Scarcely noticed, the US last month deployed its first ground-based missile interceptor at Fort Greely in Alaska. It was a significant step in the Bush administration's ambitious and hugely expensive missile defense system -- a project the Blair administration in the UK says it supports but one that, in the view of its many critics, will provoke a new arms race leading to the weaponization of space, a true "son of star wars" with profound implications for the rest of the world.
Deployment of the interceptor "marks the end of an era where we have not been able to defend our country against long-range ballistic missile attacks," said Major General John Holly, program director for the Ground-Based Midcourse defense system.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
This has nothing to do with terrorists, repeatedly described by US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the greatest threat to the west. The al-Qaeda network of terrorists may want to get their hands on biological or chemical weapons, or a dirty bomb, but they are unlikely to be able to launch a long-range intercontinental ballistic against the US, or anywhere else.
"This extraordinary emphasis on missile defense represents misplaced priorities," says the US Union of Concerned Scientists.
"The administration's top priority should instead be combating the threat of nuclear terrorism," the union says.
Up to five more interceptors are due to be deployed at Fort Greely by the end of this year. By the end of next year, the US plan is to deploy 10 ship-based intermediate-range interceptors, a sea-based tracking radar and an upgraded radar at Fylingdales in Yorkshire, in the north of England.
Bush wants to spend US$10 billion on missile defense next year, an increase of nearly US$1 billion over this year's expenditure on the system. His request has yet to be agreed to by Congress, where there is a growing belief that the whole project is ideologically driven, a belief fueled by widespread skepticism among Pentagon officials that it will work. That skepticism is not shared by their boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, an enthusiastic supporter.
Rumsfeld is also a driving force behind US plans for weapons in space, the next step in the US' still-limited missile defense program. He has talked about a threat from a "space Pearl Harbor."
As little-noticed as the missile deployment at Fort Greely, his Missile defense Agency has now earmarked nearly US$70 million for Nfire -- the acronym for the near field infrared experiment.
This project, due to have been launched this year but delayed because of rumblings in Congress, involves a series of test satellites in low-Earth orbit carrying infrared sensors. Initially, the idea is to enable the US military to distinguish between the rocket plume, or exhaust, of a missile fired by a potential enemy and the missile itself. But the system is also designed to carry a "kinetic kill-vehicle" that will intercept a missile after it has been tracked.
Nfire will in effect be the first space weapon. That is the warning in Fighting for Space, a paper written by the Yorkshire Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) to be published later this month. While Nfire is "being marketed as a defensive system playing a part in the missile defense infrastructure, it could also be effectively deployed as an anti-satellite weapon able to destroy the space assets of other countries," it says.
It quotes a recent interview with an anonymous senior US government official who stated: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization." Or as the US Space Command noted last year: "We cannot fully exploit space until we control it."
CND comments that, "given the widespread concerns that missile defense won't work effectively, the statements by the US administration and military about controlling space and the asat [anti-satellite] capabilities of the missile defense system, it is no wonder that many states and individuals believe the system is being developed primarily for offense rather than defense."
Russia has already developed a basic asat system. The Pentagon has expressed concern that China will be capable of launching asat weapons in two to six years. There are international agreements governing space, notably the 1967 outer space treaty. But these ban only "weapons of mass destruction'' -- nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. They would not prohibit the kind of satellite wars now in prospect.
Washington, meanwhile, is determined to push ahead with its missile defense project, with the help of its allies, old and new.
The British American Security Information Council notes that last month during a visit to the UN, Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill said that Australia planned to help the US develop a missile defense system, although it "faces no current threat from ballistic missiles."
The US was last month reported to be negotiating with Poland and the Czech Republic over its missile defense program and the location of the largest missile defense site outside the US. The US also says it wants Japan to jointly develop equipment for missile defense systems.
In Britain, there is little or no debate, although the expanding US satellite ground station at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, England, will play a key part, along with Fylingdales. Earlier this year, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon told Lindis Percy, the veteran campaigner against US bases in Britain: "We are keen to see how the US system evolves ... The agreement to the upgrade at Fylingdales and the close links between UK and US industry will give us close access to, and involvement in, the US missile defense program."
It is for members of the British parliament to pick up the cudgel. Hoon's senior military advisers are deeply concerned about the US's missile defense project and what it could lead to. The issues are far too important for decisions to be allowed to go by default.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS