Michael Richardson: Mistaken identity fatal flaw in missile project

The surge in terrorist violence brings the fear that extremist groups or rogue states will acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

As part of its response, the Bush Administration wants to develop a weapon called Prompt Global Strike for its anti-terrorism arsenal and have it operational within two years.

The plan is to spend at least US$500 million ($765 million) over the next five years, taking some nuclear-armed ballistic missiles off submarines and replacing them with a similar number of long-range missiles carrying non-nuclear warheads that could hit targets anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

Proponents of the scheme say it would allow the United States to react to a grave national security threat without having to use the indiscriminate and horrendously destructive power of nuclear weapons.

But critics say other countries with nuclear arms might be unable to tell whether a nuclear or non-nuclear missile was being fired, and unleash an atomic counter-strike.

After conversion, each of the 14 submarines in the US Pacific and Atlantic fleets would carry 22 nuclear and two conventional missiles.

Unlike America's missile-armed aircraft and bombers, at all times enough of these subs patrol beneath the seas in locations that provide global coverage with their Trident II D-5 missiles, which have a range of 11,000km and reach speeds of more than 6km a second within two minutes of a submerged launch.

Each non-nuclear missile would carry four non-explosive warheads that could strike different targets.

Two types of warhead would be developed.

One would be a metal slug that would land with such tremendous force that it could smash a multi-storey building.

The other would be a flechette bomb that would scatter tungsten rods to destroy vehicles and less well-protected targets over a broader area.

The sort of targets the US says it has in mind include terrorist training centres and meeting areas, enemy missile sites, and places where chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were being assembled or stored by terrorists.

Such targets would often be liable to move at short notice, hence the need for a much more rapid response than might be available from other US weapons.

However, Congress has not yet approved the US$127 million sought by the Pentagon to cover the first-year of the Trident II conversion scheduled to start next month.

However, some lawmakers say that the US will need to improve the accuracy of its intelligence, missile guidance and targeting precision if the plan is to work effectively.

Even more important, the critics worry that other nuclear states, chiefly Russia and China, will be confused about the type of missile fired and its intended target.

With only minutes to determine its type, they could mistakenly conclude that they were under nuclear attack and retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued just such a warning, saying that if intercontinental ballistic missiles were used to carry non-nuclear warheads it could provoke a full-scale counterattack from another nuclear power. United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, in Alaska late last month in an effort to allay such concerns.

Rumsfeld said he would be happy to see Russia do exactly as the US was planning to do so that both countries would have an additional weapon available for pre-emptive strikes against mass casualty terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.

He said the risk of misunderstanding among nuclear powers could be overcome by efficient communications, confidence-building and prompt notification of any launch of a non-nuclear strike.

Russia is more receptive to the idea now than when it was first brought up.

Ivanov said that detailed talks would follow.

There could be alternative proposals from Moscow involving Cruise missiles or intermediate-range missiles instead of intercontinental ballistic missiles fired from United States and Russian submarines, all of which are nuclear-armed.

China, however, is dead set against the American plan.

Russia's early-warning system to detect incoming ballistic missiles has deteriorated since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

China, however, has even less capability to pick up, track and identify long-range missiles.

The official Peoples Daily has cautioned that if the United States scheme were to go ahead, the possibility of a nuclear conflict would be substantially increased.

Over the past 50 years an intercontinental ballistic missile has never been used in combat by any of the five nuclear powers that now have them - the US, Russia, China, France and Britain.

But India, Pakistan, Israel and probably North Korea now have nuclear weapons and Iran is widely suspected of trying to develop them. If some or all of these powers succeed in fitting nuclear warheads on long-range missiles, the risk of mistaken retaliatory launches will rise.

Given such concerns, the US must carefully weigh the perceived benefits for American and global security of the Trident II conversion plan against its potential costs.

* Michael Richardson is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and was formerly Asia editor of the International Herald Tribune.