The Economist - USA (2019-12-21)

42 United States The EconomistDecember 21st 2019

I

n the earlymorning of December 12th a

missile streaked into the sky above Van-

denberg air force base north of Los Angeles.

It looped up into the blackness of space and

then hurtled down into the Pacific—cru-

cially, over 500km away. That makes it

America’s first test of a ballistic missile that

would have been forbidden under the 1987

Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (inf)

treaty, which banned both conventional

and nuclear land-based missiles (but not

air or sea-launched ones) with ranges of

500km to 5,500km.

The pact died in August after Donald

Trump walked out, having accused Russia

of illegally testing and deploying several

battalions of an intermediate-range cruise

missile known as the ssc-8. Proponents of

the move argue that land-based missiles

are useful because mobile ground launch-

ers are cheaper and can be replenished

with fresh missiles more easily than ships,

subs and planes, which can then be freed to

do other things.

The test is a signal that America is seri-

ous about pursuing this idea. It follows an

earlier test on August 18th of another hith-

erto-banned ground-launched cruise mis-

sile fired from San Nicolas Island in Cali-

fornia (cruise missiles use jet engines and

fly low, whereas ballistic missiles are rock-

et-powered and arc through the sky). Both

tests recycled existing systems: a 1980s-

vintage Tomahawk in the summer, and

what resembled a target-practice missile

for the latest test.

Turning old hardware into inf-range

missiles is a quick and dirty way to turn out

new weapons. Building 400 Tomahawks—

which are currently fired only from ships

and subs—and 50 ground launchers would

cost $1.4bn, small-change for the Penta-

gon, according to a study by the Centre for

Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

(csba), a think-tank. But state-of-the-art

weapons are also being considered.

The army tested its new Precision Strike

Missile (prsm) for the first time on Decem-

ber 10th in New Mexico. The missile, which

can be fired from existing launchers, had

previously had its range capped at 499km;

unencumbered by the inf treaty, it may

now go as far as 800km. An even longer-

range hypersonic missile is also in the

works. The csbasays that 400 brand-new

ballistic missiles with 100 launchers would

require $9bn or so. The Pentagon says that,

unlike Russia’s ssc-8, its new missiles

would not have nuclear tips.

The political ground is now shifting in

the Pentagon’s favour. On December 9th

the two houses of Congress reconciled

their duelling versions of the National De-

fence Authorisation Act (ndaa) after

months of wrangling between missile-shy

Democrats, who deplore Mr Trump’s with-

drawal from the treaty and argue that new

missiles are unnecessary fripperies, and

Republicans, who want America to re-

spond to China’s unconstrained build-up

of about 2,000 missiles. In a sop to Demo-

crats, the ndaabans the Pentagon from

buying or fielding new inf-range missiles

before October 2020. But it is not much of a

constraint: research and testing can con-

tinue, and new systems would take years to

come to fruition anyway. A defence appro-

priations bill published on December 16th

allocates $56m for missile research.

The bigger hurdle is diplomatic. The

ndaaobliges the Pentagon to submit a re-

port on where new missiles would be de-

ployed and how consultations with allies

are going. Those are harder questions to

answer. Mark Esper, the secretary of de-

fence, said in August that he wanted to put

new missiles in Asia “sooner rather than

later”. But several of America’s best friends

in the region immediately demurred.

South Korea’s defence ministry said it

had “not internally reviewed the issue” and

had “no plan to do so”. Scott Morrison, Aus-

tralia’s prime minister, said he could “rule

a line under” the idea of such deployments:

“It’s not been asked of us, not being consid-

ered, not been put to us.” On October 31st Ja-

pan’s defence minister insisted that “we

have not been discussing any of it”.

Europeans are also cagey. natosquare-

ly sided with America in blaming Russia

for the collapse of the inftreaty, and some

countries, like Poland, would welcome

new missiles. But the alliance has generally

preferred to emphasise defensive mea-

sures, rather than retaliatory deployments

like those which provoked big protests in

the “Euromissiles” crisis of the 1980s.

In August Jens Stoltenberg, nato’s sec-

retary-general, argued that a Russian pro-

posal for a moratorium on new missile de-

ployments was “not a credible

offer”—what was the point when Russia

had already deployed missiles? But in No-

vember Emmanuel Macron, France’s presi-

dent, broke ranks to say that Russia’s offer

could serve as “a basis for discussion”. Even

if a moratorium could be agreed on, it

would probably cover only deployments in

Europe, not those in Asia.

Eric Sayers, a former special assistant to

America’s Indo-Pacific Command, sug-

gests that, as China’s power—and missile

arsenal—grows, the diplomatic situation

in Asia is likely to move in America’s fa-

vour. Japanese officials “understand the

military case and know this will be a future

ask”, he says. Any deployments there will

probably be badged as rotational, rather

than permanent, and might focus on anti-

ship missiles rather than on those which

target Chinese soil. Some American offi-

cials view this as leverage to force China

into arms-control negotiations. Others just

want to shore up a military balance that has

been tilting in China’s favour. Either way,

many more tests will have to come first. 7

America tests missiles that were banned until recently

Missile-testing

Going ballistic

Stripes and stars