In the past few months, the U.S. government has stepped up its efforts to install a missile defense shield in Europe that the U.S. has been planning for years. The expressed purpose of the project, on which the White House hopes to break ground in 2008, is to counter newly emerging threats from Iran and North Korea. Initially, it looked as if part of the system would be based in England on Tony Blair’s request, but the U.S. has instead settled on building ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. However, the missile defense shield proposal is fraught with controversy. The agency in charge of the missile shield is shadowy and elusive. Meanwhile, Russia officials are adamantly opposed to the system and have worked to exacerbate divisions within NATO and the EU.

The goal of a missile shield is to destroy an incoming missile before it can hit a target. Although the name conjures up images of energy domes and Star Trek spaceships, there is little similarity. The general concept utilizes an interceptor missile to collide with and destroy an offensive missile. The U.S. currently operates a missile shield that covers all of North America, some of South America and a large section of the Pacific Ocean. The planned sites in Europe would cover most of Europe, North Western Africa, and parts of Russia, China, and Japan. With these new sites in place, the U.S. could technically intercept long range ballistic missiles in half of the globe.

“Technically” is the keyword. It is very hard to judge how effective this system is for a number of reasons. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), whose primary purpose is the development and maintenance of missile shield technology, admits that the shield is a work in progress. While the MDA has touted the successes of current missile shield technology in tests, critics state that the tests are too controlled to assume that the system would be as effective in a real world situation.

Meanwhile, MDA’s somewhat rogue quality presents greater problems in judging the program. Because the MDA is mysteriously not under the normal Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition cycle, it is not subject to the same laws and regulations as nearly every other DOD agency. Specifically, the MDA can transfer funding internally in almost any manner it desires. This exacerbates the problem that the MDA uniquely has very limited oversight and regulation of its activities. As long as the MDA does not run a deficit and does not ruffle too many feathers, it is extremely hard to determine if the MDA is working effectively. While this model grants efficiency and flexibility to the MDA, it comes at the cost of knowing exactly how well the agency is performing.

Although it may not be clear how effective the missile shield in Europe would be, one thing that is clear is that there is international controversy surrounding the shield. The U.S., Polish, and Czech governments want to build this system primarily to counter Iran. Although Iran currently does not have long range missile capabilities, military analysts estimate that, unabated, Iran will have missiles capable of reaching Europe by 2015. On the other hand, in light of the success of recent negotiations, the White House is unenthusiastic about promoting the shield as a defense against North Korea.

Although most governments in the Europe are split on their opinion of the shield, Russia is adamantly against the proposed system. Many Russian officials and generals, including President Vladimir Putin, have strongly condemned the project and even gone as far as thinly veiled threats. For instance, Putin has asserted that the proposed system would increase the likelihood of “mutual damage and even destruction,” evoking the nuclear theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Furthermore, the Kremlin has threatened that it will target some of its nuclear warheads at bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. officials have entered into discussions with Russia, touted the shield’s benefits for Russia, and have even offered to collaborate with Russia to some degree. Unfortunately, little has come out of these talks.

Russia claims that the shield is being created to remove Russia’s nuclear deterrent and that the bases have offensive capabilities. The first claim is absolutely absurd. Russia’s nuclear stockpile is somewhere in the tens of thousands. Any more than a handful of conventional ballistic missiles would overwhelm any system the U.S. could ever dream of building in the foreseeable future. The shield would only be capable of defending against a very small number of missiles at one time and therefore would only be effective against an attack from a country just beginning long-range missile production, a non-state entity, or a mistakenly fired missile.

Russia’s claim that the silos could be used for offensive purposes has some validity, but is not very relevant. Whether or not the silos could actually be used for offensive weapons should be of little concern to Russian security. All the nuclear powers already have missiles targeted at every other country. The U.S. has no reason to indiscreetly point a few more conventional missiles at Russia. Of course, Russia knows all of this.

Russia knows that in all likelihood this system will be created, but is trying to cause as much trouble as possible for the U.S. and other NATO countries. First of all, Russia is distressed by the fact that the system would be based in two former Warsaw Pact countries. By threatening to target Poland and Czech Republic, Russia is trying to get the Eastern European public to question whether their strong ties to the U.S., which constitute an affront to Russian national pride, are actually beneficial. Somewhat surprisingly, Russia’s tactics are having the desired effect. The proposed missile shield has both the Polish and Czech people highly divided. The Polish Center of Public Opinion found that 57% of Poles are against the planned missile shield, while 68% of Czechs are opposed to the plan, according to the CVVM institute. Besides just dividing the public, Russia also appears to have divided the EU on the issue. Interestingly, many EU officials are worrying about the plan being unfair to Russia and that the plan “back[s] Russia into a corner,” as expressed by Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn.

Truthfully, it is hard to say whether the missile shield proposed for Europe is a good idea. Because of the obvious need for secrecy on the details of the program, there is little available information to confirm if the system could actually work in a real life scenario. Furthermore, because the MDA does not need approval from outside departments, it is difficult even for the government to internally assess the successfulness and progress of missile shield technology. The first thing that the DOD should do is integrate the MDA into the standard acquisition cycle and apply existing laws and regulations to the MDA like any other agency in the department.

If we take for granted the MDA’s positive assessment of the missile shield, the EU should support the installation of the shield. At the very least, Europe should not be questioning the shield on the grounds of being unfair to Russia. European officials may wish to placate and foster better relations with Russia and some officials may question whether the missile shield is actually effective, but they should not be fooled into thinking Russia is actually harmed by the proposed plan. More importantly than hindering the proposed shield, they are weakening EU and NATO solidarity over erroneous Russian claims. As Konrad Szymanski, Polish Member of the European Parliament, points out, “Missile defense poses no danger for Russia. The real danger is the number of EU member states adopting the Russian view.”