If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
US Missile Defence System (aka Star Wars)- a big mistake
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
The US is pressing ahead with its Son of Star Wars missile defence programme. This is an extremely worrying development in itself. Even more worrying, however, are reports that Blair is minded to allow the Americans use mainland Britain to position some of their early warning stations.
This missile defence system is just a very bad idea. It has single-handedly destroyed the ABM Treaty that has worked SO well for the last few decades. By removing the Mutual Assured Destruction principle the US is likely to produce a new arms race and further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Russia has already said that if the system is built they will work ways to penetrate it- most likely by increasing the number of nuclear warheads and decoys so a number of them will slip the net. Or they could just put bombers in the air round-the-clock like in the past, or increased number of submarines near the US coastline.
In addition other countries, namely China, India, Pakistan or North Korea, will no doubt double their efforts to acquire more and better missile systems to beat the shield. Not to mention how global tension is going to rise if it is believed one country with nuclear capability has a fail-safe protection against retaliation.
The worst thing is, most military analysts and observers believe the system will NOT work. Some missiles will invariably slip through, and there are always other methods of delivery. So the world might be about to embark into another nuclear arms race because of the ego and ignorance of one US President and the bank balances of a number of defence contractors.
And what of Britain? Well it seems that the US has or will officially apply for the use of some UK bases as early warning stations. And if that happens it is quite probable that Blair will agree to it (no surprise there really). Which will make Britain the first target of an attack should any country in the future make war against the US. Great.
More info
here .
This missile defence system is just a very bad idea. It has single-handedly destroyed the ABM Treaty that has worked SO well for the last few decades. By removing the Mutual Assured Destruction principle the US is likely to produce a new arms race and further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Russia has already said that if the system is built they will work ways to penetrate it- most likely by increasing the number of nuclear warheads and decoys so a number of them will slip the net. Or they could just put bombers in the air round-the-clock like in the past, or increased number of submarines near the US coastline.
In addition other countries, namely China, India, Pakistan or North Korea, will no doubt double their efforts to acquire more and better missile systems to beat the shield. Not to mention how global tension is going to rise if it is believed one country with nuclear capability has a fail-safe protection against retaliation.
The worst thing is, most military analysts and observers believe the system will NOT work. Some missiles will invariably slip through, and there are always other methods of delivery. So the world might be about to embark into another nuclear arms race because of the ego and ignorance of one US President and the bank balances of a number of defence contractors.
And what of Britain? Well it seems that the US has or will officially apply for the use of some UK bases as early warning stations. And if that happens it is quite probable that Blair will agree to it (no surprise there really). Which will make Britain the first target of an attack should any country in the future make war against the US. Great.
More info
here .
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Bush is commited to reducing tax and thus govt revenue but this program is likely to cost over a trillion dollars, it just doesn't add up........
One can only hope the next Democrat President will bin the whole project.
What justification will the US have for possessing nuclear weapons?
If they meant purely as a deterrant then there function will be removed if they have a proper defensive barrier, surely they would have no reason to keep their arsenal of nukes.
The only justification is if they use one strategy I have seen suggested ( in light of the repeated failures you mention) to arm the star wars defence system with nukes so they don't have to be so accurate.....
Bonkers :crazyeyes
Neat eh?
Not much a missile shield can do to stop terrorism im afraid. All it DOES do is line the pockets of the administration's cozy MIC buddies and the Bush family bank account with our tax dollars.
So if you like Bush so much you wont mind him extorting more money from you to make his family richer than it already is, all in the name of "patriotism". :rolleyes:
First off, No Muslim extremists are going to oust Musharoff let alone the Saudi Royal Family or any other Middle Eastern government.
As for death cult, that's a misnomer. Death Cults are about isolation from society and suicide pacts within the community. Terrorists are merely radicals who use religion (catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc..) as an excuse. Since Al Queda originated within Muslim Society its natural that they take whatever aspect of the religion that suits their hateful intentions regardless of whether it is in keeping with the broader principles that may govern adherents to that belief system.
You just keep using these rhetorical terms to emphaisize your position, but frankly you need to learn alot more about how geo-politics works and the actual dynamics at work in the cultures you appear bash in their entirety.
This whole WoT is more about the unbridled greed and lust to exert US control as widely as possible around the globe than it is about actually finding and eliminating terrorism. In point of fact to a far larger percentage of the planet it is our government that is the biggest terrorist organisation int he world. The fact that its a legally recognised state entity doesnt change the damage we cause to millions and millions of lives every year.
If I remember correctly, this isn't possible, because in order for a nuclear weapon to detonate correctly an extremely precise, controlled explosion has to compress the fissile material evenly in order for it to reach critical mass.
Highly unlikely that a collision with a unexpected outside force like a missile would set off a nuclear weapon....the radioactive material would be spread out over the ground underneath however, but this would be far less devastating than if the weapon were to detonate.
I personally don't support the missile defense plan because I don't believe it will work before several nuclear countries develop ballistic missiles that could reach the US. North Korea is already well on its way.
That being said, I would support it if it would work. Maybe I'm just a selfish bastard, but with the anarchy in the international system, I want every bit of protection that I can get.
And Aladdin, I really doubt that the Russians will be able to devote the resources needed to develop means to defeat the system. They can't afford to keep their missile subs from rusting on the docks, and had to sell their last aircraft carrier for scrap. They have many more pressing needs.
But it is countries like North Korea or even China that will most worried about this. At the end of the day the Russians still have enough warheads and methods of delivery to inflict devastation on the US. The other two are in a more precarious situation.
The US would think twice before going into a war with a nuclear-capable North Korea. This of course already applies to China, India, Pakistan... But if the threat of nuclear retaliation was eliminated you can see there is very little to stop the USA to wage war at, invade or bomb those countries. Bush has already labelled N. Korea a member of the 'axis of evil' (for reasons no one in the world understands I hasten to add) so it's not surprising if the Koreans are a bit touchy.
I was watching the news just now as the White House gave the official go-ahead to the project, and I see they are now talking about defence against "a rogue state launching one or several missiles" against the US. This is of course a big downgrade from the original Star Wars programme so loved by Reagan and an admission that the shield could not handle a multi-missile attack. So what purpose would serve North Korea to launch ONE missile at America, even if it managed to reach its target? It might destroy a city but that's about it. The attacking power and resources of the US would remain intact and N Korea would be promptly obliterated.
The biggest threat the West currently faces, by Bush's own admission, is terrorism. Perhaps he should be concentrating in tackling the problem and increasing security at airports, ports and other points of entry into the country instead of buying the world's most expensive fireworks.
My emphasis in one of my majors (International Relations) is International Security and Political Economy.
I can tell you, after doing a thesis on this, that the Russians are in TERRIBLE financial staits. A full 40% of their income goes to pay the interest on loans to foreign banks. Not the prinicple, the interest. Anywhere from 100-200 billion dollars has be siphoned out of the country since the collapse of the Soviet Union by corrupt politicians and the Russian Mafia. They cannot pay their soldiers. They can't pay to convert useless defense industries to civilian use. They can't pay for the cleanup of the pollution throught the country which affects food production.
It is very unlikely that they could justify to an already discontent population further austerity cuts to fund these kind of programs. I'll concede that this would be a very important consideration, seeing as they would lose even more power in the international sphere...but I find it highly unlikely given their precarious situation. Politicians are politicians, they want to stay in power and this would almost certainly lead to their ouster.
North Korea, no real threat. Even if they could develop the missile to carry them to the US they couldn't afford to make enough to be a legitimate threat.
China, a definately threat in the future. They already have missiles that can reach the US. Would they really risk losing their biggest trading partner, the reason for their 8% average annual growth?
Hey, you could be right. I think there are more obstacles to it than benefits though.
That is why in all the major wars since World War II of which there have been dozens of major ones including wars between India and Pakistan both nuclear powers, nuclear weapons were not used. So in any future war the only missiles that are likely to be used with be ones carrying conventional explosives.
America wants to keep its position as the worlds biggest superpower and to protect its economic interests accross the world and have the ability to attack any country which gets in its way like Iraq without them having the ability to hit America back!
Looks like the US is trying to get the missiles actually put in Britain, we are going to be more of a target then the US :eek:
I think it's your protection against Pakistan when the country becomes an extremist Muslim run country in the next few years. Or in case a launcher is set up in liberal Europe.
Please go and learn about how nation states are managed and how little actual threat to the established governing system are the various fringe groups that operate in such countries.
Musharof is more in danger of the largely "moderate" public demanding his resignation in favour of a democratically elected President than he is from any extremist group.
Of course terrorists can cause mayhem amongst the general public, but they do not have anywhere near enough grassroots support even in Pakistan in order to topple both Musharof and his military.
Just because its in print doesnt make it gospel truth, one has to discrern the political bent of the article, of the news service, what questions or issues any given article fails to actually address, and who's interests are being furthered by convincing the public that they should be constantly looking over their shoulder for foreign enemies.
At the end of the day, try asking why noone is looking into the long running discrepencies of various government allegations and why allegations that are not accepted for lack of proof are often then mediated into some other charge or claim which is just as spurious.
It seems to me our society has forgotten the basic principle that people are innocent until "proven" guilty, not until "alleged" to be guilty.
Have a look at this transcript of a BBC Newsnight program that aired last night. The Man and his wife in question are merely an example of the new McCarthyism I warned was going to happen with all the new legislation in place that allows our government to finger anyone they so choose even if no proof exists.
I hope you will start to understand why I am so distressed that America isnt waking up to the game Waqshington is playing with innocent lives in their supposed search for enemies behind every tree (so to speak).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1822772.stm
This man will never get his life back now even though he was falsely accused. How many thousands of others we dont hear about are having this happen to them on a daily basis? Your guess is as good as mine.
God forbid Bush and co should get another 4 years to continue this dirty business...