Financial crisis should not delay US missile shield

Speaking hours before a trip to Poland and the Czech Republic - where the US missile shield components are to be placed - the general described the project as "a prudent investment in security," which remains necessary to counter the continuing proliferation of a ballistic missile threat around the world.

To support the case, he compared the $83 billion (€66 billion) damage of the 11 September 2001 attack on New York alone to the approximately $120 billion spent on the missile defence programme since it was created in 1983.

"In an uncertain future we have to make prudent investments in security and we believe missile defence is one of them," general Obering said.

Earlier this year, Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to host parts of a US system that is to protect America and Europe from "rogue" states such as Iran and that is to become an integral part of a future anti-missile defence umbrella under NATO.

The US aims to place 10 interceptor missiles on Polish territory, while the Czech Republic is to host a radar base on its soil.

According to general Obering, the first interceptor could be installed in 2012, while the radar could be operational one year later. "Then we would finish everything about 2014. That is the timeline that we are on right now."

But it remains to be seen how the project will progress under the new White House chief - to be elected on 4 November.

While Republican John McCain is a strong proponent of the scheme, Democrat Barack Obama pledged in July to "shift federal resources away from an unproven missile defence system to proven technology."

When asked about Mr Obama's comment and the risk of delay in the programme, general Obering said "quite a bit [of the risk] is because we have to do a better job in educating both campaigns where we are today in technology and testing."

"I believe this is a matter of better education and better information that will update the candidates whoever wins in the elections," he concluded.

According to Tomas Valasek from the London-based Centre for European Reform, campaign speeches tend to differ from real action and even a president from Democratic camp is likely to find himself under pressure to show leadership and strength on security.

"Although senator Obama is surrounded by people who have expressed doubts about parts of the missile defence system, they do not question its philosophy as a whole," the expert on foreign and defence policy told EUobserver.

In addition, it is more difficult for a politician to defend a milder stance on security when faced with the basic argument of "why should we protect our people less sufficiently," Mr Valasek added.

Differences are stronger, however, when it comes to the idea of using space for military purposes, for example by launching laser weapons or micro-sattellites to intercept enemy missiles during their flight, the analyst said.

Senator Obama also said in July he would "not weaponise space."

But according to Mr Valasek, the argument enjoys support beyond the Democratic party, with many saying that an arms race in space would be the most damaging to the US because of the country's clear primacy in the area for now.