missile defense architecture.” The declaration also directs
the development, by the time of the 2009 summit, of “options” for anti-missile
defense of any alliance territory that would not be covered by the planned U.S.
installations. These options would be prepared “to inform any future political
decision.” In addition, the document declares support for ongoing efforts to
“strengthen NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation,” and announces readiness to
look for ways to link “United States, NATO and Russian missile defense systems at
an appropriate time.” Finally, alliance members state that they are “deeply
concerned” over the “proliferation risks” implied by the nuclear and ballistic missile
programs of Iran and North Korea, and call upon those countries to comply with
pertinent UN Security Council resolutions.46
The Bush Administration interpreted the Summit Declaration as an endorsement
of its missile defense project; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed the
statement as a “breakthrough document.” Concerning the question of whether
ballistic missiles from rogue states were a threat, National Security Advisor Stephen
Hadley declared, “I think that debate ended today.”47 Representative Tauscher
43 (...continued)
to protect deployed forces, which the alliance has already approved. See Riga Summit
Declaration. NATO web page. [http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2006/p06-150e.htm] Missile
Defense and Europe. Foreign Press Briefing. U.S. Department of State. March 28, 2007.
44 NATO Considers Missile Defenses For Southeastern Flank In Tandem With U.S. Shield.
Associated Press. June 14, 2007. U.S. Wins NATO Backing On Missile Defense. New
York Times
. June 15, 2007.
45 NATO Debates BMD Ahead Of April Bucharest Summit. WMD Insights. April, 2008.
46 NATO Summit Declaration. April 3, 20008 [http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-049e.
html].
47 NATO Backs U.S. Missile Shield. Los Angeles Times. April 4, 2008. NATO Endorses
(continued...)

CRS-15
welcomed “NATO’s acknowledgment of the contribution that the long-range
interceptor site could make to Alliance security” and to make “cooperation with
NATO a cornerstone of its missile defense proposal.”48
European opponents of the proposed U.S. plan also contend that statements by
Russian officials are evidence that deployment of the U.S. system would damage
Western relations with Russia. At a February 2007 security conference in Munich,
former President Putin strongly criticized GMD, maintaining that it would lead to “an
inevitable arms race.” Russia has threatened to abrogate the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which eliminated this class of U.S. and then-Soviet
missiles that were stationed in Europe. Putin also announced that Russia had
suspended compliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty,49 and
on another occasion indicated Russia might now target Poland and the Czech
Republic and transfer medium-range ballistic missiles to the Russian exclave of
Kaliningrad. Some U.S. and European officials have dismissed Russian alleged
concerns and have noted that Moscow has known of this plan for years and has even
been invited to participate.50 GMD proponents maintain that the interceptors are
intended to take out launched Iranian missiles aimed at European or American targets
and could not possibly act as a deterrent against Russia, which has hundreds of
missiles and thousands of warheads. The chief of the Czech general staff has noted
that “by simple arithmetic, Russian generals can see that U.S. missile defenses cannot
imperil Moscow’s arsenal.” Some Russians contend, however, that the modest GMD
facilities planned for Eastern Europe are likely just the harbinger of a more ambitious
program.
Russian officials have also argued that North Korean or Iranian missiles would
not likely enter European airspace, and that the real reason for GMD is to emplace
U.S. radar in eastern Europe to monitor Russian missile sites and naval operations.
A Czech military officer dismissed the charge of electronic espionage as “absolute
nonsense,” arguing that “the radar monitors the already launched missiles, and it
cannot monitor what is going on on the ground” — a task that is already being
performed by U.S. surveillance satellites.51
47 (...continued)
Europe Missile Shield. New York Times. April 4, 2008.
48 Opening Statement, Chairman Ellen O. Tauscher, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Hearing
on the FY2009 Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs, April 17, 2008.
49 See CRS Report RL33865, Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and
Agreements
, by Amy F. Woolf, Steve Bowman and Sharon Squassoni, section on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. NATO “Very Concerned” At Russia Treaty
Pullout. Reuters. July 16, 2007.
50 Russia Sees Threat From US Plan For Missiles In Eastern Europe. AFP. January 22,
2007. Poland Government Leaders Meet On U.S. Missile Defense Proposal. Associated
Press
. February 12, 2007.
51 U.S. Radar Not To Threaten Russia, China - Czech Chief Of Staff. CTK Daily News.
January 25, 2007.

CRS-16
Some argue that Russia has other motives for raising alarms about the U.S.
missile defense system: to foment discord among NATO member states, and to draw
attention away from Russia’s suppression of domestic dissent and its nuclear
technology cooperation with Iran. Observers note that Russia blustered about NATO
expansion, too, and argue that Russia’s veiled threats may actually stiffen resolve in
Prague and Warsaw. Some observers note, however, that Russian acceptance of
NATO expansion was conditioned on a tacit understanding that NATO or U.S.
military expansion into the new member states would not occur. The European
GMD in this regard is seen as unacceptable to Russia.
On June 7, 2007, in a surprise move during the G-8 meeting in Germany, Putin
offered to partner with the United States on missile defense, and suggested that a
Soviet-era radar facility in Azerbaijan be used to help track and target hostile missiles
that might be launched from the Middle East. President Bush responded by calling
the proposal an “interesting suggestion,” and welcomed the apparent policy shift.
The following day, Putin suggested that GMD interceptors be “placed in the south,
in U.S. NATO allies such as Turkey, or even Iraq ... [or] on sea platforms.” Military
and political representatives from both countries have been meeting to discuss the
proposal, but some experts point out that Azerbaijan is technically not the ideal place
to locate the radar because it would be too close to potential Iranian launch sites; they
also argue that the radar is outmoded.
In the meantime, Putin urged the United States not to deploy elements of GMD
until his offer had been examined. One week later, however, U.S. Defense Secretary
Robert Gates stated that even if the United States were to accept Russia’s offer to
share use of the Azeri radar, that facility would be regarded as “an additional
capability” to complement the proposed GMD sites planned for Europe.52 In late July
2007, MDA Director Obering said the United States is looking at the proposal very
seriously. He said the Azeri radar could be useful for early detection of missile
launches, but that it does not have the tracking ability to guide an interceptor missile
to a target — which the proposed Czech radar would be able to do, he said.
At a July 1-2, 2007, meeting in Kennebunkport, ME, Putin expanded on his
counterproposal by recommending that missile defense be coordinated through
offices in Brussels and Moscow. He also suggested the possible use of radar in south
Russia and said that cooperation could be expanded to other European countries
through the use of the NATO-Russia council — eliminating, he added, the need for
facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. President Bush reportedly responded
positively to Putin’s new proposal, but insisted on the need for the Eastern European
sites.53
Despite ongoing discussions over the issue, Russian criticism of the program has
continued. During an October 2007 visit to Moscow by Secretaries Gates and Rice,
52 Putin Wants Quick Answer On Alternative Antimissile Site. RFE/RL Newsline. June 11,
2007. Putin Surprises Bush With Plan On Missile Shield. New York Times. June 8, 2007.
US Says Russia Offer Cannot Replace Missile Shield. Reuters. June 14, 2007.
53 Putin Expands On His Missile Defense Plan. New York Times. July 3, 2007/ Putin
Proposes Broader Cooperation On Missile Defense. Washington Post. July 3, 2007.

CRS-17
President Putin remarked “of course we can sometime in the future decide that some
anti-missile defense system should be established somewhere on the moon.” Putin
later likened the U.S. placement of the missile defense facilities in central Europe to
the 1962 Cuban missile crisis — a comparison disputed by U.S. officials. In late
November 2007, Russia rejected a written U.S. proposal on the project, arguing that
it failed to include the points Secretary Gates had discussed a month earlier,
including “joint assessment of threats, ... Russian experts’ presence at missile shield’s
sites, [and] readiness to keep the system non-operational if there is no actual missile
threat....”54 In December, the chief of Russia’s army suggested that the launching of
U.S. missile defense interceptors against Iranian missiles might inadvertently
provoke a counter launch of Russian ICBMs aimed at the United States. However,
critics assert that a Russian counterstrike could not be prompted so easily and
mistakenly. In February 2008, Putin reiterated earlier warnings that, if construction
commenced on the missile defense facilities, Russia would re-target ICBMs toward
the missile sites.55
During President Bush’s post-Bucharest meeting with Putin at the Russian resort
of Sochi, the two leaders reportedly sought to find common ground on missile
defense and agreed to introduce greater transparency in the project, and to explore
possible confidence-building measures; in the meantime, Russia remains opposed to
the proposed European bases. The two sides agreed to “intensify” their dialogue on
missile defense cooperation. After the meeting, however, Iran’s ambassador to
Poland warned that if the missile defense system is installed, “the United States will
acquire supremacy over Russian nuclear forces.”56
Some observers believe that the ongoing dialog between the two countries may
help reduce tensions. Eventual Russian cooperation in missile defense could remove
a significant impediment to the program and could dampen criticism by European
and other leaders. It also may open the door to a more favorable attitude by NATO
toward missile defense.
54 Putin Dismisses US Missile Shield Plan. Financial Times. October 12, 2007. Russia
Dismisses US Offer On Missile Defence. AFP. November 23, 2007. Russia Alleges U.S.
“Rollback” On Anti-Missile Plan. Washington Post. December 6, 2007.
55 US Missile Could Trigger Russian Strike: Russian Army Chief. Agence Presse France.
December 15, 2007. Putin Repeats Threat To Aim Russian Rockets At U.S. Missile
Defenses. Associated Press Newswires. February 14, 20080.
56 Putin and Bush Narrow Some Differences. Oxford Analytica. April 7, 2008. U.S. To
Gain Supremacy Over Russia With Central European Anti-missile Base — Iranian
Ambassador. Poland Business Newswire. April 9, 2008. Fact Sheet: U.S.-Russia Strategic
Framework Declaration. News Press. April 7, 2008.

CRS-18
Congressional Actions
Fiscal Year 2009
For FY2009, the Bush Administration requested $712 million for the European
GMD Element. The estimated cost of the European element is $4.03 billion
(FY2008-FY2013), according to the Administration, which includes fielding and
Operation and Support costs.
On May 14, 2008, the House Armed Services Committee approved its version
of the FY2009 defense authorization bill (H.R. 5658). The committee provided $341
million for the proposed European GMD site, reducing the total by $371 million
($231 million in R&D funding and $140 million in Military Construction). The
committee expressed concerns about the slower-than-expected pace of the Iranian
long-range missile program, the effectiveness of the GMD system based on program
testing results, the ability to spend the proposed funds, and the lack of signed and
ratified agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic.
On April 30, 2008, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved its version
of the FY2009 defense authorization bill (S. 3001). The committee provided full
funding for the European GMD Element, but noted that certain conditions have to be
met before those funds could be expended: (1) military construction funds cannot be
spent until the European governments give final approval (including parliamentary
approval) of any deployment agreement, and 45 days have elapsed after Congress has
received a required report that provides an independent analysis of the proposed
European site and alternatives, and (2) acquisition and deployment funds, other than
for long-lead procurement, cannot be expended until the Secretary of Defense (with
input from the Dir., Operational Test and Operations) certifies to Congress that the
proposed interceptor has demonstrated a high probability of accomplishing its
mission in an operationally effective manner.
Fiscal Year 2008
In its report on the FY2008 defense authorization bill, the House Armed
Services Committee cited its concern from last year (FY2007) that investment in the
European BMD site was premature.57 In part, the Committee’s concerns focus on the
need to complete scheduled integrated end-to-end testing of the system now deployed
in Alaska and California. Additionally, the Committee notes its reluctance to fund the
European site without formal agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic and
without knowing the terms under which the estimated $4 billion program costs would
be expended. Therefore, the Committee recommended that no funds be approved for
FY2008 for construction of the European GMD site.58 The Committee did, however,
57 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Report of the House Armed
Services Committee on H.R. 1585, May 11, 2007. House of Representatives. 110th Congress,
1st Session. H.Rept. 110-146, pp. 238-240.
58 To preserve the opportunity to move forward with the research and development
(continued...)

CRS-19
recommend $42.7 million to continue procurement of ten additional GMD
interceptors that could be deployed to the European site or for expanded inventory
at the GMD site in Alaska (as noted in MDA budget documents). Also, the
Committee expressed concern over the testing plan and risk reduction strategy for the
proposed two-stage GMD interceptor for Europe. The Committee further directed
that two studies be done: 1) the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State are
to submit a report to Congress by January 31, 2008, to include how the
Administration will obtain NATO’s support for the European GMD proposal, and
how other missile defense capabilities such as Aegis and THAAD (Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense) could contribute to the missile defense protection of Europe;
and 2) an independent assessment of European missile defense options should be
done in a timely manner.
In the Senate defense authorization bill, the Armed Services Committee
recommended limiting the availability of funding for the European GMD site until
two conditions were met: 1) completion of bilateral agreements with Poland and the
Czech Republic; and 2) 45 days have elapsed following the receipt by Congress of
a report from an FFRDC (federally funded research and development center) to
conduct an independent assessment of options for missile defense of Europe.59 The
Committee recommended a reduction of $85 million for site activation and
construction activities for the proposed European GMD deployment. The Committee
also limited FY2008 funding for acquisition or deployment of operational interceptor
missiles for the European system until the Secretary of Defense certified to Congress
that the proposed interceptor to be deployed had demonstrated, through successful,
operationally realistic flight testing, that it had a high probability of working in an
operationally effective manner. The Committee noted that the proposed 2-stage
version of the interceptor has not been developed and was not scheduled to be tested
until 2010.60 Therefore, the Committee noted, it could be several years before it is
known if the proposed interceptor will work in an operationally effective manner.
The Committee indicated that it would not limit site surveys, studies, analysis,
planning and design for the proposed European GMD site, but that construction and
deployment could not take place prior to ratification of formal bilateral agreements,
which MDA estimates would not take place before 2009. Finally, the Committee
notes there were a number of near-term missile defense options to provide defense
of Europe against short-range, medium-range and future intermediate-range ballistic
missiles, such as the Patriot PAC-3, the Aegis BMD system, and THAAD.
58 (...continued)
components of the European interceptor and radar site, the Committee recommended that
$150 million for FY2008 be available. Upon completion of bilateral agreements and if
further engagement with NATO on the proposed site can be demonstrated, the Committee
notes that the Department of Defense has the option of submitting a reprogramming request
to Congress in FY2008 to fund site preparation activities.
59 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Report of the Senate Armed
Services Committee on S. 1547, June 5, 2007. Committee on Armed Services. U.S. Senate.
110th Congress, 1st Session. Report 110-77, pp. 140-142.
60 See footnote 5.

CRS-20
In floor debate, the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Sessions (90-5)
to the defense authorization bill stating that the policy of the United States is to
develop and deploy an effective defense system against the threat of an Iranian
nuclear missile attack against the United States and its European allies. Further
debate and passage of the defense authorization bill was postponed at the time by the
Majority Leader until after debate over Iraq war funding.
On November 13, 2007, President Bush signed into law the FY2008 Defense
Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3222; P.L. 110-114). This bill eliminated the proposed $85
million for FY2008 for the European missile defense site construction, but permitted
$225 million for studies, analyses, etc. of the proposed European GMD element.
The House passed the FY2008 National Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1585)
on May 17, 2007. The Senate passed its version on October 1, 2007. House and
Senate negotiators filed the defense authorization report on December 6, 2007. The
House adopted the report on December 12, 2007. The Conference Report contained
a number of provisions pertaining to the proposed European GMD element. First, it
cut the $85 million requested for site activation and construction activities. This left
about $225 million to fund surveys, studies, analysis, etc. related to the European
GMD element in FY2008. Second, the Conference Report required an independent
assessment of the proposed deployment of long-range missile defense interceptors
and associated radar in Europe and a second independent analysis of missile defense
options in Europe before site construction and activation could begin. The conferees
noted that if the Polish and Czech governments gave final approval to any
successfully completed agreements during FY2008, the Department of Defense had
the option of submitting a reprogramming request for those funds ($85 million) to
begin site construction in Europe. Third, the conferees strongly supported the need
to work closely and in coordination with NATO on missile defense issues. Finally,
the defense authorization bill required that the Secretary of Defense certify that the
proposed two-stage interceptor “has demonstrated, through successful, operationally
realistic flight testing, a high probability of working in an operationally effective
manner” before funds could be authorized for the acquisition or deployment of
operational missiles for the European site.
The Presidential Candidates
According to an Associated Press article,61 the presumptive Republican and
Democratic presidential candidates have take positions on missile defense. Senator
McCain has described missile defense in general as critical to the protection of the
United States from adversaries such as North Korea and Iran, and as a “hedge against
potential threats” from Russian and China. Senator Obama has said, “If we can
responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies, we should
— but only when the system works.”
61 Robert Burns, U.S. Missile Defense Still Faces Obstacles, Associated Press, March 26,
2008.