ALASKA MISSILE DEFENSE EARLY BIRD WEEKLY · ALASKA SPECIFIC NEWS BREAKS #45 JANUARY 6, 2002-JANUARY 10, 2002 NORTH KOREA’S LONG-RANGE MISSILE, NUCLEAR ARMS UP THE ANTE FOR ALASKA,

ALASKA MISSILE DEFENSE WEEKLY (Forty-Fifth Edition)

Compiled by: Ms. Hillary Pesanti, Community Relations Specialist Command Representative for Missile Defense

907.552.1038 [email protected]

Note: Click on any storyline for more information. Archived editions can be viewed at: http://www.akrepublicans.org/22ndleg/jointarms.shtml#links

JANUARY 6, 2002-JANUARY 10, 2002 ALASKA SPECIFIC NEWS BREAKS • North Korea’s long-range missile, nuclear arms up the ante for Alaska, Anchorage

Daily News • U.S. defense spending heading to Reagan-era levels, Bloomberg.com MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2002 • Israel, as conflict looms, tests a missile shield, The New York Times • Israeli defenses much improved since Gulf War; ‘painful’ response vowed to any

new Iraqi attack, The Washington Post • PAC-3 missile set for more tests, possible Persian Gulf use, Aerospace Daily • North Korea blasts U.S. missile defense plan, Japan Today • Nuclear arming could snowball, Los Angeles Times • Air Force seeks solutions to reduce Space-based Radar development risks, Defense

Daily TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2002 • MDA to release RFP kicking off new boost phase interceptor effort, Defense Daily • North Korea’s missile has better than expected accuracy: Report, Agence France

Presse

• British Defense Secretary meets with concerned residents about missile defense, Associated Press

• Israel tests Arrow weapon system in new flight test series, Defense Daily • Analysis: Israel’s new missile defense, BBC News • Air Force awards Northrop $181 million to modernize ICBM guidance systems,

ANSER • Raytheon to provide primary sensor payloads for Missile Defense Agency’s space

tracking surveillance system program, ANSER • Experts question China’s plan to put man in space, Florida Today WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 • Fully deployed missile defense system could cost $1 trillion, Inside Missile Defense • Pentagon plans no intercept testing until autumn, Global Security Newswire • Army clears Kaua’i site for missile project, Honolulu Advertiser • U.S. optimistic about Russia on ABM, Associated Press • Lockheed Martin receives $341 million for more PAC-3 missiles, Bloomberg.com • Hoon promotes missile defense radar site upgrade to Yorkshire community, Defense

Daily • Protecting America: Missile defense belongs in mix but not at top, The Dallas

Morning News THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2002 • Pentagon cancels missile intercept tests, Associated Press • Russia missile defense, Washington Times • Russia offers U.S. new missile defense agreement, Interfax (Russia) • Top General says prospective U.S. missile defense is threat to Russia, Associated

Press • India tests nuclear-capable missile, Reuters FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 2002 • North Korea says it is withdrawing from Arms Treaty, New York Times • Russia proposes plan on missile defense, Associated Press • Joint U.S.-Russia shield proposed, Globe and Mail (Canada) • U.S. request for use of Greenland base for missile shield to be answered in June,

Associated Press • McCallum says Canada may join U.S. war against Iraq, Reuters

ALASKA SPECIFIC NEWS BREAKS #45 JANUARY 6, 2002-JANUARY 10, 2002 NORTH KOREA’S LONG-RANGE MISSILE, NUCLEAR ARMS UP THE ANTE FOR ALASKA, Anchorage Daily News, January 10, 2003. While the nuclear standoff between the United States and North Korea galvanizes international attention, Alaskans may be forgiven for taking a somewhat parochial interest. Alaska’s special concern has to do with the range of the Taepodong-2 missile believed to be under development by the North Korean government. The most common U.S. and South Korean military estimates of the two-stage missile’s maximum range is about 6,000 kilometers -- 3,700 miles -- the distance from Pyongyang to Anchorage…Naturally, estimates of the Taepodong-2’s reach have figured into U.S. debates over national missile defense. North Korea’s potential for striking Alaska was raised in a 1998 report to Congress, which cited the threat as a reason for moving forward with a missile defense system. Alaska-based interceptors would be well positioned to defend against a Taepodong flung toward Anchorage, military officials say. On the other hand, Alaskans might prefer not to have U.S. officials assume the interceptors will actually work when weighing whether to provoke North Korean leaders. U.S. DEFENSE SPENDING HEADING TO REAGAN-ERA LEVELS, Bloomberg.com, January 8, 2003. U.S. spending on defense must grow by as much as 27 percent over the next 15 years to support planned weapons programs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The projected annual average of $387 billion through 2007 may increase to as much as $490 billion by 2017, the agency says in a report. U.S. military spending peaked under former President Ronald Reagan in 1986: $421 billion, when priced in 2002 dollars. ‘‘CBO’s projections indicate that defense budgets comparable to or greater than those realized in the 1980s would have to be sustained for more than decade to execute the current plans,’’ CBO Acting Director Barry Anderson told reporters. The study is the first by Congress’s independent economic analysts of the expense attached to President George W. Bush’s effort to give the military services better communications, real- time intelligence and precision-guided weapons. It was requested by the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, and its evidence that the Bush plan is under-funded likely will frame debate on the fiscal 2004 defense budget that will be formally submitted next month. The report also will help investors and defense industry portfolio managers assess trends in military spending and likely areas of growth, such as space-based platforms. Growth Areas The report for instance, concludes that annual funding for research, development and weapons purchases may have to increase 38 percent to $178 billion by 2008 from $128

billion this year if weapons costs grow along historic patterns. The increase would be closer to 17 percent -- about $151 billion -- in the absence of major cost growth, CBO said. The report is posted on the CBO web site at httpwww.cbo.gov . Most of this money would go to a handful of major weapons programs, including the Lockheed Martin Corp. F/A-22 and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, Boeing Co.-Textron Inc. V-22 Osprey; Boeing Co. Comanche helicopter and Future Combat System ground vehicle program, General Dynamics Corp.-Northrop Grumman Corp. DDG- 51 and DD-X warship programs and missile defense. The Pentagon’s budget also includes medical, payroll, and operations costs that could be higher than projected, CBO said. It also assumes a fifth round of base closings that would start in 2005 and result in about $5 billion annually in savings, and CBO notes that Congress could refuse to approve these closings. Only ‘Minor’ Changes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last year told lawmakers that cost projections showed there wouldn’t be enough money ‘‘beyond fiscal 2007’’ to pay for the weapons system now planned. The U.S. must make ‘‘decisions now about major defense acquisition programs,’’ Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 16. The report notes that only ‘‘minor’’ changes were made in the fiscal 2003-2007 military plan it examined. ‘‘The administration’s current policies stress the importance of transforming the nation’s military force but they make few substantial changes to those forces or to the defense programs that will sustain them in the long term’’ CBO said. ‘‘In addition, the administration has not announced any major changes to military force structure’’ that drive military pay, medical and retirement expenses, the report said. Missile Defense The CBO projects that the annual budget to develop and field the first legs of a ground- and sea-based missile defense program could increase by as much as $3 billion, or about 40 percent. The plan calls for a system of air-, sea- and space-based weapons and satellites to counter a variety of missiles. Boeing Co. has a $6.4 billion, five-year contract to manage this development. The U.S. in June broke ground on an expanded test site at Fort Greely, Alaska and silos are being dug. The program includes the Lockheed Martin PAC-3 missile, Boeing 747 airborne-mounted laser and Raytheon Co. Standard Missile-3 shipboard missile interceptor. The Pentagon’s fiscal 2003-2007 plan calls for spending an average of $7 billion to $8 billion on developing and fielding by 2004 of an initial anti-missile system. About $1.5 billion was added to the fiscal 2004 budget to accelerate deployment of a ground-based system in Alaska. CBO projected that, barring major cost growth, investment in missile defense would peak in 2009 at about $10 billion and then decrease as systems finish procurement and

become operational. Still, ‘‘if costs grow as they have historically,’’ missile defense programs would cost an additional $3 billion a year on average, peaking at about $13 billion in 2009,’’ CBO wrote. CBO projected the ground-based system could be completed around 2014 at a total cost of about $25 billion. A shipboard system, depending on the number of missiles purchased and warships converted for the mission, could cost up to $17 billion, CBO said. Budget projections ‘‘play an important role in planning but are also speculative from the standpoint that systems included in the projections, as well as the number deployed, have not been determined,’’ U.S. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Air Force Lt. Colonel Rick Lehner said. GLOBAL NEWS BREAKS #45 MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2002 ISRAEL, AS CONFLICT LOOMS, TESTS A MISSILE SHIELD, The New York Times, January 6, 2003. The Israeli military [Jan. 5] carried out its first successful test-firing of the Arrow missile defense system against more than one incoming target, Israeli officials said. The test, carried out off Israel’s Mediterranean coast, was devised to simulate an attack by a salvo of missiles resembling Iraqi Scuds…Arieh Hertzog, director of Israel’s missile defense program, said in an interview [Jan. 5] that the Arrow system had performed successfully. The test was largely simulated; it involved the firing of one Arrow missile and three dummy rockets aimed at four computer-simulated targets. The Arrow missiles were fired in rapid succession, just seconds apart, at their simulated targets…The Israeli military has already put in place two Arrow missile batteries in the country, and it is rushing to perfect the system…The 23-foot-long Arrow is designed to intercept missiles at higher altitudes and at greater distances than the Patriot, and with much greater accuracy. Officials say the Arrow should be able to intercept an incoming missile in less than three minutes at altitudes of more than 30 miles. American troops are scheduled to hold exercises in Israel this month, Mr. Hertzog said. ISRAELI DEFENSES MUCH IMPROVED SINCE GULF WAR; ‘PAINFUL’ RESPONSE VOWED TO ANY NEW IRAQI ATTACK, The Washington Post, January 05, 2003…On the eve of a widely expected new war against Iraq, Israel is deploying one of the most sophisticated missile defense systems in the world, has its own spy satellite and radar warning system and has created a vast Home Front Command to prepare citizens and medical services for potential attacks… In November, Brig. Gen. Yair Dori, commander of Israel’s air defense forces, gathered a group of reporters around the weapon that has come to symbolize Israel’s effort to thwart a repeat

of the 39 Iraqi Scud missiles that terrorized this nation for weeks during the Gulf War. “Since 1991 we have built a huge, active defense system that will give Israel the ability to survive and make civilians feel safe in the next conflict,” Dori declared, standing before an Arrow-2 antiballistic missile battery at the Palmachim Air Force Base on the Mediterranean coast near Tel Aviv. “In 1991, we had almost nothing. Now we have a very active, robust defense.” Of all Israel’s efforts to improve defenses, no single program has consumed more money, evoked a greater image of high-technology advances or created a grander aura of a military safety net than the Arrow missile defense system…Two Arrow batteries have been deployed, Israeli officials say, one at the Palmachim base to provide cover for Tel Aviv and another near the northern city of Hadera. A third battery is under development. Israeli officials describe the Arrow-2 as the world’s first antiballistic missile system designed to destroy or intercept medium- or short-range missiles in the stratosphere. PAC-3 MISSILE SET FOR MORE TESTS, POSSIBLE PERSIAN GULF USE, Aerospace Daily, January 6, 2003. The Missile Defense Agency, which says it is fixing problems with the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptor missile, plans to conduct three tests of the Lockheed Martin-built missile over about the next 16 months…During the first MDA test, scheduled for May, two PAC-3 missiles will be fired at a single theater ballistic missile (TBM) target, which is expected to be a Storm, MDA said in a statement responding to questions. The test will seek to demonstrate “ripple fire,” or the launch of two PAC-3 missiles within a few seconds. “Current tactical doctrine is to use ripple fire against TBMs in order to achieve high confidence in killing the target,” MDA wrote. In February 2004, MDA again plans to fire two PAC-3 missiles at a single TBM target. A “multiple simultaneous engagement” is planned for April 2004, with four PAC-3 missiles to be launched at two TBM targets. Besides confirming to PAC-3 missile’s performance, the 2004 tests are supposed to demonstrate cost- reduction initiatives, including a lower cost Multi-frequency Radio Frequency Downlink, which will send data between the missile and ground systems during data between the missile and ground systems during flight. A reduced cost Master Frequency Generator in the seeker and a reduced cost Inertial Measurement Unit will be demonstrated. All three tests will be conducted at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. NORTH KOREA BLASTS U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE PLAN, Japan Today, January 6, 2003. North Korea, in a harshly worded dispatch carried by the (North) Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) monitored in Tokyo, charged Monday that a decision by U.S. President George Bush to deploy a missile defense system in 2004 is part of a U.S. plan to “take military sanctions and strike” North Korea. “The rumor about the nonexistent ‘missile threat’ from (North Korea) persistently spread by the U.S. is no more than a cunning trick to justify the establishment” of the missile defense system, KCNA said…KCNA added that in North Korean eyes the deployment decision “goes to clearly prove that the U.S. intends to launch military intervention against the North in a

bid to settle the bilateral issue not by peaceful means but by force.” The official news agency went on to warn that any attempt to contain North Korea by force could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. “If the U.S. unleashes a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula, it will not escape its own destruction,” KCNA said. NUCLEAR ARMING COULD SNOWBALL, Los Angeles Times, January 6, 2003. The vivid prospect of a North Korea with enough plutonium for six or eight bombs could prompt neighboring countries to consider building their own nuclear arsenals, security experts warn…A resumption in missile testing could, in turn, trigger a stampede for missile defense systems in Asia, experts said. Japan is already involved in joint studies with the United States on a sea-based missile interceptor, and last month stepped up its commitment to the research. The Japanese government stressed that it has made no decisions about deployment, however. “If the North Korean missile and nuclear program proceeds without restraint, it makes it more likely that the Japanese will decide to deploy missile defenses,” [Gary Samore, a former National Security Council official now at the Institute for International and Strategic Studies in London] said. South Korea and Taiwan might then clamor for similar technologies, and “the U.S. would have a hard time denying these to Taiwan,” he said. But China would view that as an unacceptable strengthening of the U.S.-Taiwanese security arrangement, Samore said. Conservatives argue that North Korea’s actions demonstrate the wisdom of the Bush administration decision to deploy missile defense technology. The way to protect the existing security infrastructure is to develop the ability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles, the delivery system of choice for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, said Peter Brookes, a former defense official who is now head of the Asian studies program at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. AIR FORCE SEEKS SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE SPACE BASED RADAR DEVELOPMENT RISKS, Defense Daily, January 6, 2003. The Air Force Research Laboratory, in cooperation with Air Force Electronic Systems Center, is seeking solutions to reduce the risk associated with development, deployment and operation of a Space Based Radar (SBR) system…This SBR risk reduction effort will improve the SBR capability provided to the warfighter in the form of an enhanced operational capability, the Air Force said. Within the overall SBR system, commands must be up-linked to the sensor constellation, which in turn downlinks sensor products. This is to include radar modes for GMTI, SAR and High Range Resolution (HRR) for various areas, revisit times and resolutions and the resulting data products, the Air Force said. In the area of collection management, developments allowing the dynamic re-tasking of a satellite sensor from theatre in a timely, assured, secure, and spacecraft vehicle safe manner are required, the Air Force said. This area will explore different conceptual architectures to satisfy national and tactical users for satellite sensor re-tasking and include timely status notification.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2002 MDA TO RELEASE RFP KICKING OFF NEW BOOST PHASE INTERCEPTOR EFFORT, Defense Daily, January 7, 2003. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) today is expected to release a draft request for proposals (RFP) for a new kinetic energy boost phase interceptor (KE BPI) program, with the final RFP slated for a Feb. 4 release, according to program officials. MDA expects to award up to three firm-fixed price eight-month contracts worth a total of $10 million in April. At the end of that concept development time frame, MDA expects to select one contractor to proceed with development and testing of the new interceptor. Program officials said this week that the MDA’s plan for the KE BPI program directs that the KE BPI must have a minimum of five successful flight tests before a production decision is made. In addition, the last three of those five flight tests must be production quality hardware, officials said. MDA also expects the contractor selected to provide a per unit cost estimate for six interceptors. It intends to procure 17 KE BPIs for the ballistic missile defense system testbed. However, program officials said, there is not yet an estimate for the potential total number of production interceptors. Longer-term test plans call for about four to six flight tests of the new interceptor per year. Then, the interceptor configuration would be upgraded and replaced in the missile defense testbed as necessary, officials said. In addition, MDA intends to move the KE PBI to a sea-based capability as soon as it would be practical, officials noted. This land-based KE BPI effort is planned as precursor to a more futuristic space-based KE BPI testbed. NORTH KOREA’S MISSILE HAS BETTER THAN EXPECTED ACCURACY: REPORT, Agence France Presse, January 7, 2003. North Korea’s Rodong-1 ballistic missile, which can hit almost all of the Japanese islands, is more accurate than previously thought, local media reported Tuesday. “The probability that it lands within two kilometers (1.25 miles) from the target is 50 percent,” the Jiji news agency reported, quoting unspecified sources. The information on the Rodong’s accuracy has been obtained by Japan’s Defense Agency, Jiji said, without elaborating who provided the data. In its 2002 white paper, the agency said the Rodong, with an estimated range of 1,300 kilometers (806 miles), is “able to reach almost all of Japan’s territory.” The Rodong, based on Scud missile technology, might not, however, be accurate enough to “carry out pinpoint attacks on specific target installations.” The Rodong is “feared to cause tremendous damage” if it is fired toward big cities like Tokyo, although the reported accuracy is not so great as missiles possessed by countries other than North Korea, the sources said. BRITISH DEFENSE SECRETARY MEETS WITH CONCERNED RESIDENTS ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE, Associated Press, January 6, 2003. Britain’s defense secretary met on Monday with concerned residents of an area near an early warning station that the United States wants to use for its missile defense plan. “It is important

that the people living in Yorkshire are given the opportunity to contribute to the public debate on Missile Defense, and on the request to upgrade Fylingdales in particular, before decisions are taken,” Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said. Local residents and anti-war campaigners are opposing the proposals, which the government is considering. At two public meetings, Hoon met with residents living close to the Fylingdales Royal Air Force base in the North Yorkshire Moors. He outlined the U.S. proposal and discussed the impact it could have on the local area, saying it was likely that the upgrade could be managed within the site’s existing buildings. “The U.S. proposal would require no alteration to the appearance of the radar or the infrastructure of the station, and no new land would be required,” he said. “The base and its operations would remain under U.K. government control.” Hoon said the power and frequency output would not change and would as such pose no risk to the health of local people or livestock. Answering local concerns that missile defense facilities might make Fylingdales a possible target for attack, Hoon said, “We have considered this carefully and assess that it is highly improbable.” “For the foreseeable future, the countries of concern are unlikely to have the capability to target specific places or installations. Neither do we believe that there would be any change in the terrorist threat to Fylingdales.” ISRAEL TESTS ARROW WEAPON SYSTEM IN NEW FLIGHT TEST SERIES, Defense Daily, January 7, 2003. The Israeli Ministry of Defense (MoD) yesterday reported a successful test of the Arrow Weapon System, the first in the latest series of tests against new expanded targets. The flight test, conducted on Jan. 5, was the first of a series intended to evaluate the system’s performance against the next generation of incoming threats, the MoD said in a statement. The test is part of the Arrow System Improvement Program and also marked the Arrow Interceptor test and the fifth test of the complete weapon system. The test was conducted from the Palmachim Air Base, south of Tel Aviv…During this latest test, four simulated targets were injected into the fire control radar. An incoming target was not needed for the test, the MoD noted. All of the Arrow system components performed in their operational configuration, the MoD reported. Immediately after the target firing, the test director initiated the targets simulation. Then, the Arrow fire control radar acquired the targets and the battle management command center calculated the defense plan for each target and sent a mission command to the launcher. The launcher was equipped with six interceptors and four of them were launched, the MoD noted. The test interceptor was the first to be launched and it was then followed by three short burning time motor interceptors, to check the multi launching process, it said. “The test objectives which were defined together with the U.S. partner, were to analyze the interceptor’s performance under special flight conditions,” the MoD said. ANALYSIS: ISRAEL’S NEW MISSILE DEFENCE, BBC News, January 7, 2003. The Israeli-developed Arrow II system is undoubtedly the world’s most sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system. It has achieved impressive results in tests, including the

latest on 5 January against multiple simulated targets. Developed with considerable U.S. money, the system comprises: missiles, launcher, Green Pine radar to identify targets, Citron Tree Battle Management System. Israel is thought to have two operational Arrow batteries: one at the testing site on the coast at the Palmachim base, south of Tel Aviv; the other covering the central part of the country to the east of the town of Hadera. Approval has been given to build a third battery. Each battery reportedly costs some $170m…Israel now has Patriot missiles of its own. And several hundred U.S. troops with additional batteries are on exercise in Israel. The idea is to see how the Arrow, the Patriot and their associated radars can be integrated into a nationwide defensive system. The U.S. deployment is also intended to reassure Israel. There are fears that if Iraq does have a small number of Scud missiles it might try to fire them at Israel in the event of a U.S. attack. Just as last time around, Washington wants to keep Israel firmly on the sidelines. The early stages of any war are likely to see U.S. and allied special forces inserted into western Iraq to try to control the so-called “Scud-boxes” or known firing areas. Israel’s defences are at a high state of alert. The Arrow is so far untested in real combat. And whatever the claims made for its performance, most Israelis will probably hope that their country’s defensive Arrow will not be needed if a new Gulf war comes. AIR FORCE AWARDS NORTHROP $181 MILLION TO MODERNIZE ICBM GUIDANCE SYSTEMS, ANSER, January 8, 2003. Northrop Grumman Corporation's Mission Systems sector was awarded a $181 million contract recently to continue full-rate production of the ICBM Guidance Replacement Program, which is upgrading the guidance-system electronics in the Minuteman III missile to extend its service life through 2020. This is the fourth of eight production awards from the U.S. Air Force ICBM Systems Project Office at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The total value of the GRP Program to the ICBM Prime teams is $1.57 billion. "This announcement culminates more than $1 billion in various awards to Northrop Grumman's ICBM team this year, greatly expanding our prime role and endorsing the results of excellent performance," said Dr. Donald C. Winter, Northrop Grumman corporate vice president and president of its Mission Systems sector based in Reston, Va. "I am proud of our longstanding relationship with the Air Force on the ICBM program where close coordination and a dedicated team effort have resulted in an extremely successful program." Northrop Grumman's teammate, Boeing Electronic Systems Missile Defense, Anaheim, Calif., produces the missile guidance sets for the GRP. Honeywell Space Systems Division, Clearwater, Fla., is a major subcontractor to Boeing and provides the system's computer. “In addition to GRP and other longstanding modernization programs - part of a $6 billion, 15-year effort, Northrop Grumman is now upgrading launch control centers, transferring Peacekeeper warheads to existing Minuteman III missiles, and modernizing communications equipment. As we cap our fifth year managing the nation's force of 500 Minuteman III missiles, we will continue meeting milestones to

take the ICBM program forward," said Winter. Another key life-extension effort proceeding this year is the Propulsion Replacement Program, which entered its second year of full-rate production with an October award of $224 million. Northrop Grumman also manages the Propulsion System Rocket Engine Life Extension Program, awarded in 2001, which will refurbish the liquid propulsion stage of the Minuteman III missile. In addition to Northrop Grumman's annual sustainment award in October for $135 million, new modernization efforts awarded this year include the Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle Program, awarded in April for $170 million, which transfers Peacekeeper reentry vehicles onto the Minuteman III to enhance the safety and maintain reliability of the reentry vehicle; the Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting Service Life Extension Program worth $65 million to upgrade the launch command centers; and the Minuteman Minimum Essential Emergency Communication Network program worth $46 million to upgrade launch control communications. Prior to the ICBM prime role, Northrop Grumman served as systems engineering and technical advisor to the Air Force helping it manage the ICBM fleet for almost 45 years. Under this arrangement, the ICBM System Project Office directed a number of associate contractors that provided various elements of the ICBM system. Today, Northrop Grumman serves as prime contractor, working closely with the Air Force and leading a team comprised of our nation's core ICBM industrial base. RAYTHEON TO PROVIDE PRIMARY SENSOR PAYLOADS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY’S SPACE TRACKING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM PROGRAM, ANSER, December 8, 2003. Raytheon is making preparations to provide the primary sensor payload for the Space Tracking and Surveillance System missile defense system, formerly known as Space-Based Infrared System Low, to prime contractor Northrop Grumman. Both companies have signed a contract valued at approximately $200 million for the delivery of sensor payloads. As the prime contractor for the STSS program, Northrop Grumman was previously awarded an $868 million contract from the Missile Defense Agency to begin development of the STSS system. The contract defines the efforts associated with Block 06 of the STSS development that provide the initial space and ground segment assets. The Raytheon STSS sensor payload was developed for the continual observation of ballistic missiles in the boost, midcourse, and reentry phases of flight. Composed of an acquisition sensor, a tracking sensor, and processing subsystem, the STSS sensor payload will provide protection from evolving threats to national security. These state-of-the-art components have successfully demonstrated performance in thermal vacuum tests against simulated targets. "We are pleased to have been selected by the MDA-Northrop Grumman team to provide the critical spaceborne infrared payloads for the Ballistic Missile Defense System Testbed," said Stephen Nordel, Raytheon's program executive for STSS. "Our

acquisition and tracking sensors will demonstrate the value of space-based IR for midcourse discrimination and counter-counter measurechallenges. Our STSS payload enables a layered defense against ballistic missile threats and complements Raytheon's ground-based radars and enhances our EKV [Exo-Atmospheric Vehicle] fire control solution." Raytheon is a leader in a broad range of missile defense technologies and initiatives, including the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, the Ground-Based Radar-Prototype, X-Band Radar, Upgraded Early Warning Radar and the PAVE PAWS Early Warning Radar for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Segment. The company also supports Sea-based Midcourse and Terminal Defense, provides the Ground-Based Radar element for the Theater High-altitude Area Defense program, and its Patriot systems continue to be mainstays for theater ballistic missile defense. Raytheon is the prime contractor and integrator for the PAC-3 system and continues to provide the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System for many U.S. and allied forces. EXPERTS QUESTION CHINA’S PLAN TO PUT MAN IN SPACE, Florida Today, December 8, 2003. China may be mere months away from becoming the third nation with the capability to independently launch its own people into space. The communist country is wrapping up the fourth unmanned test flight of its Shenzou spacecraft, which launched Monday atop a Long March 2F rocket from the Gobi Desert and is expected to land today. Chinese officials say the next Shenzou will carry a crew -- fighter pilots turned spacefarers who are being dubbed "taikonauts." In the United States, however, the American news media have mostly ignored the buildup of the Chinese space program and people are wondering about the extent of the country's capabilities and -- perhaps just as important -- the motive. Is it a nationalistic bid for bragging rights? Is there some military advantage being sought in name of science? Is the country trying to show other world space agencies that it deserves some role in International Space Station partnership? Political, military and space experts contend the answer to all three of those questions could be yes. University of Miami political science professor June Dreyer, an expert on Chinese military policy, said the launches might be meant to stir national pride at a time when many of the country's citizens live in poverty. Or, she said, it could be a display of Chinese technological and aerospace capabilities meant to get the attention of other world powers. The Chinese could be trying to keep up with whatever they fear the United States' military might be developing in space. They're wary of such things as the U.S. renewal of plans for a space-based missile defense shield, she said. "They are concerned because they see the United States to be an international bully," Dreyer said. While the U.S. space program is run by a civilian agency, NASA, the Chinese program is much more closely linked to its military and has spent a decade toiling mostly in secrecy in preparation for the manned flight, which could in the latter half of this year. Even the identities of the dozen or so military pilots in taikonaut training have been kept from the public.

The Shenzou is not a dramatic leap forward in technology. It's not much different than the capsules used by NASA to put men on the moon and still being used by Russia to ferry crew to and from the space station, but there have been minor improvements such as better reentry protection shielding the ship as it plops back to Earth. But it's a precursor, China has said, to more ambitious efforts to perhaps send men to the moon or Mars or develop the country's own space station. "The short-term goal is to send Chinese into space. The grand vision for the future is to explore space. Both are inspiring to the Chinese people," said Huang Chunping, chief commander of rocketry for the Shenzhou project, the Xinhua News Agency reported this week. Only the United States and Russia have rockets and spacecraft that can put people into orbit. Astronauts from other countries typically hitch rides aboard the U.S. and Russian vehicles. Japan and Europe launch commercial, unmanned rockets for satellites. No other countries have attempted to develop their own manned rocket until recently. "Perhaps (the Chinese effort) will get us to pay more attention to the space program," Dreyer said. "It seems to me to have lost the luster it had." The United Nations passed a treaty in 1967, two years before the United States landed on the moon, stating that the moon and all celestial bodies were open for exploration by all nations and no country could claim the moon. "We never planted the flag and said it's ours," NASA spokesman Doc Mirelson said. In 1996, the U.N. passed a declaration on international cooperation regarding space. It said countries with space capabilities should take into account the needs of developing countries. Mirelson said that while no official discussions were occurring about whether China would join the 16 nations participating in the International Space Station, "it would certainly be healthy." A Chinese delegation visited and toured Johnson Space Center last year. "Cooperation in space has a long history of acting as a political barometer of relations between countries," said Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. "Considering the improved political relations between China and the United States since 9/11, it would not be surprising to find China an increasingly frequent and extensive participant in cooperative space programs like the International Space Station," she said. Others, such as The Heritage Foundation's Larry Wortzel, said the Chinese interest is as much military as science. "Beijing's space programs are designed to support intercontinental and submarine launched ballistic missile targeting programs as well as other defense-related space programs," said Wortzel, vice president and director of Heritage's Davis Institute of International Studies. "There is a certain amount of prestige involved in such programs--but I attribute their interest in a military rather than a civil agenda."

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 FULLY DEPLOYED MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM COULD COST $1 TRILLION, Inside Missile Defense, January 8, 2003. A study put together by two arms control groups projects that a “layered” missile defense system favored by the Bush administration could cost between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion. The last official estimate, issued during the Clinton administration, was $60 billion. The report, titled “The Full Costs of Ballistic Missile Defense,” was released Jan. 3 by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and Economists Allied for Arms Reduction at the annual conference of the American Economic Association in Washington. To date, the Bush administration has not offered a projected cost for a completed missile defense shield, noting that the final system architecture is yet to be determined. The report itself uses Defense Department and Congressional Budget Office numbers as a baseline for its estimates. According to the report, current Defense Department cost estimates for components of a layered missile defense system -- which include the boost-phase, mid-course and terminal phases of a target’s flight -- neglect long-term operations and maintenance costs. “The administration has avoided being specific about the planned architecture of the missile defense program” and thus has not offered a total cost for the planned missile defense shield, said Richard Kaufman, a former general counsel to the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress and current director of the Bethesda Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, who directed and co-authored the report. During the Clinton administration, official estimates projected that a missile defense system would cost upwards of $60 billion. The Bush administration and Pentagon, however, moved away from that estimate. The Missile Defense Agency has said that it is still deciding on an architecture for the system and cannot provide cost estimates for the total project. The nonprofit arms control groups decided to begin the report a year and a half ago “because of the pervasive lack of information about the size and the scope and especially the cost, and therefore the potential implications of the program to the federal budget and the economy,” Kaufman said. No publicly available Defense Department report or Congressional Budget Office study accounts for the full “life-cycle costs” of missile defense systems, including past cost-estimate reports issued by the Missile Defense Agency and CBO, the report states. “If a goal of full deployment of ground, sea and air-based systems by 2015 is to be met, half the costs -- about $500 billion -- could be incurred in the next 13 years,” the report states. Without an increase in the military budget to cover missile defense programs, missile defense would “displace nearly 6 percent of other defense spending by 2005 and more than 12 percent from 2007 through 2011,” according to the report.

Spending on a missile defense program could rise to between $50 billion and $75 billion a year, Kaufman said, which would “hold other spending down,” such as defense spending for “transformational goals.” Another scenario would involve diverting spending from job training, environmental and social assistance programs, Kaufman said. However, spending on missile defense could slow due to political or technical reasons, he said. “For anything that comes after FY-05, that’s going to be a decision for our national leaders,” said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency. No architecture for a missile defense system has been decided upon, Lehner said. Postulating every last possibility “would basically let you come up with any price tag you want,” he added. In mid-December, the Bush administration and the Pentagon announced plans to deploy a limited missile defense system by 2004, with another $1.5 billion required in the Missile Defense Agency budget in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to do so. The agency’s budget now hovers around $8 billion a year. “Aside from the few facts and figures in the announcement, there was nothing in it about how many more land-based missiles would be deployed in the U.S. or what their long-term costs would be,” Kaufman said. “This omission is characteristic of this program.” Kaufman noted that in nearly all other weapons programs, “estimates of costs of completion are made known early in the process,” with an exception made for secret “black programs.” He criticized the Pentagon for what he termed a “shroud of secrecy” that “has been thrown over missile defense” and a lack of available cost data. In describing the study’s methodology, Kaufman said his team examined “all systems that could logically go into a layered missile defense.” The study’s estimates show those costs, using available Defense Department and CBO data, though it “cannot predict accurately what succeeding administrations will do.” The study team enlarged components of a missile defense shield and configurations, Kaufman said, such as a larger constellation of satellites that would be needed to make the Space-Based Laser work. The study also incorporates operations and support costs, which all weapons systems require, Kaufman said. It added those costs to acquisition costs to come up with “lifecycle costs” for the various programs, he said. In the study, the projected layered missile defense system consists of a ground-based element, an adjunct sea-based midcourse system, a boost- and terminal-phase system to protect the United States and overseas theater defenses, Kaufman said. The report’s cost projections of the layered missile defense structure include: Ground-based, midcourse system: The study says a two-site or three-site midcourse system could be built, with total acquisition costs for the two-site system and operations costs through 2015 to fall between $76 billion and $110 billion. Acquisition costs for the three-site option, through 2015, would cost between $142 billion and $181 billion. Meanwhile, lifecycle costs for the two-site system would fall in the $120 billion to $161 billion range, and between $142 billion and $181 billion for a three-site system.

Sea-based adjuncts to the ground-based, midcourse system: Using Navy illustrations of its “missile trap” and “strategic defense” architectures discussed before Congress in 2000, the report estimates that acquisition and operations costs through 2015 of the “missile trap” system would cost between $27 billion and $31 billion, with a lifecycle cost of $52 billion to $58 billion. The “strategic defense” system, through 2015, would cost between $37 billion and $49 billion, with total lifecycle costs to rise from $70 billion to $95 billion. Space-based laser: This boost-phase defense would require constellations of either 48 to 72 satellites as a basis for its cost estimates, the study states. It projects that 48 satellites would cost $128 billion to acquire, while 72 satellites would cost $195 billion. Lifecycle costs would be $310 billion and $423 billion, respectively. Space-based kinetic boost-phase system: The study estimates this system’s lifecycle costs at $70 billion. The kinetic system would use an interceptor without an explosive warhead to destroy an enemy missile through the force its impact. Ground-based boost-phase system: This system would rely on foreign countries to host U.S. land-based interceptors, though development of such a system “has not been announced or conducted,” the study says. The study uses a four-site and eight-site configuration located in Russia and Central Asia to represent low and high estimates. Acquisition costs for the four-site and eight-site systems, respectively, are $22.5 billion and $30.1 billion, the study states. Lifecycle costs would run about $28 billion and $41.8 billion, respectively. According to the study, those costs do not include the cost of establishing bases to place those systems. Sea-based boost-phase system: Still on the drawing board, this system could use Aegis ships and the study projects five to seven patrol areas. However, the study uses converted cargo ships for its estimates, “as proposed by some non-government experts.” Acquisition costs would be $61.4 billion and $71 billion, for five and seven patrol area configurations, respectively. Airborne Laser: This boost-phase missile defense system, mounted on a Boeing 747 aircraft, would have an acquisition cost -- through 2015 -- of about $11.2 billion, the study says. Total lifecycle costs of the seven aircraft laser fleet would “easily reach” $19.3 billion, though those estimated costs do not include other operating costs for fighter aircraft protection in foreign airspace or indirect costs related to diverting other air capabilities, according to the study. Coastal terminal system: The study assumes the unspecified intent of this system includes homeland defense and projects an architecture covering U.S. coastlines, but not the entire U.S. territory. The study anticipates acquisition costs for “light” and “medium” capabilities to cost $91.6 billion and $148.1 billion, respectively. The study estimates lifecycle costs are $100.1 billion and $167 billion, respectively. Overseas U.S. terminal systems: Calculating the cost of these Army and Navy systems, now under development -- such as the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles being deployed in Israel -- means “adding up the sunk and prospective costs of the Army and Navy

[theater missile defense] programs,” the study states. It bases acquisition costs on the number of defenses currently planned at $80 billion, with a $108.2 billion lifecycle cost. PENTAGON PLANS NO INTERCEPT TESTING UNTIL AUTUMN, Global Security Newswire (nti.org), January 7, 2003. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is planning to skip the next two scheduled flight tests of its top program — the Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptor — and will not attempt any test interceptions until this autumn, a missile defense official said [Jan. 7]. The agency might conduct up to five intercept tests before the system is scheduled for deployment at the end of fiscal year 2004, he said. Integrated flight tests 11 and 12 have been cancelled and the following two scheduled tests, which will examine new booster models, will not include intercept tests, Missile Defense Agency spokesman Lt. Col. Richard Lehner told Global Security Newswire. The next intercept test, Lehner said, would then occur in “the fall of 2003,” near the beginning of fiscal 2004, which begins Oct. 1…[Past intercept] attempts launched a missile interceptor with a rocket booster that the Missile Defense Agency has planned to replace and the agency has cancelled the last two tests using the existing booster. “We won’t be flying IFT-11 or IFT-12 since we want to concentrate on the booster this year,” wrote Lehner, who explained the schedule in an email…Pentagon officials also are expected to begin including the future operators of the system in the flight-testing sometime in early fiscal 2004, according to Lehner. Decisions on operational testing specifics, including schedules, remain to be worked out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Space Command and the Army, he said. The Space Command, the Army and the Army National Guard are expected to operate the system. ARMY CLEARS KAUA’I SITE FOR MISSILE PROJECT, Honolulu Advertiser, January 8, 2003. The Army has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impact from its plan to move its Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) research effort to Kaua’i, with up to 50 rocket launches over four years starting in 2005. The program would include launches from the Pacific Missile Range Facility. It is aimed at providing U.S. troops with absolute protection against short and medium-range ballistic missiles. The Department of Defense has allocated $23.4 million this year for establishment of a THAAD test facility at the West Kaua’i missile range. THAAD testing, which began on the Mainland in 1992, seeks to develop the technology to destroy enemy missiles while they are still in space or high in the atmosphere, so debris does not endanger troops on the battlefield. After a series of misses during the middle 1990s, THAAD had two successive hits in 1999. The first flights are scheduled to be launched from White Sands Missile Range. The program should move to the Pacific Missile Range Facility in fiscal 2005 or 2006. Launches could also take place from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The ranges would fire the interceptor THAAD rockets, while targets would be launched from a range of sites, including ships, aircraft and from land.

The Missile Defense Agency conducted an environmental assessment on THAAD launches from Kaua’i, and found no significant impact. U.S. OPTIMISTIC ABOUT RUSSSIA ON A.B.M., Associated Press, January 8, 2003. The United States and Russia have good prospects for cooperating on development of anti-ballistic missile systems and are trying to define areas of possible joint work, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow said in an interview published Wednesday…[Since the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty] U.S. officials…have tried to mollify their Russian counterparts by playing up the possibilities for Russian scientists to take part in developing a new ABM system. In the interview with the Interfax news agency, U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said that Washington could make use of sophisticated Russian technology. “Russia has advanced technology such as the S-300 and S-400 anti-air missiles, which could be developed into an anti-ballistic missile capability,” Vershbow was quoted as saying. The new S-400 Triumph can hit targets up to 250 miles away and engage stealth aircraft, Russian military observers say. The latest versions of its predecessor, the S-300, have a range of 125 miles. While the S-300 can shoot down short-range missiles, the S-400 can engage intermediate range ballistic missiles that have a range of 2,170 miles, according to official Russian arms trade data. LOCKHEED MARTIN RECEIVES $341 MILLION FOR MORE PAC-3 MISSILES, Bloomberg.com, January 7, 2003. Lockheed Martin Corp. received a $341 million contract for continued production of the PAC-3 missile defense system, the company said in a statement. The contract calls for delivering up to 88 more missiles and associated ground electronics by 2005. Congress approved the purchase in the fiscal 2003 defense budget along with almost $100 million extra for more PAC-3s that haven’t been put on contract. The new contract adds to about $860 million in prior PAC-3 work for Lockheed’s Dallas-based Missiles & Fire Control unit…The Patriot Advanced Capabilty-3 is “a quantum leap ahead of any other air defense missile when it comes to the ability to protect the war fighter,” Ed Squires, Lockheed Martin vice president for air defense programs, said in the statement…The Pentagon ordered accelerated production of the PAC-3 only recently and the U.S. has taken delivery of about 40. The PAC-3 is made by Lockheed Martin at its Dallas and Camden, Arkansas facilities. Raytheon Co. is responsible for producing the missile’s ground radar and command-and-control equipment. HOON PROMOTES MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR SITE UPGRADE TO YORKSHIRE COMMUNITY, Defense Daily, January 8, 2003. British Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon this week met with residents in the communities near the Fylingdales radar site to discuss the potential for inclusion of the site in the U.S. ballistic missile defense program…At the meetings Hoon outlined the U.S. missile defense proposal and desire to jointly upgrade the radar site and the impact it could have on the

surrounding community…The proposed role for the radar would be tracking and identification in addition to detection of ballistic missiles. Conceivably, the upgraded Fylingdales radar could provide midcourse target tracking information on inbound missiles to cue the other X-band radar components of the missile defense system…The Missile Defense Agency expected to ink an agreement with the U.K. for the upgrades this past fall…An MDA official told Defense Daily it is basically a done deal, but negotiations stalled when global focus shifted to the possibility of war in Iraq. OPINION/LETTERS PROTECTING AMERICA: MISSILE DEFENSE BELONGS IN MIX BUT NOT AT TOP, The Dallas Morning News, January 6, 2003. The president as commander in chief is charged with protecting America. But his bringing Star Wars home for Christmas was a bit hasty. President Bush’s decision to start fielding missile defenses is an understandable reaction to North Korea’s nuclear brinksmanship and to missile proliferation in general. However, in seeking more funds for a questionable missile defense system that poorly counteracts one threat, the president is overlooking some very real threats _ not lobbed by missiles _ that must be more effectively countered…A missile system that may work just a fraction of the time should be deployed only if the threat is overwhelming and cannot be countered in other ways. And that is not the case… And we can reduce the incentive for first strikes. Bush must tell leaders worried about America’s new security strategy of preventive strikes that he will work within the international community to resolve disputes. A Star Wars missile defense is too young to be unwrapped. Bush would do better to invest in diplomacy and in protections from more likely attacks. THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2002 PENTAGON CANCELS MISSILE INTERCEPT TESTS, Associated Press, January 8, 2003. The Pentagon agency that is developing defenses against missile attack has decided to skip two tests of its ability to intercept mock warheads in space, saving about $200 million, an official said Wednesday. The tests were to have been held this winter and spring. Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, said there will not be another intercept test until Boeing Co., the lead contractor, has a newly designed rocket booster ready for use this autumn…Lehner said Pentagon officials are confident that their basic approach to intercepting enemy warheads during their flight through space - known as “hit to kill” technology - has been proven to work in previous tests. What has been lacking is the new booster that launches the “hit to kill” technology into space… The goal all along has been to develop a new-generation booster designed specifically for missile defense. In announcing last month how his agency intends to meet President Bush’s goal of having an initial missile defense system ready to field by the end of 2004, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told reporters he was concerned about the booster problem. “I don’t like where we are in

terms of being developed with the boosters,” Kadish said. If Boeing fails to come up with a useable booster by next autumn, the overall missile defense program will suffer, he said. “We can’t use an interceptor that doesn’t fly right,” he said. RUSSIA MISSILE DEFENSE, Washington Times, January 9, 2003. The United States is serious about its proposal to collaborate with Russia in the development of an anti-missile system, according to the U.S. ambassador in Moscow. “Given that Russia has tremendous scientific know-how and some experience with defense systems, we think this could be a really serious partnership that would benefit us both,” Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said in an interview published yesterday. Mr. Vershbow said the collaboration could be on a U.S. system or one that could serve both countries. “The system we are developing for early deployment is only in its initial phase,” he said. “We haven’t even decided what will be in the latter phases of this program because technologies are still in a formative stage.” Mr. Vershbow said he is aware of a “bit of skepticism” from some of Russia’s top brass who doubt the United States will share the missile-defense technology. “Let me tell anybody from the Russian military reading this interview that we are serious,” he told the Interfax news agency. President Bush decided to deploy a limited missile defense by next year, after withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia at first objected to the U.S. decision but later relented when Washington exercised its right to pull out of the treaty last year. RUSSIA OFFERS U.S. NEW MISSILE DEFENSE AGREEMENT, Interfax (Russia), January 9, 2003. Russia has offered the U.S. a draft of a new political agreement on missile defense systems, which is designed to improve strategic stability, official spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexander Yakovenko said. Moscow is expecting a positive response to this proposal from the U.S., he said. TOP GENERAL SAYS PROSPECTIVE U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE IS THREAT TO RUSSIA, Associated Press, January 9, 2003. U.S. plans to deploy defenses against ballistic missiles pose a potential threat to Russia, a top Russian general said in an interview published Thursday. “I absolutely disagree with the claim that the (U.S.) missile defense is not a threat to Russia,” Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told the daily Moskovsky Komsomolets…The U.S. administration has said that the prospective nationwide missile defense system would be aimed against potential missile threats from nations such as Iraq or North Korea, and would be unable to fend off a massive nuclear strike Russia is capable of launching - the claim that has failed to allay the Russian military’s suspicions. “A missile defense is intended to engage any missiles or warheads that would fly toward a target or the country it protects,” Baluyevsky said. “Therefore, it’s illogical to say that a missile defense isn’t a threat to one country or another.”…U.S. officials have tried to assuage Russian concerns by talking about prospects of cooperation on anti-missile systems… Baluyevsky said the United States wants to

obtain some Russian military technologies and is reluctant to accept Russian proposals of joint research. “We believe that we should work together to develop a joint product,” Baluyevsky said. “But the Americans would like to establish direct contacts with our industries to get a ‘product’ they need and forget about them.” INDIA TESTS NUCLEAR-CAPABLE MISSILE, Reuters, January 9, 2003. India test fired a shorter-range version of its nuclear-capable Agni missile on Thursday that analysts said would boost the country’s defense strategy against nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan. The Agni 1 missile was tested across the Bay of Bengal to a range of about 520 miles, which would put most parts of Pakistan within its range. “It has been launched. The first word is that it has been successful,” a senior defense official told Reuters after the blast-off at Wheeler’s Island, which was watched by Defense Minister George Fernandes. Pakistan said the test was no surprise as India’s nuclear and missile ambitions were well known. The surface-to-surface missile is a key element of India’s plan to build a credible minimum nuclear deterrent against nuclear-armed neighbors Pakistan and China. “The test is one more step in enhancing India’s overall weapons-of-mass-destruction capability,” said Uday Bhaskar, deputy director at the government-funded Institute for Defense Studies and Analyzes…Pakistan, which matched India’s underground nuclear explosions in May 1998 with tests of its own, has also developed a range of missiles to deliver such weapons… The Agni, which means fire in Sanskrit, is one of a range of missiles expected to be tested over the next few days. While the longer version of the Agni, intended to hit targets in China, is already operational, the shorter-range version tested for the second time Thursday is seen as a deterrent against Pakistan. FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 2002 NORTH KOREA SAYS IT IS WITHDRAWING FROM ARMS TREATY, New York Times, January 10, 2003. Stepping up pressure following an American offer to open talks, North Korea said today it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The announcement means that, in 90 days, North Korea will no longer be bound by the treaty. The statement, carried by its official news agency and monitored here, said North Korea had no intention of producing nuclear weapons and was acting in self-defense because it was “most seriously threatened” by the United States…Even as the reports began to percolate of North Korea’s declaration, two representatives of the country’s permanent mission to the United Nations were meeting with an American official to discuss the confrontation with Washington over the North’s nuclear program. Han Song Ryol and Mun Jong Chol met in Santa Fe, N.M., on Thursday night local time with the New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, a former American ambassador to the United Nations who has experience working with the North Koreans on sticky issues. The Bush administration made clear that the meetings were unofficial. Mr. Richardson was only empowered to deliver the same message that the administration had said in public: that there would be no negotiations until North

Korea halted its two nuclear projects. North Korea has not responded to an offer made on Tuesday by Washington to hold discussions with the participation of South Korea and Japan. Instead of responding, North Korea’s official radio station repeated the country’s demand that Washington sign a nonaggression treaty as the price of an easing of tensions. RUSSIA PROPOSES PLAN ON MISSILE DEFENSE, Associated Press, January 9, 2003. The Russian Foreign Ministry said Thursday that Moscow has proposed a plan to work with United States on missile defenses, but a top Russian general warned that U.S. plans to build a missile shield were a threat to Russia. The United States has said the two nations could cooperate in developing defenses against ballistic missiles, and Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko expressed hope Washington would agree to a draft “political agreement” on missile defense submitted by Russia. Yakovenko’s brief statement gave no details and said only that the Russian proposal would “strengthen, not weaken the strategic stability.” U.S. Embassy officials had no immediate comment…In an interview published Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said the two countries have good prospects for cooperating on development of such systems and are trying to define areas of possible joint work…Yakovenko, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Russia had watched U.S. statements “with interest” and has made “specific proposals” for such cooperation. He did not explain the proposals, and a top Russian general said in an interview published Thursday that Moscow and Washington had so far disagreed in their approach to possible joint work on missile defense. JOINT U.S.-RUSSIA SHIELD PROPOSED, Globe and Mail (Canada), January 9, 2003. A U.S. diplomat suggests that the United States and Russia work jointly on developing a controversial ballistic-missile shield, signaling an end to one of the sharpest diplomatic disputes between the two countries since the end of the Cold War…U.S. ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow suggested the two sides work together on the missile-shield project, raising the possibility of an elaborate defence system stretching across the Northern Hemisphere… A missile shield shared by the United States and Russia would not only unite the two countries that first built intercontinental ballistic missiles behind the same defences for the first time, but it would also end a diplomatic row over the Star Wars idea that stretches back to the time of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr. Vershbow said that Russian S-300 and S-400 ground-to-air missiles could be upgraded for use in an antimissile shield. He said he saw hope for co-operation in areas such as the development of early-warning systems, missile interception and the missiles themselves. U.S. REQUEST FOR USE OF GREENLAND BASE FOR MISSILE SHIELD TO BE ANSWERED IN JUNE, Associated Press, January 9, 2003. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said Thursday that a request by the United States to upgrade a

radar facility in Greenland for a proposed missile defense system will be answered in June. The request was made last month after U.S. President George W. Bush decided to deploy a limited system that would defend the United States from ballistic missile attacks…An early warning radar at Thule Air Base in northern Greenland would be upgraded as part of the missile shield. Greenland is a semiautonomous Danish territory with no say in defense and foreign policy issues. Moeller said any decision on the U.S. request will have to be made after debate in Denmark’s and Greenland’s parliaments this spring. A decision, he said, would be based on whether lawmakers decide that upgrading the radar “doesn’t harm world peace (and) doesn’t contribute” to a new arms race. “When these things are decided, then comes a political decision,” he told reporters after meeting Josef Motzfeldt, Greenland’s deputy premier. Under Denmark’s Constitution, it’s “the Danish government that has to make the final decision together with the (Danish) parliament,” Moeller said…But if any changes are made, they must be approved by Denmark, Greenland and the United States, Moeller said. McCALLUM SAYS CANADA MAY JOIN U.S. WAR AGAINST IRAQ, Reuters, January 9, 2003. Canada would “reserve the right” to join the United States in a war against Iraq even in the absence of a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing such an attack, Defense Minister John McCallum said on Thursday. McCallum, who met with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, also said Canada will send officials to Washington on Jan. 20 to discuss possible participation in the U.S. national missile defense system that President George W. Bush has ordered to be deployed beginning in 2004…McCallum said Canada has made no final decision about whether to take part in the U.S. national missile defense system intended to protect the United States from enemy ballistic missiles. Bush last month directed the Pentagon to begin deployment of the system starting next year…McCallum noted that the United States was moving ahead “with or without Canadian participation.” “The potential advantage of Canadian participation is that it strengthens the binational military link. It perhaps gives us more influence over how this system works, and we can make sure that our own interests are taken account of. On the other side of the ledger, some Canadians are concerned about such a system and its implications,” he said.