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 - 05:40pm Aug 18, 2002 EST (# 3803 of 3810)

True Stories: Fortress Australia: The Secret Bid For The Atomic Bomb

Fortress Australia uncovers one of the most extraordinary, untold chapters in Australia's history - the brazen attempt by successive Australian governments to fortress the nation with atomic weapons. Recently released top secret documents finally allow this astonishing story to be told. They reveal a web of intrigue, in which Australia's nuclear industry became inextricably linked to a quest for atomic weapons technology.

Set against a backdrop of cold war paranoia and fear of Asian aggression, Fortress Australia explores the motives of the politicians, defence chiefs and scientists who set out to buy, then ultimately build, a nuclear arsenal.

From uranium exploration and guided weapons research to A-bomb tests on Australian soil, the film shows how Canberra aided both Britain and the United States in the hope of sharing their nuclear secrets. But it proved to be an extraordinary double-game in which both allies and enemies treated Australia with mistrust.

This groundbreaking film penetrates the murky world of atomic espionage and counter-espionage. It exposes KGB infiltration of crucial political offices, which almost thwarted Australia's nuclear ambitions. It also brings to light the secret role of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in the quest for nuclear weapons - in particular, the ill-fated Jervis Bay Nuclear Reactor Project, which could have enabled Australia to build as many as 30 nuclear weapons a year.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An upcoming program - Australia at that time would have had a population of 8-10million - 'the bomb' had high status. Today the anti-Nuke feeling here is high - people in general must have felt revulsion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does the USA have a system whereby papers pertaining to it's nuclear past (still it's present) are released for public disection?

rshow55 - 08:32pm Aug 18, 2002 EST (# 3804 of 3810)

I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey - - never thinking he was a "nice guy." I believe that I've been doing just exactly what Casey would have wanted me to do, in my work on this thread. He wanted to win the Cold War - but he needed an end game, and he knew it.

Casey was revolted by some of the things he did - and went ahead and did them.

I believe that Patrick E. Tyler's article Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html?pagewanted=print&position=top should be read carefully and repeatedly by citizens and nation states, all over the world. And by news organizations, too. It starts:

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Tyler continues:

Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."

This is a narrow and misleading definition of "operational intelligence" -- a distinction without a difference.

"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."

Carlucci is president of Carlisle . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html

"Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."

"Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

( 60 officers is a LOT if one is conveying INFORMATION ! )

. . . . (more)

"C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of the war front.

. . . . . (more)

"The Pentagon's battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested. Iran claimed that it suffered thousands of deaths from chemical weapons.

"The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews. "

( How incompentent and oblivious can 60 handpicked and trusted US officers be? )

"Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment of the issue — publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield — was an example of the "Realpolitik" of American interests in the war.

. . . . . ( more )

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense