1. Missile Defense in Central Europe New security quandary policy aspects, elites vs. population and Russian threat

2. History of Missile Defense 80s - Ronald Reagan – Star Wars Dec 7 1993 - Defence Counterproliferation Initiative (DCI) 1999 – Bill Clinton approves missile defense strategy October 1999 – First succesful test 2004 – bases in Alaska and California Outlook: system to be prepared in 2013 Iran threat - 2015

3. What Missile Defense is?

4. How it works The proposed $3.5 billion system would use "hit-to-kill" technology in which an array of sensors and radar would detect an enemy missile in flight and guide a ground- based interceptor to destroy it. Without using explosives, the interceptor would ram an incoming warhead at a closing speed of 15,000 miles per hour (24,000 kph) in a process likened to hitting a bullet with another bullet in space. The MDA says tests show the technology is sound. But critics say the evidence is misleading, many tests were made in controlled circumstances not resembling real attacks, and more results are needed to prove the system works. (Reuters)

5. The Debate 1 - For New threats: -Ballistic missiles in the hands of terrorists -Rogue states – Iran, North Korea -Unstable regimes with technology - Pakistan General arguments: -Nuclear proliferation -Cover for Allies (NATO) -„Hidden“ argument: Russia, China

6. The Debate 2 - Against Technology: not proven Money: wasted (Democrats in Congress) Russia: it is to neutralise our arsenal, answer: system without warheads is no match to Russian arsenal, numbers: 10 interceptors vs. 1000s of Russian warheads Ideological: cover for spreading US influence

7. What is NATO role? 1998: decision to project defense of battle field (short and middle range missiles) 2010: to be operational Ballistic missile defense: feasibility study in 2005 Now being under review Base for NATO: US projects Rice in Prague: contribution to NATO common security

8. How Europe could be protected

9. Shield in Central Europe 2002: First consultations in Czechia 2006: Start of public debate 2007: Start of official negotiations 8.7. 2008: Signature in Prague Poland?: due to internal fighting not known result

10. Policy issue: Who decides in security - weak public support Poland: 54 % against 32 % for (IV./08 CBOS) Tendency: falling antipathy Czechia: 68 % against 24 % for (V./08 CVVM) Tendency: growing antipathy

11. Problems in Czechia Comparison with Soviet occupation Weak coalition: - depends on leftist deputies - firm position of ODS - hesitant Greens (NATO cooperation) Aggresive left: - Against, following polls - Under Russian influence, not to provoke Moscow Question: Will it be ratified by parliament? Answer: Probably yes, in exchange for Lisbon, after local elections or with support of dissident social democratic MPs

12. Problems in Poland Public tired of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Poles do not see they got anything in exchange Liberal (government) politicians: yes, but we want something real in exchange – antimissile defense (Patriot, THAAD) Conservatives (president): yes, without any big hesitations Left: No, but very weak support among voters Big infighting between president and prime minister Question: Did negotiatiors put their demands too high? Will there be successful conclusion? Answer: Demands are high, game is played very hard with the US (Lithuania point), most probably end of negotiations during July with result: Patriots under US command stationed in Poland

13. Costs Radar in Czechia: moved from Marshall Islands plus 0,5 bil USD Interceptors in Poland: 2,5 bil USD Fully paid by the USA Democrats afraid of wasting money - cuts in recent budget proposals New president will continue

14. Benefits – strategic asset After entering NATO the most important step in strategic security – move from Russian sphere of influence Czech view: better to have long term cooperation with US in R&D and antimissile and antiterror cover Polish view: better to have hardware for army plus vague „strategic partnership“

15. Russian card 1 Kremlin: Real target is Russia (conspiracy theory: US wants to have net of antimissile sites around world to neutralize Russian and Chinese nuclear threat) Strategic ballance breached Former USSR sphere of influence destroyed

16. Russian card 2: Kremlin strikes back Russia suspends its participation in Convetion forces in Europe treaty Tests of new missiles and systems Harsh rhetoric Energy weapon: energy security threat for Central Europe, but this approach undermines Russian position as EU business partner

17. Sources: www.mda.mil www.nato.int www.protiraketovaobrana.cz Rzeczpospolita: http://www.rp.pl/temat/84379.html http://www.rp.pl/temat/84379.html

18. Hope, we never need it