Europeans Seeking a ‘Mini-Star Wars’ System

Some of the same European allies who are undecided or have even opted out of the Reagan Administration’s program to develop a “Star Wars” shield against Soviet missiles are promoting a “mini-Star Wars” system designed to protect them from the short-range and medium-range missiles that pose a direct threat to Europe.

Such a system could be operating sooner, more easily and probably more cheaply than the more ambitious Strategic Defense Initiative, the formal name for the proposed “Star Wars” program of space-based defense. And it also could give a boost to President Reagan’s controversial research program for the system.

So far, only Britain has signed a pact to take part in the program, which is designed to protect Europe as well as the United States from Soviet missiles. West Germany announced Wednesday that it will open negotiations with the United States toward regulating the participation of German firms in “Star Wars” research, although differences on the issue persist in Bonn’s coalition government.

Division Among Allies

France has flatly refused to be a U.S. “subcontractor” on the project. Italy is waiting until the dust settles although its budding space industry is eager for a role. And the Netherlands has been among the North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations most reluctant to accept new weapons.

Still, the West German Defense Ministry is trying to drum up support for a modest version of the Strategic Defense Initiative concept, sometimes called a European Defense Initiative. The goal is a system that would defend against the short-range Soviet missiles in Eastern Europe and the western Soviet Union.

The system would employ an anti-tactical ballistic missile (ATBM); tactical is another term for “short-range” in missile jargon.

Similarly, French military officials are interested in developing an ATBM defense, and France has also suggested a joint French-German satellite to detect and track hostile aircraft and missiles.

Even the Dutch are inclined to support development of a European umbrella against Soviet missiles, Defense Minister Jacob de Ruiter recently told Parliament.

Surprise Attack Concern

“Regardless of SDI,” Manfred Woerner, West Germany’s defense chief, said recently, “we all have to be concerned at the threat of (Soviet) short-range missiles” because Moscow could launch a surprise attack--even with missiles equipped with non-nuclear warheads--and wipe out NATO command and control centers, airfields and ammunition stores.

“We are pressing” the United States to help Europe develop an ATBM system, Woerner added. “It is in (the U.S.) interest because their troops are also stationed in Europe.”

His desire resonates strongly with Strategic Defense Initiative supporters in the United States.

“On both political and technical grounds,” said Fred S. Hoffman, director of the consulting firm Pan Heuristics and one of the original strategists of the nuclear age, “it now appears that SDI technologies could be applied earliest to defenses against . . . (shorter-range) ballistic missiles . . . in mid-course or after re-entry into the atmosphere.”

Hoffman said in an interview that a European “mini-Star Wars” defense could become operational by 1995, while a full-fledged SDI system would have to wait for early next century.

U.S. Favors Full System

At the Defense Department, however, the full system clearly comes first. Funds for the Army’s ATBM development program have dropped drastically since the Strategic Defense Initiative effort was announced, from almost $100 million two years ago to about $30 million now. The message from Washington seems to be that if the Europeans want their own missile defense, they will have to pay for it themselves.

In political terms, a European ATBM system would be more acceptable than the full-blown space-based program because it would not violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which forbids defenses against long-range missiles but is silent on the shorter-range missiles that are the object of ATBM defenses.

An ATBM system in Europe could also test some of the concepts of the larger system. Shorter-range warheads travel much slower--and are easier to intercept as they descend on their targets--than their intercontinental big brothers. Any progress could be helpful in SDI’s final phase--the effort to shoot down enemy warheads as they return to Earth.

The U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft system, which is under development, should similarly have some ability to intercept shorter-range missiles at the end of their trajectory. A Defense Department official told Congress last year that the Patriot program includes “technologies for defense against the shorter-range nuclear ballistic missiles,” which remain within the atmosphere throughout their entire route.

Truck-Mounted Missiles

The Patriot system uses truck-mounted supersonic surface-to-air missiles with a range of 65 miles. Radar directs each missile to the vicinity of its targets, where the missile’s internal guidance takes over and homes in on the radar waves as they are reflected from the target. The missile’s TNT-like warhead explodes either upon impact or close to the target.

European defense ministries find an ATBM system for Europe to be an attractive way to get around the opposition of their public and their politicians to participation in the U.S. “Star Wars” program. But beyond that, they are concerned that the Soviets have developed the ability to launch nuclear and non-nuclear warheads over short and medium ranges at Europe.

In the European view, U.S. nuclear weapons, once regarded as the continent’s guarantee against Soviet attack, now provide Europe with scant protection against non-nuclear Soviet aggression because any U.S. retaliation would bring down Soviet nuclear power on American cities. And as missiles become capable of precisely striking targets hundreds of miles away, Europeans are growing concerned that the Soviets in the 1990s will deploy short-range missiles equipped with conventional warheads that could do the same sort of damage as jet fighters and bombers--but with far less warning.

A particular NATO nightmare is a Soviet surprise attack against European airfields. Ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads would first destroy runways to trap aircraft on the ground and then strike the planes themselves while the Soviets embarked on a ground invasion from East Europe.

Could Present Dilemma

Such a scenario would present Washington with a dilemma--whether or not to go nuclear. To do so would pose the great risk of all-out nuclear war. Not to do so would mean probable defeat.

Short of developing a full-fledged ATBM system, Europe could disperse NATO aircraft, lay more runways and put more planes on stand-by alert, according to Rand Corp. experts. A Patriot anti-aircraft system upgraded to an anti-missile defense would cost about $100 million per unit, Rand says, while a new asphalt strip would cost only $5 million.

An anti-missile defense for Europe, however, would pose almost as many political and technical difficulties as it does opportunities.

The Soviet Union, although it is developing its own anti-aircraft missile with a capability to intercept short-range missiles, has already attacked the potential anti-missile capability of the Patriot as a violation of the ABM Treaty.

Its opposition to a major European ATBM program appears certain, and Europeans may prefer to move slowly, if at all, as a result. A recent study by Rodney V. Jones of Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies found that most European nations “are more interested in quiet East-West relations than in potential but distant security benefits.”

Cost Would Be High

Europeans also fear, Jones reported, that a major ATBM research program would generate irresistible momentum to deploy such weapons and that the cost and effort would divert scarce resources from NATO’s efforts to modernize conventional weapons.

The cost would be great. The Patriot system for air defense only--not missile defense--will cost $11 billion to complete by about 1990 and upgrading it would add billions more. The cost to the Soviets of countering a European ATBM system--by building more short-range missiles and perhaps adding decoys--might be less.

The latest generation of short-range Soviet missiles, introduced from 1978 to 1980, consists of the SS-21, with a range of 75 miles, the SS-23 (300 miles) and the SS-22 (650 miles).

Because virtually the entire path of the SS-21 is within the atmosphere, it could probably not be detected or intercepted by space-based weapons. Hoffman of Pan Heuristic said an ATBM system to defend against the SS-21 could evolve directly from today’s anti-aircraft systems.

But defensive systems against the longer-range Soviet missiles, which rise above the atmosphere on the way to their targets, would require air and space detection and interceptor networks not yet developed. These are the kinds of systems that are the goal of SDI.

Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, the head of the Pentagon’s Strategic Defense Initiative office, wants to maintain both long- and short-range efforts under the same bureaucratic umbrella.

“It’s a mistake to talk about defense of Europe only,” he said in an interview. “ATBM is only part of the answer. The security of the United States and its allies, in Europe and in the Pacific, are all tied together, and the solution should be, too.”