NATO, TBMD, SIRIUS and APAR

NATO, TBMD, SIRIUS and APAR fter at least ten years of intense, behind-the-scenes preparatory Ameetings and, more impor- tantly, a series of very expensive, multi- government R&D programs to actually design, build and test various key com- ponents for use within U.S. “missile defense” systems, NATO finally went public. On March 11, 2005, NATO publicly admitted that it was building a “missile defense” system. Spokesmen for the military alliance announced a 650 million-euro spending spree to produce “a deployable theatre missile defense capability to give protection to troops against incoming missiles.”1 This NATO proclamation came about two weeks after Canada’s Lib- eral government loudly pretended to “say no to missile defense.” NATO’s plans, and Canada’s long-standing in- volvement in them, went by almost completely unnoticed by the media. By 2000, the Canadian government and military reps were already meeting four times per year with coun- terparts from the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands and Italy to begin “defin- ing requirements for a TBMD [Theater Ballistic Missile Defence] capability.”12 Besides these five NATO gov- ernments, called the “Maritime TBMD Forum,” Japan was also preparing for a joint “TBMD capability” with the US. It had come onboard in 1999 by joining U.S. efforts to develop the Standard Missile-3, the weapon of choice for AE- GIS, the U.S. Navy’s TBMD system.3 For many years, the U.S. had pushed hard within NATO “to attract About two weeks after Canada’s Liberal government international partners” to establish pretended to “say no” to “ballistic missile defense” (BMD), “a cooperative programme for the de- NATO publicly admitted its plans for a Theater BMD system velopment, production and support to protect troops while deployed in faraway wars. This of a future Maritime Theater Ballis- 4 tic Missile Defence capability.” news went unnoticed in Canada, as had 10 years of NATO But, not surprising, they didn’t have to planning, and a series of expensive multi-governmental R&D push too hard. By 2000, the U.S. was programs (in which Canada gladly took part) that designed, also seeing Spain and Norway as po- built and tested various key TBMD weapons systems. tential “missile defense” collaborators because they had purchased SIRIUS sensor, which began in 1995, called APAR, or Active Phased Array “AEGIS combat systems and asso- was a valuable contribution to NATO’s Radar. APAR “provides air and sur- ciated AN/SPY-1 radar technology TBMD weapons system. face search and weapon fire control.”6 that could form the basis of a TBMD To understand how SIRIUS fits In other words, APAR uses radio waves capability.”5 into NATO’s plans to use “missile to scan for incoming surface and air tar- Canada’s role in the project be- defense” weaponry, it is necessary to gets, to track them, and then to control gan even earlier. The joint work of know that SIRIUS works in concert with the firing of a ship’s missiles. Canada and the Netherlands on the another Thales-built sensor system SIRIUS is said to complement 12 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 57) October 2005 APAR “under conditions unfavorable This exemplifies the fact that tect forward-deployed warships, is ex- for radar alone.”7 Because SIRIUS uses “theater missile defense” weaponry is actly what Canadian military officials infrared frequencies, rather than radio not for protecting the “homeland.” and politicians have had in mind, over waves, it is considered a Rather, its function is simply to pro- the years, when they approved the “complementary sensor to radar… tect weapons and troops that are wag- multibillion-dollar design, development, [and] ensures an effective capabil- ing wars abroad. testing, production and acquisition of ity against all threats, especially un- The idea that “missile defense” “missile defense”-compatible weapons der restricted EMCON circum- technology is supposed to act as a systems for Canada’s Navy. Chris- stances.”8 (Emphasis added) shield to defend North America from topher R. Bullock has explained this (“EMCON,” or “Emission Control,” re- attack is merely a clever ruse designed concept very well in an essay called fers to “the management and control of to build public support for this mas- “Canadian Ballistic Missile Defence electronic emissions to maintain stealth sive, multi-billion dollar scheme. It is all from the Sea: Interoperability and Sea- and avoid detection.”9 big lie, a pretext invented to deceive Based BMD.” In speaking of the “need taxpayers into agreeing to open the for the U.S. and Canada to deploy” The Function of public purse to military contractors. If their military forces abroad, Bullock “Theater Missile Defense” people knew that the main function of notes that such deployment Because SIRIUS doesn’t use radar “missile defense” is really to protect “requires a capacity to protect their waves, warships using this technology military forces and their weapons sys- forces from asymmetrical weapons. cannot be detected or targeted by en- tems while they are waging wars far from Given that the majority of armed con- emies with radar-seeking missiles. home, they would be far less likely to flicts or humanitarian interventions Therefore, warships with SIRIUS can support funding such a wildly expen- will take place within the 300 miles of safely target their weapons, even when sive weapons program. the coast, a warship’s versatility and deployed in hostile territory where the Clearly, the reality that “missile flexibility makes them the ideal plat- enemy has radar-seeking technology. defense” technology is meant to pro- forms for defence against ballistic The Sword and the Shield “Shields may be protective, but linked to swords, they are part of an offensive and provocative system.”1 o understand the idea that a military’s most effective offensive posture absolutely requires a good defen- Tsive shield, we would do well to consider a metaphor. Picture a mediaeval crusader. Such warriors would never dream of entering the fray without a shield. To do so might be suicidal, no matter how deadly the sword in hand. Throughout history, war strategists have known it is just as important to equip troops with defensive weapons as it is to ensure that they have their hands on latest implements of death and destruction. France’s president, Jacques Chirac, has said: “If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there’s a permanent race between sword and “To win the war, you must have not only the best of- shield. The sword always wins. The fensive systems, but also the best defensive ones. This more improvements that are made has become even more true given that body-bags are not to the shield, the more improve- acceptable to public opinion. TMD will become an essen- 2 ments are made to the sword.” tial part of a rapid reaction force in regions where a threat However, as Martin Broek and of ballistic missiles exist.”3 Frank Slijper have pointed out in their excellent paper, “Theatre Mis- References sile Defence [TMD]: First steps to- 1. Ernie Regehr, “Ballistic Missile Defence and Canada’s Vital wards global missile defence,” what Security Interests,” Ploughshares Briefing (#05/5), June 2004. Chirac neglected to mention was 2. “With a Don’t Be Vexed Air, Chirac Assesses U.S,” New York that “the person carrying the most Times, Dec. 17, 1999. 64.177.207.201/pages/8_250.html lethal sword is usually the one car- 3. Martin Broek and Frank Slijper, “Theatre Missile Defence,” rying the best shield as well.” They Working Group Eurobomb, Project on European Nuclear Non- go on to explain TMD’s “primary Proliferation -Netherlands, May 2001. task”: www.antenna.nl/amokmar/pdf/PENN-TMD01.pdf. October 2005 (Issue # 57) Press for Conversion! 13 missiles. If Canada maintains its shift on proven U.S. systems, including especially the United States?”, was towards expeditionary forces and a increases in the potential level of written while he was an MA student defence policy of preserving inter- interoperability. While there is no affiliated with the University of national stability alongside its allies, silver bullet in missile defence, a sea- Calgary’s Centre for Military and Stra- the government must be willing to based BMD capability for Canada’s tegic Studies (CMSS). deploy its forces to theatres threat- navy will enable the deployment of This think tank, is home to Pro- ened by ballistic missiles, cruise Canadian and U.S. forces with in- fessor James Fergusson, a “defense missiles and weapons of mass de- creased protection from this grow- analyst” who is possibly Canada’s fore- struction.”10 (Emphasis added) ing asymmetrical threat.”11 most, academic proponent of “missile Bullock concludes that there are “sig- Bullock’s paper, which answers defense.” Often turned to by the cor- nificant advantages inherent” for the question: “How can the Canadian porate media as an “objective” author- Canada in Forces best prepare themselves for ity on the so-called “missile defense “developing future BMD capabilities interoperability with Canada’s allies, shield,” Fergusson has been referred U.S. using AEGIS to draw Allied Navies into BMD he AEGIS weapons system is at the cutting edge of the U.S. navy’s “missile defense” scheme. For dec- Tades, U.S. war planners have been dreaming of the day when allied forces will wage foreign wars under the protective cover of a single, multinational “missile defense shield.” This goal is now being achieved in a stealthy, step- by-step fashion with the U.S. influencing the selection of new military technologies being purchased by allied nations.

Load more