战略与国际研究中心-PONARS-Policy-Memo-315_4页_78kb

U.S.-Russian Missile Defense Cooperation: Limits of the Possible

Core Content

This document, published by PONARS in November 2003, examines the potential for U.S.-Russian cooperation in missile defense, particularly following the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2001 and Russia's subsequent decision to engage in strategic missile defense discussions with the United States in May 2003. It analyzes the interests, obstacles, and possible outcomes of such cooperation.

Main Reasons for Russian Cooperation

• Political Relations Improvement: Russia sees cooperation as a way to move beyond the Cold War deterrence paradigm and improve bilateral relations.
• Economic Constraints: Post-Soviet Russia's economy is too small and market-oriented to sustain high-level military technology development independently.
• Access to U.S. Technology: Russia could benefit from U.S. missile defense technologies, which are more advanced than its current capabilities.
• Territorial and Early Warning Assets: Russian territory and early warning systems in former Soviet states could enhance U.S. missile detection and interception capabilities.

Main Reasons for U.S. Cooperation

• Reducing International Criticism: Involving Russia helps alleviate criticism from other countries regarding U.S. missile defense initiatives.
• Cost-Effective Technology Access: Russia's accumulated know-how and expertise in missile defense could provide the U.S. with cheaper alternatives to domestic development.
• Strategic Advantage: Russian territory could serve as a forward base for U.S. missile defense systems, improving response times and efficiency against threats like Iranian or North Korean missiles.

Key Obstacles to Cooperation

Tactical Disagreements

• Intergovernmental Agreement Requirement: Russia insists on a bilateral agreement for military-technical cooperation, which the U.S. has no precedent for.
• Intellectual Property Rights: Russia wants an agreement to protect its technologies, while the U.S. is hesitant to restrict its own use of Russian contributions.
• Logistical and Legal Issues: Disagreements over taxation, customs, and liability have hindered projects like RAMOS and JDEC.

Fundamental Challenges

• Russia's Limited Financial Commitment: Moscow is unwilling to invest significant resources into joint missile defense projects.
• Technological Transfer Concerns: Russia fears that accepting U.S. technology would reduce domestic orders for similar systems, harming its defense industry.
• Divergent Threat Perceptions: The U.S. and Russia have different views on which states pose a threat, creating political disagreements.
• Territorial and Security Risks: Deploying U.S. interceptors on Russian soil is unlikely due to lack of historical precedent and potential backlash from neighbors. Additionally, using Russian territory for interception could lead to contamination from debris or nuclear warheads, which would be self-detrimental to Russia.

What Could Be Achievable

• Subcontracting Role: Russian defense companies could act as subcontractors, providing expertise and know-how at a lower cost.
• Early Warning Data Exchange: Russia could share early warning data, improving U.S. tracking and increasing the likelihood of successful interception.
• Joint R&D Initiatives: Future cooperation might include research in areas such as:
  • Target detection and filtering using optical, infrared, and ultraviolet sensors
  • Precise tracking and trajectory data processing
  • Command and control system compatibility
  • Target destruction and kill assessment
  • Managing potential chemical, biological, and nuclear damage from intercepted WMDs

Conclusion

While both the U.S. and Russia have interests in missile defense cooperation, the political and strategic differences, as well as Russia's concerns over sovereignty and economic interests, present significant challenges. In the short term, cooperation may be limited to data exchange and subcontracting, but long-term integration remains uncertain. The U.S. appears more focused on practical and immediate benefits, while Russia's involvement is more about preserving its defense industry and strategic influence.