DOCSLIB.ORG

The Gulf Military Balance: Volume II: the Missile and Nuclear Dimensions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Gulf Military Balance: Volume II: the Missile and Nuclear Dimensions The Gulf Military Balance: Volume II The Gulf Military Balance: Volume The Gulf Military ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN AND BRYAN GOLD AND BRYAN ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN Balance 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW| Washington DC 20036 Volume II: The Missile and t. (202) 887-0200 | f. (202) 775-3199 | www.csis.org Nuclear Dimensions ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD 20706 t. (800) 462-6420 | f. (301) 429-5749 | www.rowman.com AUTHORS Cover photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yeowatzup/4324097467/. Anthony H. Cordesman ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Bryan Gold ISBN 978-1-4422-2793-4 Ë|xHSLEOCy227934z v*:+:!:+:! A Report of the CSIS Burke Chair in Strategy JANUARY 2014 Blank The Gulf Military Balance Volume II: The Missile and Nuclear Dimensions Authors Anthony H. Cordesman Bryan Gold A Report of the CSIS Burke Chair in Strategy January 2014 ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK About CSIS For over 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has worked to develop solutions to the world’s greatest policy challenges. Today, CSIS scholars are providing strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world. CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center’s 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded at the height of the Cold War by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global health and economic integration. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn has chaired the CSIS Board of Trustees since 1999. Former deputy secretary of defense John J. Hamre became the Center’s president and chief executive officer in April 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2014 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-1-4422-2793-4 (pb); 978-1-4422-2794-1 (eBook) Center for Strategic & International Studies Rowman & Littlefield 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW 4501 Forbes Boulevard Washington, DC 20036 Lanham, MD 20706 202-887-0200 | www.csis.org 301-459-3366 | www.rowman.com Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... IX The Near-Term Impact of the Iranian Missile Threat ........................................................................ xii The Mid and Longer Term Risk of an Iranian Nuclear Weapon and a Nuclear-Armed Missile Threat ........................................................................................................................................................... xiii The Uncertain Prospects for Effective Negotiations, Agreements, and Verifiable Arms Control..... xiv The Uncertain Prospects for Containment ......................................................................................... xv Looking Beyond Negotiations ........................................................................................................... xvi The Key Provisions of the November 2013 Interim Agreement ................................................................................... xvii Enforcement, Verification and Iranian Compliance ....................................................................................................... xix US Enforcement Capabilities and Israel Threats ............................................................................................................. xx IRAN’S MISSILE PROGRAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE GULF AND REGIONAL MILITARY BALANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Source: Steven A. Hildreth, Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch Programs, Congressional Research Service R42849, December 6, 2012, p. 15. .................................................................................................................................... 2 US Assessments of Iran’s Missile Programs ............................................................................................ 2 Iran’s Shorter Range Missile and Rocket Programs ................................................................................. 4 Source: Steven A. Hildreth, Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch Programs, Congressional Research Service R42849, December 6, 2012, p. 16. .................................................................................................................................... 5 Iran’s Shortest Range Missiles ............................................................................................................. 6 Zelzal (Meteor or Shooting Star) ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Fateh-110 (Conqueror) ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Khalij Fars and Guided Ballistic Missiles ......................................................................................................................... 9 The Shahab 1 and Shahab 2 ............................................................................................................... 10 Shahab-1 (Meteor 1) ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Shahab-2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Military Potential and Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 13 Current Combat Role ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Attacks Across the Gulf .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Iran’s Potential War Fighting Capabilities ...................................................................................................................... 15 Iran’s Medium and Long-Range Missile Programs ................................................................................ 15 Key Uncertainties in Making an Assessment...................................................................................... 17 Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles ....................................................................................................... 27 Shahab-1 (Meteor 1) ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 Shahab-2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Longer Range MRBM/IRBMs ............................................................................................................ 28 Shahab-3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Ghadir-1 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Sejjil-2/Ashura ................................................................................................................................................................ 36 BM-25 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Stacked Threats and Basing on Mobile Launchers and in Silos ........................................................ 40 Iranian Statements About its Medium and Longer-Range Missile Programs .................................... 42 Iran’s Possible Search for an ICBM ....................................................................................................... 45 Cruise Missiles ....................................................................................................................................... 47 Assessing Warfighting Capabilities of Iran’s Current and Future Medium and Longer-Range Missile Force ....................................................................................................................................................... 50 The Accuracy and Reliability Challenge ............................................................................................ 51 The Range-Payload Challenge ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iran's Evolving Military Forces
    CSIS_______________________________ Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 775-3270 To download further data: CSIS.ORG To contact author: [email protected] Iran's Evolving Military Forces Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy July 2004 Copyright Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved. Cordesman: Iran's Military forces 7/15/2004 Page ii Table of Contents I. IRAN AND THE GULF MILITARY BALANCE: THE “FOUR CORNERED” BALANCING ACT..........1 The Dynamics of the Gulf Military Balance ..........................................................................................................1 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NORTH GULF ........................................................................................................................2 II. IRAN’S ERRATIC MILITARY MODERNIZATION.......................................................................................9 THE IRANIAN ARMY ...................................................................................................................................................9 THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS CORPS (PASDARAN).................................................................................14 THE QUDS (QODS) FORCES ......................................................................................................................................15 THE BASIJ AND OTHER PARAMILITARY FORCES ......................................................................................................15 THE IRANIAN
    [Show full text]
  • National Security Imperatives and the Neorealist State: Iran and Realpolitik
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2000-12 National security imperatives and the neorealist state: Iran and realpolitik. Grogan, Michael S. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/7744 ^U^£SCHOou DUDLEY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS NATIONAL SECURITY IMPERATIVES AND THE NEOREALIST STATE: IRAN AND REALPOLITIK by Michael S. Grogan December 2000 Thesis Co-Advisors: Ahmad Ghoreishi Glenn E. Robinson Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704- 0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202- 4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2000 Master's Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Title (Mix case letters) 5. FUNDING NUMBERS National Security Imperatives and the Neorealist State: Iran and Realpolitik 6. AUTHOR(S) Michael S. Grogan 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Characteristics of Iran's Ballistic and Cruise Missiles
    Design Characteristics of Iran’s Ballistic and Cruise Missiles Last update: January 2013 Missile Nato or Type/ Length Diameter Payload Range (km) Accuracy ‐ Propellant Guidance Other Name System (m) (m) (kg)/warhead CEP (m) /Stages Artillery* Hasib/Fajr‐11* Rocket artillery (O) 0.83 0.107 6; HE 8.5 ‐ Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐12* Rocket artillery (O) 1.29 0.244 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐23* Rocket artillery (O) 1.82 0.333 120; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐14* Rocket artillery (O) 2.8 0.122 18.3; HE 21.5 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐25* Rocket artillery (O) 3.2 0.122 18.3; HE 30 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐36* Rocket artillery (O) 2 0.122 18.3; HE 18 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐17* Rocket artillery (O) 2.9 0.33 190; HE 13 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐28* Rocket artillery (O) 3.9 0.33 190; HE 20 Solid Spin stabilized Oghab9* Rocket artillery (O) 4.82 0.233 70; HE 40 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐310* Rocket artillery (O) 5.2 0.24 45; HE 45 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐511* Rocket artillery (O) 6.6 0.33 90; HE 75 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐112* Rocket artillery (O) 1.38 0.24 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐213* Rocket artillery (O) 1.8 0.333 60; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐614* Rocket artillery (O) 6.3 0.355 150; HE 100 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat15* Rocket artillery (O) 5.9 0.355 150; HE 120 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐116* Iran‐130 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 100‐125 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐1A17* Mushak‐120 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 160 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐1018* Mushak‐160 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.45 250; HE 150 Solid Spin stabilized Related content is available on the website for the Nuclear Threat Initiative, www.nti.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining 10 Warning Signs of Iran Nuclear Weapons
    International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) President: Dr. Alejo Vidal-Quadras Rue d’Arlon 63, B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel : +32 2 400 1071 [email protected] www.isjcommittee.com EXAMINING 10 WARNING SIGNS OF IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 20,2014 Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras, Former Vice‐President of European Parliament, Professor of Atomic and Nuclear Physics: “An objective, thoroughly researched report on the core issue of the nature of Iranian nuclear program and its status”. Bob Jospeh, Former US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Senior White House Security Council staff on weapons of mass destruction: “A critically important report at a critically important time”. John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security: "A timely and well document report with alarming findings on Iran's nuclear program." Contents Executive summary Chapter 1: SPND (organ in charge of weaponization) Chapter 2: Procurement of dual purpose equipment and its possible use for military dimensions of nuclear program Chapter 3: Secret enrichment of uranium Chapter 4: Enrichment using laser technology Chapter 5: High explosives tests and trigger mechanism Chapter 6: Neutron initiator Chapter 7: Manufacturing uranium metal (uranium hemisphere) Chapter 8: Hydro-dynamic tests and explosion vessels at Parchin site Chapter 9: Research on nuclear warhead Chapter 10: Key scientists and researchers engaged in possible military dimensions of nuclear program International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) was initially formed in 2008 as an informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Characteristics of Iran's Ballistic and Cruise Missiles
    Design Characteristics of Iran’s Ballistic and Cruise Missiles Last update: February 2013 Missile Nato or Type/ Length Diameter Payload Range (km) Accuracy ‐ Propellant Guidance Other Name System (m) (m) (kg)/warhead CEP (m) /Stages Artillery* Hasib/Fajr‐11* Rocket artillery (O) 0.83 0.107 6; HE 8.5 ‐ Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐12* Rocket artillery (O) 1.29 0.244 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐23* Rocket artillery (O) 1.82 0.333 120; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐14* Rocket artillery (O) 2.8 0.122 18.3; HE 21.5 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐25* Rocket artillery (O) 3.2 0.122 18.3; HE 30 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐36* Rocket artillery (O) 2 0.122 18.3; HE 18 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐17* Rocket artillery (O) 2.9 0.33 190; HE 13 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐28* Rocket artillery (O) 3.9 0.33 190; HE 20 Solid Spin stabilized Oghab9* Rocket artillery (O) 4.82 0.233 70; HE 40 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐310* Rocket artillery (O) 5.2 0.24 45; HE 45 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐511* Rocket artillery (O) 6.6 0.33 90; HE 75 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐112* Rocket artillery (O) 1.38 0.24 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐213* Rocket artillery (O) 1.8 0.333 60; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐614* Rocket artillery (O) 6.3 0.355 150; HE 100 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat15* Rocket artillery (O) 5.9 0.355 150; HE 120 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐116* Iran‐130 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 100‐125 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐1A17* Mushak‐120 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 160 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐1018* Mushak‐160 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.45 250; HE 150 Solid Spin stabilized Related content is available on the website for the Nuclear Threat Initiative, www.nti.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2020 Full Issue
    Naval War College Review Volume 73 Number 1 Winter 2020 Article 1 2020 Winter 2020 Full Issue The U.S. Naval War College Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Naval War College, The U.S. (2020) "Winter 2020 Full Issue," Naval War College Review: Vol. 73 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol73/iss1/1 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Naval War College: Winter 2020 Full Issue Winter 2020 Volume 73, Number 1 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2020 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 73 [2020], No. 1, Art. 1 Cover Two modified Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IV interceptors are launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) test to intercept a short-range ballistic-missile target, conducted on the Pacific Missile Range Facility, west of Hawaii, in 2008. The SM-2 forms part of the Aegis ballistic-missile defense (BMD) program. In “A Double-Edged Sword: Ballistic-Missile Defense and U.S. Alli- ances,” Robert C. Watts IV explores the impact of BMD on America’s relationship with NATO, Japan, and South Korea, finding that the forward-deployed BMD capability that the Navy’s Aegis destroyers provide has served as an important cement to these beneficial alliance relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining 10 Warning Signs of Iran Nuclear Weapons Development
    International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) President: Dr. Alejo Vidal-Quadras Rue d’Arlon 63, B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel : +32 2 400 1071 [email protected] www.isjcommittee.com EXAMINING 10 WARNING SIGNS OF IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 20,2014 Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras, Former Vice‐President of European Parliament, Professor of Atomic and Nuclear Physics: “An objective, thoroughly researched report on the core issue of the nature of Iranian nuclear program and its status”. Bob Jospeh, Former US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Senior White House Security Council staff on weapons of mass destruction: “A critically important report at a critically important time”. John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security: "A timely and well document report with alarming findings on Iran's nuclear program." Contents Executive summary Chapter 1: SPND (organ in charge of weaponization) Chapter 2: Procurement of dual purpose equipment and its possible use for military dimensions of nuclear program Chapter 3: Secret enrichment of uranium Chapter 4: Enrichment using laser technology Chapter 5: High explosives tests and trigger mechanism Chapter 6: Neutron initiator Chapter 7: Manufacturing uranium metal (uranium hemisphere) Chapter 8: Hydro-dynamic tests and explosion vessels at Parchin site Chapter 9: Research on nuclear warhead Chapter 10: Key scientists and researchers engaged in possible military dimensions of nuclear program International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) was initially formed in 2008 as an informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • ISRAEL and the WMD THREAT: LESSONS for EUROPE by Cameron S
    ISRAEL AND THE WMD THREAT: LESSONS FOR EUROPE By Cameron S. Brown* Having faced a growing threat from the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for the past several decades, Israel has been forced to make counter-proliferation a top national defense priority.(1) It has invested billions of dollars in developing a multi-layered national defense strategy that is arguably the most highly developed of any country on earth. As such, Israel's experience in this field can offer several important lessons (from its mistakes and successes) for European countries that are only now coming under the range of several rogue countries' long-range missile systems, not to mention the growing threat of WMD terrorism (This article was originally written for a project and conference on "Countering Threats in the Era of Mass Destruction: Accounts from the Middle East and Europe," co-sponsored by the GLORIA Center and The Military Centre for Strategic Studies (CeMiSS) of Italy.) THE ISRAELI THREAT Secondly, in any conflict, Israel is PERCEPTION heavily dependent on a system of calling up In order to understand what policies reserve solders to reinforce its small Israel has devised and employed in order to standing army. Should one of Israel's counter WMD proliferation, it is imperative adversaries use a WMD in the first few to consider the threats Israeli security hours of hostilities--and especially if it hit planners have taken into consideration near a mobilization center--it would when formulating these strategies.(2) unquestionably impede any efficient The gravity of the situation for Israel lies mobilization of the reserve forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Covers Relating to the Iran/Iraq Tanker War
    THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR AND RENAMED TANKERS ~ Lawrence Brennan, (US Navy Ret.) SHIP COVERS RELATING TO THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR & REFLAGGED KUWAITI TANKERS, 1987-881 “The Kuwaiti fleet reads like a road map of southern New Jersey” By Captain Lawrence B. Brennan, U.S. Navy Retired2 Thirty years ago there was a New Jersey connection to the long-lasting Iran-Iraq War. That eight years of conflict was one of the longest international two-state wars of the 20th century, beginning in September 1980 and effectively concluding in a truce in August 1988. The primary and bloody land war between Iran and Iraq began during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The Shah had left Iran and that year the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The conflict expanded to sea and involved many neutral nations whose shipping came under attack by the combatants. The parties’ intent was to damage their opponents’ oil exports and revenues and decrease world supplies. Some suggested that Iran and Iraq wanted to draw other states into the conflict. An Iranian source explained the origin of the conflict at sea. The tanker war seemed likely to precipitate a major international incident for two reasons. First, some 70 percent of Japanese, 50 percent of West European, and 7 percent of American oil imports came from the Persian Gulf in the early 1980s. Second, the assault on tankers involved neutral shipping as well as ships of the belligerent states.3 The relatively obscure first phase began in 1981, and the well-publicized second phase began in 1984. New Jersey, half a world away from the Persian (Arabian) gulf, became involved when the United States agreed to escort Kuwait tankers in an effort to support a friendly nation and keep the international waters open.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper 2 1 Russian Missiles
    Turkey’s Turbulent Journey with the EPAA and Quest for a National System By Nilsu Gören Executive Summary This paper provides an overview of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) missile defense debate from a Turkish perspective. While Turkey participates in the EPAA by hosting a U.S. early-warning radar in Kurecik, Malatya, its political and military concerns with NATO guarantees have led to the AKP government's quest for a national long-range air and missile defense system. However, Turkish decision makers' insistence on technology transfer shows that the Turkish debate is not adequately informed by the lessons learned from the EPAA, particularly the technical and financial challenges of missile defense. Introduction With Turkey being the closest NATO nation to the Middle East and lacking a robust integrated air and missile defense architecture, Turkish policymakers face decisions on continuing to rely on NATO resources, investing in indigenous capabilities, or procuring foreign systems. While the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands have historically provided Patriot systems to southeast Turkey, Turkey has political and technical concerns about NATO guarantees under the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), leading to the proposition that Turkey needs to develop indigenous air and missile defense capabilities to reduce vulnerability. However, Turkey’s controversial tender for the foreign acquisition of a long-range air and missile defense system, dubbed the T-LORAMIDS process, has led to concerns within NATO about Turkey’s strategic orientation and intentions. This paper first identifies the missile threats to Turkey, mainly from Syria and Iran. It then defines Turkey’s role in the EPAA and the Turkish activities towards procurement of a national long-range air and missile defense system that would allow for technology transfer to eventually achieve indigenous design.
    [Show full text]
  • Escalation of Attacks on Shipping and Growing Involvement of Foreign Navies Passage of UN Security Council Resolution Calling for Ceasefire
    Keesing's Record of World Events (formerly Keesing's Contemporary Archives), Volume 33, December, 1987 Iran, Iraq, Page 35597 © 1931-2006 Keesing's Worldwide, LLC - All Rights Reserved. Escalation of attacks on shipping and growing involvement of foreign navies Passage of UN security Council resolution calling for ceasefire Summary and key dates Chartering of Soviet tankers by Kuwait (April 1987). Attacks on Soviet vessels (May). Iraqi attack on USS Stark (May 17). Growing involvement of US Navy in Gulf (May; June). Escalation of mine warfare and attacks on tankers (June-July). Reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers under US flag (July 21). Mine damage to reflagged tanker Bridgeton (July 24). Ordering of European minesweepers and warships to Gulf (August; September). Iranian missile attacks on Kuwait (early September). Attack on UK-registered tanker (Sept. 21). Closure of Iranian arms procurement office in London (Sept. 23). US attack on Iranian mine-laying vessel (Sept. 21). Further exchanges between Iranian and US forces (September-November). Iranian gains in north-eastern Iraq (April to August). Air attacks on cities and on Iranian nuclear installation (September-November). Passage of UN security Council ceasefire resolution (July 20). Reactions to resolution; further diplomatic efforts (July-November). Chartering of Soviet tankers by Kuwait - Attacks on Soviet vessels During late March and early April 1987, Iraq continued to carry out bombing raids against Iranian oil installations at Kharg Island, and also against tankers carrying Iranian oil. It was confirmed in mid-April that Kuwait, a strong supporter of Iraq, and the object of numerous Iranian threats, had chartered three Soviet-registered tankers, which would thereby become entitled to Soviet naval protection.
    [Show full text]