Forward

The realization of Missile Defense (MD) could be the major step in preventing nuclear wars which could cause the extinction of humankind. The invention of nuclear weapons has been thought of as the opening of a Pandora’s box. It has been impossible to close this opened box. The abolition of nuclear weapons is only an ideal and not practically possible. It is important for us to find a way to confine and control nuclear weapons through international systems, so that the rogue countries will not be able to use them. As a consequence of the Cuban crisis, the U. S. and the former Soviet Union recognized the need for negotiations in order to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war. In 1963, they started “Hotline agreements”, and since that time many negotiations and talks concerning nuclear arms control have been conducted. These include the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) which came into effect in 1963, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty 1 (SALT1) in 1972, the Treaty on the Limitation on Anti-Ballistic Missiles in 1972, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty 2 (SALT2) in 1979, the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate Range and Shorter Range Missiles (INF) in 1987, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty1 (START1) in 1994, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) signed and opened in 1996 (but still not in effect) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 2 (START2) in 2000.

By signing the SALT and ABM Treaty in 1972, the U.S. and　the Soviet Union recognized each other’s capability to completely destroy the other by a nuclear retaliation if one of the countries launched a nuclear strike. This recognition led to the creation of nuclear deterrence through the so-called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) Strategy. The situation resulting from MAD strategy has been preventing a third World War and easing the tension between the U.S and Russia. However, the situation has not yet become stable, and the process of nuclear disarmament is still insufficient. The probability of a nuclear war between the U.S and Russia is greatly decreasing. However, regional wars and conflicts are occurring more than before, and the risk of a proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons remains.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia and North Korea have been the exporters of ballistic missiles. The PRC, the third most powerful nuclear state next to the U.S and Russia, has been rapidly increasing her military expenditure for more than a decade, reflecting her economic development, and improving her military capability with Russian support. The relations between the PRC and Russia have strengthened due to their July 16, 2001 signing of the Neighboring and Friendship Cooperation Agreements. Chairman Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea, visited Russia to establish special relations with Russia. It should be noted that the trip was made by luxury train with an entourage of North Korean armed troops. Russia, though still in a poor economic situation, has been exporting military equipment to many countries. The PRC is thought to be aiming to compete with the U.S. by importing Russian advanced military technology.

The PRC is improving and developing her nuclear capability, and is capable of achieving great progress with Russian help; and North Korea could do the same thing. The PRC is opposed to American hegemony and wants to develop her hegemony with the help of a Russian and North Korean alliance. The Chinese objective to unite Taiwan by force will never be accepted by the international community.

It is necessary in order to maintain peace and stability in the world to establish a new world order for security. An aggressive country attempting to invade a weaker country should be suppressed and be forced to abandon its intention. It is also necessary to create the situation where nuclear weapons are less effective. It has been thought that to make nuclear weapons impotent and of no value is a near impossibility. However, MD can make this possible. The Bush administration is accelerating the development of MD and the PRC, Russia and North Korea are raising opposition: and some European countries are taking the same stance. Especially Japan, as a non-nuclear state with her defense–oriented defense policy, has many reasons to support MD. The reasons to develop MD, based on military, political, economical and technical standpoints will be stated. This is my second paper, which follows “A Perspective on the International Control of Nuclear Materials including Weapons and the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy” which appeared in the 1977 DRC Annual Report.

1. Military Perspective----Countermeasures against Existing Threat and Developing New Strategy

(1) Existence of Valid Threat

The number of countries possessing ballistic missiles is increasing. In the 1980s, Russian Scud Missiles spread to countries in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Asia. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) established in 1987 has not been signed by so many countries. Ballistic Missiles combined with the weapons of mass destruction have become deadly destructive and powerful. Therefore, most countries, which possess ballistic missiles, tend to want to have nuclear weapons.

According to The Military Balance 2000／2001, there are 35 countries which possess ballistic missiles. In East Asia, Russia, the PRC, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea and Vietnam possess ballistic missiles. The ballistic missiles of the PRC, North Korea and Russia are supposedly seen to be potential threats to Japan because of their ability to reach all parts of Japan. The ballistic missiles of South Korea and Taiwan are not seen as threats, so far, from a political and military standpoint. The PRC possesses many nuclear arm ballistic missiles, and some of them are supposedly targeting Japan. It is reported that more than ten DF21s with a range of 2,500km, at Tonghua, China, are pointed at Japan.

(2) Necessary Countermeasures

If a threat exists, it is normal and natural to develop measures to counter the threat as much as possible. In the case of having no means to counter a threat, there are only several options. One is to surrender to the opponent, another is to endeavor to create countermeasures, and the other is to rely on another strong power. Japan is incapable of countering ballistic missiles, so Japan should have countermeasures even though limitations exist. Countermeasures to consider are as follows:

①The possession of her own ballistic missiles to retaliate against the enemy: This will produce a balance of power and might deter a ballistic missile attack. This idea promotes the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Recently, South Korea has started to develop a Surface to Surface Missile (SSM) with a range of 300km. However, Japan should not have ballistic missiles because of the aggressive position they produce, and because the possession of ballistic missiles goes against Japanese defense policy.

②Attacking and destroying enemy ballistic missiles on enemy bases before their launchings: Detecting, tracking, bombing and destroying Scuds with aircraft―so-called “hunting Scuds”― proved to be extremely difficult in the Gulf War.

In February1965, during a Cabinet Committee Meeting of the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Hatoyama answered that in the case of imminent and unjustified attacks by ballistic missiles, Japan would be allowed to take minimum necessary measures. For example, in the case where there is no other way except to attack the missile base in order to destroy the ballistic missiles, attacking enemy missile base would be legally within the right of self-defense. However, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces do not possess at present the capability to fulfill such a mission effectively.

③Reliance on deterrence provided by an ally or allies: The security of Japan is based on the U.S-Japan alliance. The extended deterrence―so-called ”Nuclear Umbrella”― provided by the U.S. Forces will deter nuclear threats from ballistic missiles from outside of Japan.

④Possession of the capable missile defense: It has been thought up to now impossible to shoot down and destroy ballistic missiles traveling at the extremely high speeds of more than 10 times the speed of sound. However, as a result of research and development, missile defense has become highly probable and will become a reality within the next few years. Research on technology related to missile defense started before the ABM Limitation Treaty was signed. The U.S. deployed 30 high-altitude Spartan ABMs, with a range of 750km, and 70 low-altitude Sprint ABMs, with a range of 40km, at the ICBM base in 1975. However, they were removed in 1976. This was done because they contained nuclear warheads and in the case of their explosion over U.S. territory nuclear fallout could harm U.S. citizens. Since then there has been no ABMs in the U.S. The Soviet Union (Russia) deployed 64 Galosh ABMs, with a range of 350km around Moscow in 1968. The Soviet Union (Russia) replaced them with 64 low-altitude Gazelle ABMs, with a range of 80km, in 1984 and 36 high-altitude Gorgon ABMs, with a range of 500km, in 1988. Every Russian ABM is equipped with a nuclear warhead.

An epoch-making Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which could destroy Russian inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM) utilizing space technology, is said to have accelerated the ending of the Cold War. However, at that time SDI was actually far beyond reality.

During the post Cold War era, the U.S. research and development (R&D) of missile defense continued on a smaller scale as Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). Then during the Clinton administration, it was changed to Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and National Missile Defense (NMD). Now under the Bush administration they have been combined under the title of Missile Defense (MD).

During the Gulf War in 1991, some of the Iraqi Scud ballistic missiles aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia were shot down by Patriot PAC2 surface to air missiles (SAM). This was the first time in history for ballistic missiles to be shot down by SAM. It had been thought impossible to shoot down a ballistic missile without a nuclear warhead. It has become possible and has become a major part of MD. Successful MD will give Japan the means of self-defense against ballistic missiles. MD is necessary for Japan as long as ballistic missiles with the capability of reaching Japan exist. Japan should state her support for the development of MD in spite of Chinese protests and concerns about the ABM treaty.

(3) Creation of New Strategic Concept to Replace MAD

The U.S. and Russia have determined their nuclear strategies. MD will make it possible to establish new strategic deterrent systems. Non-nuclear states will be able to participate in establishing these systems. MD should be applied to the creation of a Missile Defense shield covering a wider area. Japan should definitely propose the development of an international Missile Defense shield in cooperation with the U.S., and share in its planning.

No country or body should be reprimanded for shooting down a nuclear head ballistic missile after it has been launched, just as anyone has the right to arrest a criminal caught in the act of committing a crime. This could be interpreted as exercising the right of collective self-defense. This should be done, even though some Japanese might claim that the right of collective self-defense goes against the Japanese Constitution. The interpretation of the constitution should be changed to allow the right of collective self-defense. No country with the possible exception of a rogue state, would blame another for the shooting down of nuclear head ballistic missiles. Japan cannot have her own nuclear umbrella but can have her own MD umbrella with the cooperation of other friendly nations.

Any suspicion about the credulity of the nuclear umbrella could possibly disappear with the creation of an MD shield.

MAD strategy is not an ideal situation. It produces a dangerous balance, and is like being under the Sword of Damocles. There have been several incidents that might have resulted in a nuclear war during the Cold War. In the “GAIKO Forum” September 2000 issue, Michael Krepon, Chairman of the Henry Stimson Center, proposed replacing MAD with MAS (Mutual Assured Safety/Survival).

The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which came into existence after the Cold War, and is being conducted with mutual U.S. and Russian cooperation, is considered one of the MAS programs. MD could also become one of the MAS programs. MAS could reduce the feasibility of nuclear war politically, psychologically and practically, and establish a new, safer, strategic security system. It would be impossible to change MAD strategy suddenly. It would be better to shift MAD to MAS gradually with comprehensive arms control including the reduction of nuclear weapons and the prevention of a proliferation of ballistic missiles. Among MAS programs, MD would be a very important core program to assure safety and survival.

(4) Missile Defense（MD）to Assure Safety

MAD strategy has been preventing a third World War that could cause the extinction of mankind. There have been quite a few incidents caused by malfunctions or human errors that have triggered the mistaken belief that a nuclear warhead ballistic missile had been launched. It is virtually impossible to stop a launched ballistic missile. If such an incident accidentally arises, MD would be able to shoot the ballistic missile down. This would assure safety.

(5) Building a More Stable Global Defense System

A decrease of military threat in the world would be widely possible if MD were actually deployed. MD could intercept not only ballistic missiles, but also, aircraft and cruising missiles. As a result, it would provide a global and stable defense system to cover a wider area than ever before. It would prevent a war because any action to invade by aircraft, missiles or ships could be detected easily and be forced to stop.

A force possessing MD, should be ideally controlled by the United Nations (UN). The countries capable of providing MD, such as the U.S., should deploy MD to anywhere where MD is needed, according to UN or NATO resolutions. This could be called a new type of Peace Keeping Force and it could be the first step in organizing a real UN force. Without sending land forces, naval ships would be able to provide MD in a wide area. The ships could engage and disengage in operations more easily than land forces. It would be possible for these MD systems to provide the mobility, flexibility and adaptability needed to greatly decrease transnational threat, suppress arms race, etc., thus producing peace and a feeling of ease never before experienced.

2. Political Perspective―Decrease the Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons and Strengthen the Alliance

There are some countries and Japanese groups that are raising opposition to MD. Despite this, Japan should progressively make it a major objective to build MD which could make ballistic missiles impotent, as well as promote the abolishment of nuclear weapons through international cooperation.

(1) Missile Defense as Non-Lethal and a Source of Humanitarian Defense

MD will not be the killing of human beings. It will be a weapon for survival. Nuclear head ballistic missiles are called vicious weapons which go against humanity and are capable of mass massacres. There will be no direct human casualties caused by the shooting down of a ballistic missile. However, the possibility of accidental casualties caused by falling debris, in cases such as the boost phase intercept exists.

As MD will be a defensive weapon to protect Japan from indiscriminate attacks by weapons of mass-destruction, MD will be subject to the Japanese Constitution and Japanese defense policies, and will need to conform to the peace loving spirit that is expressed in the Japanese Constitution.

(2) Missile Defense to Decrease the Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons

MD capable of destroying nuclear head ballistic missiles would devalue the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. There are quite a few countries that want to have nuclear weapons. The members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will be able to control and suppress the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, the NPT is not perfect and is seen as being unfair by non-nuclear states. There are some countries such as India and Pakistan that have not signed the NPT and continue to develop and produce nuclear weapons. Even though North Korea and Iraq are members of the NPT, they have secretly tried to develop nuclear weapons. It is true that the development of nuclear weapons greatly increases military and political power. It is needless to say that nuclear weapons are attractive to rogue and hegemonic countries as a mean of gaining power. Lowering the efficiency of nuclear weapons would discourage and dissuade the non-nuclear states that want to have nuclear weapons.

(3) Japan Supporting and Joining MD as a Representative of Non-Nuclear States

Nuclear States are obliged under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to promote nuclear arms control and reduce the number of nuclear weapons which they possess, and they should not raise opposition to MD.

It is a selfish and self-centered of a nuclear state to raise opposition to MD because of the resulting decrease of her nuclear capability. The complaints about a decrease of nuclear capability, and assertions to increase nuclear arms are not subject to the NPT. Japan has the right as a non-nuclear state to protest these violations. Japan should request nuclear states to reduce their nuclear weapons and strongly support the development of MD technology with other non-nuclear states. The Missile Defense shield with the U.S. stated in Article 1(3) will probably be accepted by most non-nuclear states and be based on international cooperation. This could act as proof of Japan’s intent to never become a nuclear state.

(4) Japan Supporting the U.S. Strategically, Militarily and Politically

The PRC, Russia and North Korea are uniting to raise opposition to MD which is being developed by the U.S. The S300V tactical missile defense system that the PRC has acquired from Russia is recognized as a form of MD. In spite of her opposition to MD, it can be said she is developing MD capability.

The PRC and Russia are true nuclear states and raise suspicions about their proliferation of nuclear weapon technology. They have nuclear-armed ballistic missiles capable of directly and indirectly threatening Japan. Three years ago, we had several opportunities to discuss the North Korean Tepo Dong missiles and MD with Chinese researchers. These Chinese said North Korean Tepo Dong missiles were defensive and U.S.MD was aggressive. These views were completely opposite to Japan’s. It is difficult to share the same military perception with Chinese. For Chinese, the expression "Friendship" means to accept Chinese requests such as the amending of a controversial Japanese middle school history textbook. In order to force others to follow her will, the PRC will not hesitate to interfere in their internal affairs. According to a recent report, a Chinese high-level official told Mr. Kyuma, former Director General of the Defense Agency, during his visit to China that China would not raise opposition to any MD deployment on land. China might think an MD system at sea will greatly weaken her military influence on Taiwan.

South Korea is also raising opposition to MD. However, the reasons for their opposition are not clear. Possible reasons are as follows:
①South Korea might think it better to possess her own ballistic missiles to counter potential threat rather than to have MD

②South Korea might feel the need to conform to Chinese position on MD

③South Korea might think MD ineffective because of the near proximity of North Korea.

Nevertheless, South Korea is planning to equip herself with the Patriot Missile Defense System and Aegis destroyers that are considered parts of MD.

Japan must support and help the U.S. with her ＭD project as a strategic, military and political ally.

3. Economic Perspective----Utilization of Aegis Ships and International Cooperation

It has been rumored that MD will require a great amount of money. In Japan, efforts should be made to purchase as economically as possible. In Japan, there are concerns that the introduction of MD would greatly reduce the budget in other areas and could create an imbalance of allotment among the Ground, Maritime and Air Forces. MD should be not only a Defense Agency project, but also a comprehensive, joint, combined state project. It should be budgeted separately from the normal defense budget.

Aegis ships will be the main platforms for the Navy Area and Navy Theater Wide Defense sub-systems of MD. Fortunately, Japan presently possesses four Aegis ships, which will reduce expenditure. The development of MD alone would be technically and economically difficult and politically unwise. In order for Japan to have MD, it will be indispensable to cooperate with the U.S, and the U.S. and Japan should seek wider international cooperation for MD, such as in the defense of sea lines of communications.

4. Technical Perspective----Possibility of Breakthrough in MD Technology

The success of MD test firing was reported on July 14, 2001. An Intercept missile fired from Kwajalein successfully identified decoys and hit the targeted Minuteman 2 (ICBM) launched from Vandenberg, California. There have been many failures in past tests. However, this success is proof that MD is a very real future possibility. The speed of ballistic missiles is more than ten times the speed of sound. Therefore, it is like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, and in the past this was considered to be impossible. The MD technology succeeded this time is the epitome of advanced technology. MD technology is overcoming difficulties and is advancing day by day. The U.S. will be able to complete the MD system by herself within a few years. Japan might be able to maintain her stance in MD in proportion to her contribution to MD research and development. Without U.S. help, Japan cannot develop MD that would meet the needs of Japan. Now the US and Japan are cooperating in the research and development of seeker material, infrared seeker sensors and rocket motors for intercept missiles. Japan should actively participate in MD deployment.

Conclusion

The world has been politically led by the western countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. The opposition demonstrated during the Genoa Summit seems to reflect the need for a new political and security system in the world. MD could provide the chance to create a new strategic organization. The U.S.-Japan alliance strengthened by MD could be more important than NATO. Aegis ships would play the main role in MD. No countries other than the U.S. and Japan have Aegis ships. There are 52 Aegis ships now in the U.S. Navy, 8 ships under construction, and 5 ships budgeted for. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force has 4 Aegis ships, and 2 more are planned for the next defense build-up program. These ships will provide MD shield throughout seven seas once MD has been deployed. Since the end of the Cold War, the strategy of the U.S. Navy has greatly changed. The appearance of Tomahawk cruise missiles has supported the strategic concept “From the Sea”. During the Gulf War, Tomahawk cruise missiles demonstrated a capability beyond imagination to pin point, hit and destroy targets on land precisely and from a long distance. Furthermore, MD could greatly enhance the strength of the U.S. Navy. Aegis ships can go anywhere in the world and provide MD shield protecting allies and friends. If non-nuclear states want this shield against threats from nuclear states, Aegis ships will be able to play a role in creating a new type of PKO under the United Nations. MD is a defensive and humanitarian weapon system not aimed at killing innocent people. If Japan joins international an MD system, the right of collective defense should be applied so that Japan can participate in international cooperation. At that time, with the approval of the international community, Japan should change the interpretation, or revise, the Japanese Constitution. Fighting against injustice, and protecting the weak has been a traditional Japanese way of thinking for hundreds of years, and Japan can see their same way of thinking in the American traditional Frontier spirit. The U.S. and Japan will be able to make positive contributions to peace and stability in the world and enjoy equal partnership through MD.