|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Fact Sheet 2 - Missile Defence is not DefenceThe Howard Government’s decision to involve Australia in research and development for the US missile defence program came without warning or consultation. Yet public debate would seem particularly appropriate since missile defence, whose first US deployments are expected in late 2004, introduces the radical new concept of taking warfare into the heavens. A 2001 report for the US Space Command rhapsodised about the "synergy of space superiority with land, sea, and air superiority" that would come with missile defence and other projects to militarise space. The U.S. Space Command report, Vision for 2020, speaks of "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment." The US Air Force Space Command Strategic Master Plan says the United States intends to dominate the world by turning space into the crucial battlefield of the 21st Century, adding that the US will not allow any other power, including its allies, to get a foothold in space. Star Wars will cost astronomical amounts of money, possibly trillions of dollars. The Bush administration is finding the cost so great they have been trying to convince allies to help with investments in the research and development phase of the project. Most responses have been decidedly cool. The Howard Government, however, has opened its cheque book, but is refusing to say how much Australia will contribute. Some jobs and the prospect of large profits for the aerospace industry cannot justify the expected massive costs involved. With a defence budget already running at well over $43 million a day and with Medicare and education in desperate need of funding, the decision is irresponsible. Missile defence involves developing a system to intercept in flight a limited number of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs) launched by "rogue states". Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., vice president of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, says the program is unnecessary. "The least likely threat we face is some third-rate nation developing an ICBM and launching it at the United States knowing they will get back 50 times what they send. There are all kinds of ways that are cheaper and more reliable - smuggling in a suitcase bomb, for example - to inflict harm and not be subject to instantaneous retaliation," the retired admiral says. The January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review lays out the Bush administration plans for "pre-emptive" use of nuclear weapons (nuclear first strike) against named countries including China and North Korea. Pentagon planners believe a missile defence "shield" will allow the US to launch such a nuclear first strike without fear of retaliation. However, the technological problems are huge. The system has been described as trying to hit a bullet with a bullet at 16 kms per second. Since research began in 1976, attempts to destroy mock warheads have failed more than 70 per cent of the time. A recent report by the General Accounting Office of the US Congress warned that the anti-missile system is hampered by immature technology and limited testing, raising the risk of failure. This is the latest in a series of authoritative assessments that the missile defence system simply cannot be made to work. Trade with countries of the Asian region, especially the Peoples Republic of China, is becoming increasingly significant for Australia's economic development. Why then has the Howard Government bought into a program which the Chinese have repeatedly warned could spark a regional arms race and risk regional stability and security? Chinese alarm will be heightened by the Federal Government's intention to purchase long range missiles for use on F/A-18 planes, making Australia the only country in the Southeast Asian region to have such weapons. At the very least this will provoke insecurity in regional countries. At worst it will contribute to regional missile proliferation. Regional engagement would be a preferable approach, reducing regional tensions and optimising conditions for trade and other exchanges. With its commitment to missile defence, Canberra is dragging us into a massively expensive, controversial and still-experimental system which has the potential to provoke a new arms race, seriously destabilise our region and undermine the global strategic balance. There is no benefit for Australia in becoming involved in the US missile defence program. Our security will be damaged, trade and diplomacy will be undermined, relations with our regional neighbours will be negatively affected and our sovereignty will be diminished. By Dr Hannah Middleton Download File: |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
© Walk Against the War Coalition 2003. |
 |