George W. Bush and his Republican praetorian guard of hard-liners (many of whom, for no other reason than cowardice, ducked the call to duty in Vietnam) have put Al Gore needlessly on the defensive on the issue of national missile defense. Their intent, by hook or by crook, is to make Gore look weak on defense, even if it means unilaterally abrogating a solemn international treaty with Russia and risking driving emerging Russia back into its Cold War bunker.
Missile defense is predicated on the increasingly nonsensical notion that a "rogue state" (though these words are no longer politically correct, according to no less an authority than Madeleine Albright) will fire nuclear-tipped missiles into Alaska and even northern California and seize a political advantage that its suitcase nuclear bomb deposited in a left-luggage locker in New York's Grand Central Station could not. No wonder that even the ever-faithful British, who have made a habit of never querying US defense issues, have started to air their doubts.
Now, by one of those quirks of journalistic fate, I have been handed a report that has been considered at the highest levels of the Pentagon. The report makes it clear that there is an alternative that would mean that it was quite unnecessary either to need to break international law or alienate Russia, and this alternative has the added bonus that it would not neutralize China's strategic retaliatory nuclear capability and thus would not work indirectly to trigger a dangerously destabilizing nuclear arms race between China and India.
Putin's proposal
The reason, perhaps, that this report has been kept from out-loud discussion is that it is astonishingly similar to the proposal touted recently by the Russian president Vladimir Putin.
In four words it is a system of "Airborne Boost-Phase Defense" or, in common parlance, shooting down missiles as they take off rather than waiting for them to come near to landing. Rocket boosters are easy both to detect and to track. They are more vulnerable and easier to destroy than incoming warheads, and the entire payload -- warheads and decoys -- can be downed with a single shot. Added to that, such a defense system need only cover the enemy's territory rather than the wide expanse of territory at home that might be threatened. Moreover, the Pentagon has already admitted that it will have difficulty distinguishing between decoys and an actual incoming missile.
But with this boost-phase defense, such misleading counter measures would be much more difficult if not impossible. However, such a system is only effective against small states like North Korea or Iraq, not against big continental countries like Russia and China with their intercontinental ballistic missile forces. Thus it is not going to upset the status quo, a vital political consideration for those who value big power strategic stability.
How does it work? It is, according to these papers before me, based on a high-speed rocket making use of a small "kinetic-kill vehicle" for a payload. This homes in on the booster's infra-red signature. For dealing with the supposed coming threat from North Korea these airborne interceptor launch platforms could be located over international waters in the Sea of Japan.
They can be launched from fighter aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles. Or they could be a high-powered laser carried aboard a Boeing 747-400F.
Capitulation
There are 80 pages of scientific and strategic justification for this scheme, which a layman like me peruses with leaden eyes. But certain items stand out -- it is more likely to work than the so far unproven national missile defense system to be based in Alaska. Second, it is very much cheaper. Third, it avoids adverse Russian or Chinese reactions which could undermine US security in the long term. This raises the political question: why has the Clinton Administration attempted to portray thinking of this kind as purely Russian-inspired when its very own advisors are hard at work on a similar idea? Why also has the Clinton administration not encouraged public debate, as it has with its spend-thrift, dangerously destabilizing and, more than likely, unworkable Alaskan scheme?
Beyond that one can also ask why, when Clinton has achieved so much with his creative diplomacy with North Korea, when the UN-led disarmament programme in Iraq seems in retrospect to have been thoroughly effective and when every US general knows full well the US's best defense against the "rogue states" is its retaliatory capability, does the Clinton Administration persist in tying itself publicly to the pursuit of its national missile defense scheme?
There is indeed only one answer -- that, for too long, Mr Clinton has run scared before the old Cold War warriors who have now arranged themselves anew around the Republican presidential candidate. The Clinton Administration, having no defense of its own, has capitulated before the right's offence. No administration since the onset of the Cold War has done so little for arms control. The Clinton Administration enters its final days having passed up the great historic opportunity to engage in really effective nuclear disarmament with its erstwhile enemy, Russia, despite the encouragement from a range of informed opinion from a former secretary of defense to a former head of US nuclear strategic forces. It is a mistake that is not much less than a war crime. That Clinton should compound this dreadful record by conniving in obfuscating the choices before the American people in providing for their defense -- albeit in this case, most likely, only an imaginary threat -- is beyond all reason. It is simply cowardice and in another age Clinton would have been taken out and shot.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press