Viewpoint by Joseph Gerson<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The writer is President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security and Co-Convener of the Peace & Planet International Network<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n NEW YORK (IDN) \u2014 The Biden Administration\u2019s recent National Security Strategy announced that the post-Cold War order is now history, and that the yet to be named new era is defined by military, economic, and technological competition to shape the new order. NATO\u2019s expansion to Russia\u2019s borders, Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S.\/NATO response, as well as the trade war with China are all major elements in these debilitating, and at times murderous, struggles for hegemony\u2014regional and global.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So too is Germany\u2019s reverse course, with its massive increases in military spending, its deployment of troops to Eastern Europe and even Mali, and more recently its multi-billion-euro Sky Shield missile defense initiative, ostensibly designed to protect Germany and Europe from what it perceives to be an \u201cexistential threat\u201d emanating from Putin\u2019s Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reuters reported on October 13 that \u201cGermany and more than a dozen NATO partners aim to jointly procure air defense systems that protect allied territory from missiles, eying Israel\u2019s Arrow 3 system, U.S. Patriot, and German IRIS-T units among the options. The system has been named European Sky Shield.\u201d Consistent with U.S. and NATO commitments to integrated and intraoperative systems, Sky Shield is being designed to fully integrate the short, medium, and long-range missile defense systems of all participating nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those who signed the October letter of intent are Germany, Britain, Slovakia, Norway, Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, and Slovenia. Defense News<\/em> had earlier reported that \u201cSome allies may only be interested in one layer of the shield while others will opt for the full suit,\u201d with the opportunity to expand their limited systems in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n France, Italy, Turkey, Spain, and Poland have yet to sign on as they have their own competing air defense systems. Continued negotiations about their and non-NATO member states possibly joining Sky Shield are anticipated. Additionally, the U.S. will continue to operate some ballistic missile sites in eastern Europe independently from NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. has yet to fully sign on, apparently due to the priority Washington gives to U.S. produced THAAD high altitude missile defenses, while Germany\u2019s defense Minister Christine Lambrecht is pressing for adoption of the Israeli Arrow 3 high altitude system. In a classical replay of struggles over who gets the money and who determines the technology and thus gains policy and strategic advantages, this debate appears to be rooted in uncertainly over what quid pro quo<\/em> Washington will accept for possible adoption of the Israeli Arrow 3 system. Because Arrow 3 includes U.S. components the U.S. holds veto power over to whom it is sold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Investments of tens of billions of Euros, if not more, will be required if a system is to be built with the ostensible goal of protecting the eastern flank of NATO from Norway in the north to Greece in the south. That said, we know from repeated failed missile defense tests and the limited capabilities of Israeli and Ukrainian missile defenses, absolute protection is still far beyond what missile defenses can provide. 80% reliability against conventionally armed missiles can provide meaningful, if not total, protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But a 20 per cent failure rate in downing nuclear armed missiles would result in unimaginable devastation, possibly global cooling or worse, nuclear winter. Worth noting is that the U.S. has no real defenses against Russia\u2019s new hypersonic and other exotic nuclear weapons delivery systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n