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.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS