TimesDaily June 18, 2012

Brooks: No sharing missiles data with Russia

By Eric Fleischauer

Critics say U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks’ concern about a Cold War foe is making America more vulnerable to a more immediate missile threat from Iran.

Brooks, though, said a bill he sponsored is necessary to keep the president from giving expensive missile defense technology to Russia.

The bill passed the House on May 18 as an amendment to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. It would prevent the federal government from sharing technology or data with Russia regarding missile defense systems. The Senate did not include the provision in its version of the NDAA, but a similar Brooks-sponsored amendment — a small part of a massive act — became law last year.

The problem with Brooks’ amendment, said a retired general who worked closely with NATO forces, is Russia’s location and radar capabilities make it an indispensable partner in defending against an Iranian missile launch.

“A missile coming from Iran is going to fly over a part of the Earth that Russia has well covered with sensors,” said retired Brig. Gen. John Adams. Adams was a deputy U.S. military representative to the NATO Military Committee under former President George W. Bush. “Brooks’ amendment would be really unfortunate, because it essentially ties the hands of military experts.”

Brooks said he fears that President Barack Obama will hand the technology to Russia, potentially jeopardizing U.S. security.

“I don’t want any other nation to have access to our hit-to-kill technology, if for no other reason than that once it is disseminated to other nations, they can develop counter measures,” Brooks said.

Hit-to-kill missile defense systems are designed to destroy offensive missiles with kinetic energy, rather than with a warhead. The force of the collision destroys the missile.

Concerns about Iran have led NATO to increase cooperation with the Russian Federation. The country’s extensive radar coverage near the border of Iran gives it the ability to quickly track missiles launched from Iran. Combined with satellite surveillance and radar installations in NATO countries, U.S. officials hope a coordinated effort could destroy an Iranian missile before it hit its target.

Experts said Brooks’ proposed ban on sharing missile-defense technology is irrelevant, because the administration has no intention of sharing such data with Russia, but the ban on sharing data would cause problems.

“None of this has to do with sharing technology,” said Janne Nolan, professor of international affairs at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Association for Diplomatic Studies. “This is about sharing data about how you track a missile.”

Russian officials have expressed concern about cooperating, saying they fear the defensive missiles could either be used offensively against Russia or could be used against Russian ballistic missiles.

“What the U.S. government is trying to do — a continuation of what the George W. Bush administration was trying to do — is make clear to Russia that the systems we’re deploying in Europe are not capable of knocking down Russia’s strategic missiles,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. “By preventing cooperation with Russia, the bill causes problems that I think in the long run undermine our security.”

Brooks said he does not believe we need Russia’s cooperation in defending against missiles from Iran or North Korea. Defensive systems built by U.S. contractors could provide the protection from U.S. and NATO bases.

“Raytheon, Boeing and a good number of American companies have been involved in hit-to-kill technology,” Brooks said. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for American citizens to spend hundreds of billions of dollars developing a hit-to-kill technology that no one else in the world can match, and then giving it to the Russians.”

Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and several other companies involved in the production of missile defense technologies are major contributors of Brooks. Brooks said their contributions did not affect his decision to sponsor the bill.

John Pike, founder of GlobalSecurity.org, said he sees little chance that Russia will agree to cooperative missile defense and even less that the United States would share technology with the country. If both of those came to pass, he said, Raytheon and other companies would have a legitimate economic concern.

While the United States does not buy missile defense hardware from Russia, countries such as Israel and South Korea might. U.S. defense contractors do not want to risk being under-bid by Russian companies that stole their technology.

“I think Congress is providing reassurance to Raytheon (and other defense contractors) that it is not going to allow the mad momentum of arms control to unwittingly permit one of Raytheon’s competitors to make off with the crown jewels,” Pike said.

Adams said he wishes defense contractors would focus on national security, rather than using Congress to undermine cooperation with Russia.

“Every defense industry person I’ve ever met, almost without exception, is patriotic,” Adams said. “I would just ask those who are pushing hard to get a contract done on this system right now, ‘What do you think the long-term effect of that is going to be?’ ”

By refusing to share data with Russia, Adams said, we will increase its suspicions and force it to increase its offensive capabilities.

“They’re going to accelerate their own work. We’ll be in an arms race,” Adams said. “I just don’t see how that could be a positive thing.”

The U.S. State Department has pushed for increased cooperation with Russia in defending against Iran and North Korea, but stressed that it has no intention of sharing technology that could jeopardize NATO or U.S. interests.

“Successful missile defense cooperation would provide concrete benefits to Russia, our NATO Allies, and the United States and will strengthen — not weaken — strategic stability over the long term,” said Frank Rose, deputy assistant secretary of the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. “Close cooperation between Russia and the United States and NATO is the best and most enduring way for Russia to gain the assurance that European missile defenses cannot and will not undermine its strategic deterrent.”

Even though negotiations with Russia are slow and may delay defense contracts that would happen more quickly if the United States acts unilaterally, Adams said, it will result in a better missile defense system.

“We’re not talking about losing our capability,” Adams said. “We’re talking about augmenting our capability.”

Nolan said cooperative missile defense has become a political toy. Extreme liberals, she said, resent any money spent on missile defense. Extreme conservatives are leery of cooperating with any country on missile defense, especially Russia.

“If you’re really worried about Iran, you would want the Russians to be cooperating with you,” Nolan said.

Adams also worried that Brooks’ amendment had more to do with upcoming elections than national security.

“I think we have a responsibility to think not politically but strategically,” the retired general said. “We need to look at national defense as the No. 1 priority and leave the politics out of it.”

Brooks dismissed his critics.

“There are always contrary viewpoints, especially if they’re paid,” Brooks said. “There’s going to be all sorts of folks around the world that would help carry the Russian Federation’s water for them.”