-Caveat Lector- The battle over missile defence Some argue that missile defence will trigger an arms race By BBC US State Department Correspondent Richard Lister Comments by the Russian President Vladimir Putin that the US deployment of a National Missile Defence shield would do "irreparable damage to the architecture of international relations" may prove to be just the opening salvo in what is likely to be a tough battle for President George W Bush over this controversial system. Unlike former President Bill Clinton, who was a late and reluctant convert to NMD, Mr Bush argued all through his election campaign that it was vital to set up a system capable of defending America from ballistic missiles fired from countries such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Russian President Putin says the missile defence system will harm international relations The fact that his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, are both advocates, means that one way or another this is a policy initiative the Bush administration is likely to pursue with some vigour. Obstacles for NMD But there are any number of minefields to be crossed along the way. Not least is the cost, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be in the region of $60bn. That is on top of the $60bn that has already been spent researching the concept since it was first proposed by the then President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Supporters argue that it is a small price to pay for the foolproof defence of the nation. But so far, NMD has proved to be anything but foolproof. Two of the first three tests of the systems failed. A missile defence system would not defend against terrorist acts And even if it is possible to develop the technology which will in effect shoot a bullet with a bullet (or a laser), you are still left with the problem of how to deal with decoys, multiple launches, or other delivery methods. With a missile-shield in place, aggressors might simply decide to use alternative delivery systems for their nuclear, chemical or biological warheads - like a truck, or a backpack, or an aerosol can. But the Bush administration argues that the countries once known as "Rogue States" (before being re-labelled as "States of Concern" by the Clinton team), are all developing longer-range missiles, and it would be negligent not to try to combat the threat. New arms race? Of course, combat the threat from them, and you have also gone some way to addressing the potential threat from other countries, which brings us back to Mr Putin. Not only would NMD give the US a strategic edge, it would also break the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty signed with the Soviet Union. Mr Bush has indicated that if the treaty cannot be renegotiated he would scrap it rather than forgo NMD. Missile defence faces opposition from friends and foes of the US The Russians suggest that if that happened they would have no choice but to beef up their own armoury. China appears to feel even more vulnerable to NMD. Because, while the new system would be unable to defend the US from a mass strike by Russia with its estimated 6,000 warheads, China has only about 20 ICBMs, about the size of arsenal that NMD would be designed to combat. Again, NMD opponents see the ingredients for a dangerous new arms race. Concern in Europe The Europeans too are distinctly dubious about US implementation of NMD and are concerned about the impact on relations with Russia. The Bush administration will have to decide the extent to which is prepared to sacrifice diplomatic friendships and isolate strategic adversaries for the sake of a missile shield, which is not yet proven and which could be quickly rendered obsolete by the development of new weapons or tactics. But for the Bush administration and its supporters, the alternative is to leave the most powerful nation in the world vulnerable to attack from anyone with a missile, a warhead and a hatred of the United States. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
