New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

lchic - 09:49pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11645 of 11662)

Advisers give Downer rocket over missile plan By Craig Skehan, Foreign Affairs and Defence Correspondent - Sydney Morning Herald

The Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, has been rebuffed by his advisers over his support for the proposed United States anti-missile shield.

A letter from his special advisers on disarmament says that the claimed benefits of the missile shield are "illusory". The government-funded group of experts has also told him that a recent personal briefing he gave them was unconvincing.

"Your statement that, as a purely defensive strategy NMD [national missile defence] was not able to bring harm to anyone compared with the previous doctrine of mutually assured destruction, was not regarded as reassuring," said the letter from the National Consultative Committee on Disarmament and Peace.

Mr Downer, whose office received the letter last night, met the committee on May 22 amid public debate over Australia's endorsement of the US decision to press ahead with national missile defence. The atmosphere at the meeting has been described by participants as strained.

"The minister was supposed to be there for an hour and answer questions after his address, but he cut it short and left early," one source said.

A spokesman for Mr Downer said there had been a "vigorous and healthy exchange of views" before the minister left for a pressing commitment at Parliament House. In recent weeks Mr Downer has attacked his Opposition counterpart, Mr Laurie Brereton, for opposing the US plan.

Mr Downer said the US was justified because of threatened acquisition of ballistic missiles by countries regarded as "rogue states", such as Iraq and North Korea.

However, critics said that because the missile interception plan was also aimed at neutralising China's nuclear arsenal it threatened an arms race and retaliatory missile technology transfers to the Middle East and elsewhere. The consultative committee said in its letter that the missile defence program constituted "a quite critical turn in global security".

"We know of no other minister for foreign affairs who has allowed an apparent endorsement of national missile defence to appear under such a heading as 'Why we need the US missile shield'.''

Mr Downer's office said last night that the reference was to a newspaper headline.

However, committee members said Mr Downer had cited the article published in an Adelaide newspaper and presented a copy of it in his briefing.

"There is growing disquiet in Europe and the US itself about NMD and what it may mean to the spread of nuclear weapons and missile technology," the committee told Mr Downer. While missile defences might appeal to a public's desire for protection from nuclear war, "such protection is illusory".

Mr Downer's office said the committee's letter praised Australia's efforts on various disarmament initiatives, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

FACT FILE

The National Consultative Committee on Disarmament and Peace was set up by the Federal Government to advise it on community views. It is chaired by a South Australian academic, Professor Ian Maddocks. Its members are:

Tim McCormack, Professor of International Law at Melbourne University; Sister Patricia Pak Poi, an expert on landmines; Dr Di Bretherton, a specialist on conflict resolution and a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Melbourne; General Adrian Clunies-Ross, the RSL's nominee; Martine Letts, secretary-general of the Australian Red Cross; Marion Hanson, of the University of Queensland; Dr Keith Suter, of Sydney's Wesley Mission; Mr John Hallam, of Friends of the Earth; Ms Cathy Picone, a national co-ordinator of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; David Puncell, of the Quakers. http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/08/pageone/pageone2.html

almarst-2001 - 09:55pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11646 of 11662)

For the past two decades or more, the United States has marked the course of its history through choices made in a fog of propaganda. - http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/091701a.html

lchic - 10:12pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11647 of 11662)

almarst-2001 2/19/02 9:48pm The wrong landing, a corporal pointed out, was due to "one of the most dangerous things in the world – an officer with a map".

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We were not trying to take Spain and have no plans to do so.

almarst-2001 - 10:30pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11648 of 11662)

lchic 2/19/02 10:12pm

"We were not trying to take Spain and have no plans to do so."

I assume it was not a joke;)

lchic - 12:56am Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11649 of 11662)

president believes it is a critical part of national security to communicate U.S. foreign policy to a global audience in times of peace as well as war http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/international/20INFO.html

lchic - 01:10am Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11650 of 11662)

"I worry about a regime that is closed and not transparent," said WalkerBush

..... As evidence, he cited President Ronald Reagan's success in dealing with the Soviet Union .... Kim reminded me a little bit about American history when he said President Reagan referred to Russia as the Evil Empire ...

sunshine policy of reunification of the Koreas supported by USA see

lchic - 02:08am Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11651 of 11662)

"Money is coined liberty" Dostoevsky

'The Military Ratchet' http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/war.html is a term used - related to paying for military expenditures ... leaving nations poorer than they otherwise might have been.

With respect to the USA - had it not squandered resouces on excessive military expenditure over the past half century - how rich and mighty might it have become?

If countries now SELLING military tools were actually selling infrastructure related to the means of production - a cash downpayment with leasehold returns ... how much better off might such countries be financially.

The point re military gear is that most often it's junked ... and nothing comes from it.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense