The UK's Role in Star Wars
Fylingdales - The Proposed Upgrade for the US NMD System
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Can NMD Work?
Is it Necessary?
NMD as part of the US First Strike Policy
The International Response
Criteria for Deployment
Fylingdales
Menwith Hill
Notes & References
More Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
One of the first things that George W. Bush did after he was eventually declared the winner of the US presidential election, was to demonstrate his commitment to taking the US National Missile Defence (NMD – or ‘Son of Star Wars’) programme forward. NMD conceptualises a missile shield for the continental United States. This would, theoretically, detect and track incoming missiles and target anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) to shoot them down while they are in a ballistic (non-powered) path before they re-enter the atmosphere. NMD is one component of BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence) which also covers TMD (Theatre Missile Defence – a shield to protect US land and sea forces in theatre actions anywhere on Earth).

The NMD Concept - from the Federation of American Scientists [1]

It was Donald Rumsfeld (Mr Bush’s new Defense Secretary), who was responsible for reviving NMD in 1998 when he was picked by Republicans to chair a panel on potential missile threats to the US mainland. The panel concluded that ‘rogue state’ countries like North Korea and Iran could threaten the US with long-range missiles within 5 years [2]

The installation of a NMD system would break the 1972 ABM treaty (ABMT), signed by the US and USSR (and now Russia), which has been described as a cornerstone in the attempt to preserve the Cold War credo of Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). It was thought that the development of ABM systems would escalate the missile race that existed at that time by encouraging the idea that a nuclear war could be fought and survived [3].

 
The individual elements of the NMD system [4]

(See also NMD Program Architecture Fact Sheet from BMDO)

 
Can NMD work?
A report produced by the US Union of Concerned Scientists early in 2000 demonstrates how NMD would be ineffective against even limited ballistic missile attacks [5]. They say that "countermeasures", such as decoys and balloons, could be deployed by any emerging missile state that is capable of launching a long-range ballistic missile. The UCS suggests that the Pentagon greatly underestimated the ability and motivation of emerging missile states to deploy effective countermeasures. Also, past US missile defence tests against missiles using countermeasures have not demonstrated that they could be defeated.

In fact, Professor Ted Postol of MIT and Dr Nira Schwartz, formerly of TRW, have accused major NMD contractors of rigging results to make NMD look viable even though they know it isn't [6].

In July 2000 fifty Nobel Prize winners signed a letter to president Clinton calling the system ineffective and a grave danger to the nation's security [7].

 
Is it Necessary?
Even if the countermeasures could be overcome. long-range missiles are not the best or the cheapest way of delivering a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. There are other more effective ways of delivering such a weapon to the heart of the US (from ships stationed off-shore or sailed into harbour, through cruise missiles or by simply smuggling into the country in a suitcase) [8]. Of course, there is also the question "would a small country like North Korea or Iran really be silly enough to send one or two missiles to the U.S. knowing what the retaliation is likely to be?"

It would seem therefore, that deterrence will continue to be the ultimate line of defence against attack by missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction and therefore it is important that current Treaties (such as the ABMT) are reinforced - not dispensed with.

There is however, another major reason why a limited shield might appear attractive to the military.

 
NMD as part of the US First Strike Policy [9].
NMD can be seen as offensive as well as defensive. It increases the ability of the US to carry out its first strike policy. This concern has already hampered progress on further negotiations on STARTIII, the NPT etc. [10]

The US has been trying to develop an unanswerable first strike capability (or 'Counterforce') for a long time. Two technological advances have made this a distinct possibility:

the miniaturization of warheads
an enormous increase in warhead accuracy
and these led to Manoeuverable Advanced Re-entry Vehicle warheads or MARV'd missiles.

..."it would require only seven Trident submarines to wipe out all but 140 of the Soviet Union's land based strategic missiles. ...A ..."second salvo would require only one more submarine load of missiles and would destroy all but fourteen of the remaining silos. A second salvo wouldn't be necessary, however, once the U.S. deploys the ballistic missile defense system currently under development." [11]

President Carter's Presidential Directives from 24 August 1977 - July 1980 clearly defined a first strike strategy with four components:

Anti Satellite (ASAT): weapons launched to knock out the Soviet warning system.
Decapitation: Destruction of Soviet leadership by very accurate Pershing IIs.
Counterforce: Destruction of most of the Soviet missiles in hardened silos, submarines, mobile launchers and the strategic bomber fleet by MX & Trident II (D-5) missiles.
Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) or 'Star Wars: A ballistic missile defence system to mop up any Soviet missiles that survived Counterforce and had been launched. [12]
The importance of a Star Wars shield in a First Strike capability was admitted by Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force director, who called it: "...the missing link to a First Strike." [13]

 
The International Response
It is not surprising then that most nations see the development of NMD as destabilising and dangerous.

Russia, China, and NATO countries have all warned the US against going it alone to deploy a missile shield. Mr Bush has admitted there was "a selling job to do". Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the 1972 ABM Treaty as a ``foundation´´ of the entire nuclear arms control system [14]. On a visit to Canada in 2000, Mr Putin warned that the US missile proposal "without any doubt will cause serious damage to the existing system of international security and undermine work undertaken for decades".

Russia is extremely unwilling to change the ABMT to allow upgrades for NMD [15].

The United State's European allies are generally opposed to NMD [16]. They feel that its implementation could raise security issues and lead to a new arms race. Joschka Fisher, the German Foreign Minister, said that the proposed missile shield would lead to "split security standards within the Nato alliance."

French Defense Minister Alain Richard has stressed that the NMD program "is not very credible militarily or technically." European and U.S. responses might diverge during a crisis with a missile-capable state if Washington had an operational NMD system, but Europe did not have a similar capability. French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Anne Gazeau-Secret believes that the ABM developments have already blocked the work of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva "the multiplication of ABM systems can worsen the risks of global strategic inbalance" she said [17].

Paris regards the ABM Treaty as crucial for further discussions on nuclear non-proliferation. The development of ABM systems would justify other countries upgrading their missile systems. As Anne Gazeau-Secret said: "Such an arms race in which missile will keep ahead of anti-missile systems, cannot in any way help reduce tensions or solve conflicts." [18] French President Jacques Chirac also said that "We must avoid any questioning of the ABM Treaty that could lead to a disruption of strategic equilibrium and a new nuclear arms race." [19] In an interview for the New York Times on 17 December 1999, he also commented:

"If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there's a permanent race between sword and shield. The sword always wins. The more improvements that are made to the shield, the more improvements are made to the sword." [20]

The development of a NMD system would indicate that the US is giving up on non proliferation and resigned to the spread of nuclear weapons. Roelf Ekeus, Swedish ambassador to the US and former head of the UN Special Commission for Arms Inspection in Iraq, said in Sept 1999:

"As missile defence gathers speed what is the political impact? It gives the impression that the US is settling down to live with nuclear weapons. The risk is that more and more [countries] just give up hope [of non proliferation]. Which I think is a great threat."

Other nations have also been quick to criticise the proposed NMD. In January 99, UN Secretary Kofi Annan urged the UN's annual Conference on Disarmament to "codify prinicples which can ensure that outer space remains weapon free." [21] China is particularly concerned about the prospect of an arms race in space. Wang Xiaoyu, First Secretary of China's mission to the UN has stated that:

"Space domination is a hegemonic concept. Its essence is monopoly of space and denial of others' access to it. It is also aiming at using outer space for achieving strategic objectives on the ground…Outer space is the common heritage of human beings…it should be used entirely for peaceful purposes…It must not be weaponised and become another arena of the arms race." [22]

China has a 'limited' nuclear arsenal and may seek to develop and increase their arsenal if NMD comes into practice. If the US does violate the ABM Treaty by developing an NMD then China has said it would

"not only undermine global and regional strategic balance and stability, obstruct or even reverse the nuclear disarmament process, but also open the door to the weaponization of outer space." [23]

China, has also expressed grave concerns that breaking or abandoning the ABM Treaty would lead to a new arms race to counter the proposed NMD shield [24].

 
Criteria for Deployment
The Clinton administration stated that it would use the following criteria when making its deployment decision:

the changing threat from emerging missile states and the anticipated need for an NMD system
the cost of deployment
the effect of NMD deployment on US-Russian nuclear arms reduction process and the broader strategic environment
the "technological readiness" of the system for deployment
The Pentagon will assess the fourth criteria on the results of a series of intercept tests. Most of the tests carried out so far have been unsuccessful with the next test scheduled for January 2001. Although any decision on the further development of NMD has been postponed, there are key programmes currently running and being developed in the UK that would be key components to any star wars system that may be eventually implemented. Two are situated in North Yorkshire - one at Fylingdales, near Whitby, and the other at Menwith Hill, near Harrogate.

 
Fylingdales

 
The old 'golfballs' at Fylingdales - each radome housed a powerful radar dish

Fylingdales on the North Yorkshire Moors National Park has been the home of a US Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) since the Cold War days of the 1960s. The base is run for the US by the RAF and is one of the 3 stations in a chain linked across the North Atlantic. The other stations are Thule in Greenland - operated by the 12th Space Warning Squadron (or SWS) and Clear in Alaska - operated by the 13th SWS - both components of the USAF 21st Space Wing based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs.

RAF Fylingdales originally consisted of three white spherical radomes over 40 meters in diameter. Each radome housed and protected a large radar dish that could be mechanically steered to search for intercontinental ballistic missiles that threatened the North American Continent from the USSR. At this time an uneasy balance of strategic nuclear weapons was held between the two super powers by setting an agreed limit to each side's ability to counter a full-scale nuclear attack. In this way, any nuclear first strike would risk Mutually Assured Destruction (a MAD idea in more ways than one). The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT), signed in 1972 by the US and USSR, set limits on the anti-ballistic systems (missiles and radars) that could be deployed by each side.

The 3-Plus-3 US National Missile Defence early warning radar system
before the BMEWS upgrades to Phased Array Radars.

Between 1989 and 1992 the three giant 'golfballs' were replaced by a Phased Array Radar in the form of a 40-meter high truncated pyramid. Each of the 3 faces of the pyramid contains an array of 2,560 aerials, transmitting a total mean power output of 2.5 Megawatts. Limited by the conditions of the ABMT, the upgraded radar has a similar output power and the same 3000 mile range as the old one, but is able to operate over a full 360o, rather than 120o. The radar system at Thule was upgraded in a similar fashion in 1987 and, together with the system in Alaska, the 3 stations provide (in conjunction with the Defense Support early warning satellites) a Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment directly to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 
The Phased Array Radar at Fylingdales.

Fylingdales operates under the US "Masterplan for tactical Warning and Attack" which lists the aims of BMEWS as being to:

Support and aid the survival of strategic military forces.
Provide an accurate basis for (US) national command authority response decisions.
Enhance warfighting effectiveness of the strategic nuclear forces.
As well as its Early Warning Function, Fylingdales also forms part of the Space Surveillance Network (SSN), an intelligence network that tracks and maintains a catalogue of space objects (military and civilian satellites and space debris).

Fylingdales is therefore a significant command, control, communications and intelligence installation. Information gathered by the radar installation is fed directly to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. From there information is passed to the National Command authorities and to Headquarters, Strategic Air Command (SAC). In time of war, it would provide the US President with information on what has and has not been attacked, monitor trajectories of both surveillance satellites and incoming ballistic missiles and allow prioritising and accurate response and targeting on "enemy" satellites and ballistic missiles.

Prelimary NMD architectures

  Initial configuration Full configuration
Planned deployment date 2005-7 2011
Number of interceptors deployed in Alaska 100 125
Number of interceptors deployed in North Dakota 0 125
Upgraded early warning radars Beale (Marysville, Calif)
Clear (Alaska)
Cape Cod (Massachusetts)
Fylingdales (England)
Thule (Greenland) Beale
Clear
Cape Cod
Fylingdales
Thule
South Korea
X-band radars Shemya (Alaska) Shemya
Clear
Fylingdales
Thule
Beale
Cape Cod
Grand Forks (N. Dakota)
Hawaii
South Korea 
Satellite-based infrared sensors in low-Earth orbit (SBIRS-Low) No Yes

Source: M. C. Sirak, Inside Missile Defense, 19 May 1999, p13

For NMD however, detection and warning are not enough. Accurate tracking and discrimination between warheads, debris and decoys is required. The "preliminary" architectures released by the US Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) in March 1999 (see tables above) describes the NMD system as being deployed in three phases. All 3 phases would use the current US early-warning radars in California, Massachusetts and Alaska and at Thule and Fylingdales, but they are not able to track targets accurately enough to guide interceptors. The first phase therefore, involves an Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) program to give them this capability. This would involve replacing existing computers, graphic displays, communication equipment, and the radar receiver/exciter for NMD. New EWR software would allow the acquisition, tracking, and classification of small objects near the horizon and this data would be passed to other NMD elements using improved communications systems.

 
The above picture shows the proposed US NMD sequence from:
1 - missle launch,
2 - detection of rocket plumes by space-based sensors,
3 - location of target by early warning radars,
4 - better tracking and target discrimination by X-band radar system,
5 - detection, tracking and targeting of missile by interceptor,
6 - interception.

The upgraded early-warning radars will still be extremely limited in their ability to discriminate real warheads from decoys or to deal with other types of countermeasures [25]. The system will therefore also deploy new high resolution phased-array X-band radars which use high frequencies (5.2-8.5 GHz) and advanced radar signal processing technology to improve target resolution. Phase 1 would see an X-band radar at Shemya in the Aleutian Islands (to cover missile launches from North Korea). Phase 2 would include additional X-band radars at the current BMEWS sites (including Fylingdales). Recently questions have been raised regarding the possible danger to the health of people living close to these installations. The BMDO insists that the microwave leakage from these high power radars is safe - but others are not so sure and independent investigations into possible health hazards need to be made.

The UK government does not deny that RAF Fylingdales would play an important role in NMD should it go ahead. However, despite repeated questioning by the press and in the Commons, it will not pronounce on what its decision would be should the US ask permission for the changes to be made [26]. The Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has said:

"Until we know both the nature of the question and also the circumstances in which we are being asked that question, it would be premature for us to debate what might be, particularly since there is no commitment by the United States to ask the question."

It has been said that the UK government is 'working behind the scenes' and is not willing to make public statements that might put the ABMT in danger. A number of US politicians have spoken of abandoning the treaty if it becomes too difficult to renegotiate to allow them to deploy NMD [27]. Perhaps this explains the apparent differences of opinion in government. In March 2000, Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister Peter Hain said on the BBC that, he did "not like the idea of a Star Wars programme". Meanwhile on Channel 4, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon stated that Britain would be sympathetic to any request from the US to use Fylingdales. Officials in Washington are also confident that any such requests would not be turned down [28].

The Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking a three-year Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme (TRRAP) to look at the threat posed by ballistic missiles and the possibility of defending against them. It is also working within NATO to explore the possibility of Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) systems which could be deployed whenever and wherever military action occurs [29].

Perhaps though this is a good opportunity for the UK to say that it will have no part in NMD - and to use any influence it has to encourage the US to rein back on this issue [30].

 
Menwith Hill

The other US NMD component in Yorkshire is at Menwith Hill, which is probably better known for its electronic monitoring activities. Menwith has attracted a lot of publicity since it was revealed that it uses a system called ECHELON to systematically intercept fax, email and telephone messages and search for key words. ECHELON was first revealed by Duncan Campbell in 1988 [31] and detailed by Nicky Hagar in 1996 [32]. The existence of the ECHELON system was eventually officially confirmed in a report "Assessing the Technologies of Political Control" commissioned by the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament [33]. A follow up report by Duncan Campbell [34] describes the ECHELON system and the state of the art in Communications Intelligence COMINT in some detail. The European Union is currently investigating these activities further.

The US Air Force and British War Office signed an initial agreement for the use of the land at Menwith Hill in 1951 and the station became operational in 1959. The Ministry of Defence described Menwith Hill as a "communications relay centre" but in 1966 the National Security Agency (NSA) took it over and the interception of satellite communications began as early as 1974. At this time the first of the satellite communications dishes were installed - there are now nearly 30.

 In 1997 the Government announced that Menwith Hill was due to become the European Ground Relay Station for the Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS) which has two components - SBIRS-High and SBIRS-Low [35]. General Howell M. Estes III (Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command and US Space Command and Air Force Space Command, Commander) said in a speech urging the US Congress to "help fulfill the promise of space" that: "These systems will significantly improve our ability to provide much more precise launch and impact point of theater missiles to forces in a theater of operations. They are key to our ability to cue systems that we'll use for active defense as part of both theater and national missile defense." [36] SBIRS-High will replace the early warning satellite system known as the Defense Support Program (DSP) to detect the boost stage of a ballistic missile after launch and provide initial trajectory information. The SBIRS-Low system is to detect and track cold missiles much later in their trajectory. Both would be used for NMD. However, Ted Postol of MIT has expressed grave doubts that SBIRS-Low will ever work, and SBIRS-High will be used to detect ballistic missile launches even in the absence of NMD. Also, if the US wanted to use data relayed through Menwith Hill for NMD, it would need to ask for UK consent.

The first two satellite dishes for the relay system are now in place but their construction attracted the attention of local peace campaigners [37]. Although local planning permission is not required for building at Menwith Hill Station, plans are sent to the local Planning Office in Harrogate as a matter of courtesy. As a consequence, concerned local people who continually monitor the expansion of the base noticed the proposed construction of the SBIRS system. In particular, the Menwith Hill Women's Campaign and the Campaign for Accountability of American Bases (CAAB) recognised the significance of the plans.

 
SBIRS radomes constructed at Menwith Hill, North Yorkshire

In October 1999 Lindis Percy of CAAB made an application for a Claim (formally known in the English legal system as a Writ) in the High Court in London to stop the building of the SBIRS radomes on the grounds that it would cause the UK to be aiding and abetting the US in breaking the ABM Treaty and it would also be against the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty (which the UK signed in 1967 and which advocated the peaceful use of space) [38]. The Claim was served on the American Base Commander, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Defence Land Agent and the RAF Liason Officer at Menwith Hill. The UK defendants applied to the High Court that the Claim be struck out but this was denied in January of this year. The US defendant separated from the three British defendants and claimed State Immunity. In an extraordinary move, solicitors acting for the US base commander asked for costs against the issuer of the Claim for £13000. They suggested that if £6000 were paid within 14 days, then they would waive the rest if an undertaking were given not to bring any action connected with this matter against the US Government or their agents. No such undertaken was given. Eventually, following President Clinton's announcement in September not to authorise the deployment of NMD, CAAB was advised to withdraw and all Defendants are now claiming massive costs against them [39].

The NMD and TMD programmes being considered and developed by the US and others must be seen as extremely serious. The US has made no secret of the fact that it considers space to be the military high ground [40]. If you master space you can control the world. The US Space Command is already calling itself "Master of Space" [41] and others are openly competing - the European Union and the European Space Agency are currently planning to expand into the military use of space [42].

If NMD plans do go ahead, space based components will play a crucial role in the race to control space. Other nations will react by considerably increasing their arsenals and many treaties will be broken or at risk. How long will it be before weapons are stationed in space - to be aimed at any target anywhere on Earth? How long before the star wars fantasy becomes a grim reality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Notes & References

See the Federation of American Scientists web-site - http://www.fas.org
See for example "Star Wars behind Bush nomination", Tim Cornwell, The Scotsman - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/rumsfeld4.htm
See: ABM Treaty "Talking Points" - details of the U.S. proposal on modifications to the ABM Treaty from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists - April 2000 - http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2000/mj00/treaty_doc.html
See also "NMD Program Architecture Fact Sheet" from the US Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/jn9906.pdf
See
a) "Countermeasures" - a report on NMD from The Union of Concerned Scientists at MIT - in pdf format (4.98 Mb) - http://www.ucsusa.org/arms/CM_exec.html
b) Raum, T., "Scientists Oppose Missile Shield", Associated Press, 12 June 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd132.htm
See, for example:
a) CBS News, "America's Dream Defense", 26th December 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd/postol3.htm
b) Abel, D., "Tiff Between White House, MIT Professor Gets Personal", Boston Globe, 9 August 2000 - www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/potol2.htm and Abel, D., "Critic accuses Pentagon of trying to silence him", Boston Globe, 24 June 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/postol.htm
c) Broad, W.J., "Engineer Charging Antimissile Fraud Is Snared in a Federal Clash", New York Times, July 13 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd170.htm
d) Postol, T.A., The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 30-35, March/April 2000 - http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2000/ma00/ma00postol.html
William J. Broad, "Nobel Winners Urge Halt to Missile Plan", New York Times, July 6 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd152.htm
"Effectiveness of Proposed National Missile Defense Against ICBMs from North Korea" by Richard L. Garwin, March 17, 1999 - http://www.fas.org/rlg/990317-nmd.htm
Extracted from an article by David Morgan - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/dmorgan.htm
"Now Russia prepares for START III", Agence France Presse, 3rd September 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/nmd18.htm
Aldridge, R.C., "First Strike! The Pentagon's Plans for Nuclear War", 1983, p.97
Kaku, M. and Axelrod, D., "To Win a Nuclear War - The Pentagon's Secret War Plans", 1987, p.195
Ibid p. 242
Vladimir Isachenkov, "Putin: Ban Militarization of Space", September 6 2000 - see July 21 2000 "Statements by Foreign Leaders Opposing NMD" by Lynn Erskine, Council for a Livable World Education Fund, based in part on work by the British American Security Information Council -
See for example:
a) Schmitt, E., "Russia Says U.S. Umbrella Plan May Spark Arms Race", New York Times, 15th March 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd9.htm
b) Associated Press, "Russia Warns U.S. of Arms Race", 6th October 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/articles/srace.htm
c) Graff, P., "Russian general lashes out at U.S. missile defence", 27th October 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/abm11.htm
d) ABC News, "Moscow Against U.S. Revising Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty", 26th October 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/abm9.htm
See for example:
a) BBC, "New opposition to US missile plans", July 5th 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd156.htm
b) Scheer, R., "France concerned about U.S. anti-missile advances", Los Angeles Times, 25th August 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd31.htm
c) Press Advisory, "Europeans decry US NMD plans", 1st May 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd87.htm
d) Drozdiak, W., "Worries Mount in Europe Over U.S. Missile Defense", Washington Post, 19th May 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd94.htm
e) Struck, D., "Allies Signal Opposition To a U.S. Missile Shield", Washington Post, 13th July 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd171.htm
f) Dragsdahl, J., "Danish Opposition May Impede US National Missile Defense", BASIC, March 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/thule2.htm
"France concerned about U.S. anti-missile advances", by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times, 25th August 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd31.htm
Ibid
"World leaders hail Clinton's missile decision - Shield might become an election issue" by Bill Nichols, USA TODAY, September 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/nmd19.htm
December 17 2000, New York Times - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/statements.htm
"Kofi Annan urges ban on land mines, nuclear arms in space" by Alexander G. Higgins, Nando Media, Associated Press, 26th January 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd6.htm
See "Waging War in Space" by Karl Grossman and Judith Long, The Nation, December 27, 1999 - http://www.thenation.com
"China, Russia Unify Against U.S. Missile Shield - Missile Defense Plan Assailed at Meeting" by Ted Plafker, The Washington Post, July 19, 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd193.htm
See:
a) Vignette Story Server, "China blasts U.S. plans to build an anti-missile defense system", 25th November 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/china6.htm
b) Eckholm, E., "China Says U.S. Missile Shield Could Force an Arms Buildup", New York Times, 10th May 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd85.htm
c) BBC, "New opposition to US missile plans", July 5th 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd156.htm
d) Moulson, G., "China blasts US Missile Proposal", Associated Press, 14th September 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/china14.htm
See note 5 and:
a) Borenstein, S., "Experts scoff at missile shield. It's too easily fooled, most physicists say",San Jose Mercury News, 7 June 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd115.htm
b) Lewis, G.N., Postol, T.A. and Pike, J., "Why National Missile Defence Won't Work", Scientific American, August 1999, pp 36-41 - http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/nmd.htm
See:
a) "Questions to Parliament on NMD" taken from Hansard - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/nmdpq.htm
b) Reid, T.R., "Blair Noncommittal on Missile Shield", Washington Post Foreign Service, 2nd April 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/bmd97.htm
c) Prescott, M., "Britain opens way to Star Wars base", The Sunday Times. - 2nd April 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd64.htm
d) Sylvester, R., "Britain may house 'star wars' shield", The Telegraph, 30th March 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/ukhouse.htm
e) Peacock, M., "Britain 'Not Asked' about US Missile Shield", yahoo.com, 30th March 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd63.htm
f) Parker, A., "Ministries at odds over US nuclear shield", Financial Times, 21st March 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/caab/articles/bmd3.htm
a) SpaceDaily, "ABM Treaty May Need To Be Re-Ratified", August 15th 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/abm23.htm
b) Gertz, B., "Battle brewing on missile defense", The Washington Times", 21st June 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd25.htm
c) Priest, D., "US Will Build Missile Defense Weapon Despite ABM Treaty", Washington Post, 21st January 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/bmd4.htm
Wintour, P., "British role in US star wars shield - Upgrade plan for bases in UK", The Guardian, 30th March 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/fdales3.htm
"US Bases in this country are being used to protect America, not Britain - They're not defending our realm" by Richard Norton-Taylor, the Guardian, 18th November 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/writ2.htm
"Mr Blair must tell Mr Bush his Star Wars missile system is folly", Independent Digital (UK) Ltd., 13th January 2001 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/folly.htm
Campbell, D., "Somebody's listening", New Statesman, 12th August 1988 - http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/echelon-dc.htm
Hagar, N., "Exposing the Global Surveillance System", Covert Action Quarterly, 59, 1996 - http://caq.com/CAQ/CAQ59GlobalSnoop.html
"An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control", Consultation version of working document prepared for European Parliament by its Directorate General for Research Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA), September 1998 - http://jya.com/stoa-atpc.htm
Campbell, D., "The state of the art in Communications Intelligence (COMINT)", STOA Report, April 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/mhs/ic2000/ic2000.htm
Campbell, D., "From Data Tapping to Missile Tracking - Star Wars Strikes Back", the Guardian, 2nd December 1998 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/swars.htm
More information on SBIRS can be found on the Federation of American Scientists web-site at - http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/warning/sbir.htm
From the speeches of General Howell M. Estes III - http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace/speeches.htm
See for example:
Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB), "Constructing SBIRS at Menwith in pictures" - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/caab/sbirs.htm
Menwith Hill Womens Peace Campaign, "Legality of Star Wars Challenged at Menwith Hill", Press Release, 19th July 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/disalarmed.htm
See for example:
a) Lazenby, P., "Activists issue writs to stop 'Star Wars' plans", Yorks Evening Post - 26th October 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/writ.htm
b) Carr-Brown, J., "US builds 'son of star wars' at RAF base", The Independent on Sunday, 21st November 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/writ3.htm
c) Rowlatt, J., "The Secret of Menwith Hill", Channel 4 News, 7th December 1999 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/channel4.htm
CAAB Report, "Latest on writ to stop SBIRS building at Menwith", 27th September 2000 - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/caab/spress/mhswrit.htm
See:
a) US Space Command web-site - http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace/index.htm
b) US Space Command Long Range Plan - http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace/LRP/cover.htm
c) US Space Command "Vision 2020" - http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace/visbook.pdf
d) US Space Command "Vision 2025" - http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/
See for example "Master of Space" by Karl Grossman, The Progressive, 6th January 2000 - http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/master.htm
See "The European Space Agency expansion to militarism" by Regina Hagen, Bruce Gagnon and Dave Webb, December 2000 - http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/eurospace/esa.htm
More Reading and Information

Fylingdales web-site - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/fdales/
Menwith Hill web-site - http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/mhs/
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space - http://www.space4peace.org
"Countermeasures" - a report on NMD from The Union of Concerned Scientists at MIT - in pdf format (4.98 Mb) - http://www.ucusa.org
"Defending America" - a report on Homeland Defense and NMD produced by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington (680 Kb, pdf) - about 200 pages, http://www.csis.org
"An assessment of the National Intelligence estimate of the ballistic missile threat" by Joseph Cirincione of CEIP in "The Nonproliferation Review" from the Monterey Institute of International Studies - http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/circ71.htm
"Taking National Missile Defense to Sea: A Critique of Sea-Based and Boost-Phase Proposals". A report released on the 11 October 2000 by the Council for a Liveable World Education Fund. A 48 page report argues that Sea-based and boost-phase alternatives to national missile defense (NMD) would be expensive and could not be deployed until 2014 - http://www.clw.org/ef/seanmd.html
"National Missile Defence and the Future of Nuclear Policy" Organized by The Institute for Security Studies Western European Union in Paris on June 9 2000. At the conference academics and officials from both sides of the Atlantic came together to discuss various aspects of NMD, namely the underlying threat perceptions, the feasibility of the system, its impact on arms control and its significance for deterrence - http://www.weu.int/institute/
"National Missile Defense: What Does It All Mean?" Brief released in September 2000 by the Center for Defense Information, covers all major aspects of the missile defense debate - http://www.cdi.org
Theater Missile Defenses in the Asia-Pacific Region June 29 2000 report from the Henry L. Stimson Center argues that a simplistic, "one-size-fits-all" policy for TMD would worsen regional security and harm US national security interests - http://www.stimson.org
"Canada and ballistic missile defence" on the Ploughshares website - written in a neutral tone to encourage use by the undecided, journalists, schools, etc. - http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMDandCanada.html
"History of the SDIO and BMDO" - the transition of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization into the current Ballistic Missile Defense Organization which now has the programs for Theater Missile Defense, National Missile Defense, and Technology Readiness - http://tsi.simplenet.com/
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization web-site - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html
"X band radar Fact Sheet from BMDO" - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/jn0019.pdf
"Early Warning System Fact Sheet from BMDO" - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/jn0013.pdf
"BMDO Budgetry History Fact Sheet from BMDO" - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/po9902.pdf
"NMD Program Fact Sheet from BMDO" - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/jn9905.pdf
"BMD Core Programs Fact Sheet from BMDO" - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/aq9901.pdf
"NMD Program Architecture Fact Sheet from BMDO" - http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/jn9906.pdf
"Ballistic Missile Defense Program Status Update" by John Pike, July 1998. A version of an article that appeared in "Arms Control Today" - http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/act_bmd.htm
"Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty's Legal Status" - The Council for a Liveable World Education Fund. Arguments that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is no longer valid are challenged - http://www.clw.org/ef/bmdlegal.html
"Missile Defense Research Resources" - The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Non-Proliferation Project's excellent page of resources - http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/missiledefense.htm
"Physicians for Social Responsibility Fact Sheet" - http://www.psr.org/bmd.htm
"Space Based Infra Red System" web-site - http://www.laafb.af.mil/SMC/MT/Sbirs.htm
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yorkshire CND Home Page