Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 641 times:
As most of you will know, George Bush is keen to implement the NMD system, citing the ABM treaty as an anachronism, which the US cannot realistically be expected to count on, in the face of changing strategies in geopolitics.
In Bush's mind, the ABM is simply not suited to protecting the US from foreign aggression in this day and age.
Some Russian officials claim the US risks kick-starting another arms race, and that it has not fully studied the consequences of it's plans, as regards NMD.
Europe, as usual, is divided. Unsurprisingly, the French don't like it, but the British do.
The rest are probably rolling their eyes!!
Here is an extract from the BBC:
Russia has warned that US President George W Bush's commitment to scrapping a landmark arms control treaty and creating a US anti-missile defence shield could lead to escalating global tensions.
Mr Bush on Tuesday described the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which limits missile defence systems, as a thing of the past.
But while Moscow reacted positively to proposed cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, Russian officials warned of a new arms race if Mr Bush carries out his intention to abandon the ABM treaty.
Mr Bush said the treaty with Russia was now a barrier to American and global security.
In a speech strong on rhetoric but thin on detail, Mr Bush outlined his vision of a missile defence programme to counter the threat from rogue states equipped with weapons of mass destruction.
"We must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM treaty," the president said.
"This treaty does not recognise the present or point us to the future. It enshrines the past."
He also tried to reassure international critics by announcing a high-level delegation to consult with allies in Europe and Asia.
He had already outlined his plans to the leaders of Britain, Canada, France and Germany and on Tuesday he called the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to reassure him ahead of the speech.
But Moscow remains apprehensive. Russian military and diplomatic sources - quoted by Russia's Interfax news agency - re-iterated Russian warnings of the dangers of scrapping the ABM treaty.
"Many in Washington understand that the destruction of ABM and deploying an anti-missile shield could undermine the system of strategic stability which exists in the world today and lead to a new arms race," the sources said.
National Missile Defence: What it is:
-A fixed, land-based, non-nuclear missile defence system including a space-based detection system
-Upgraded early warning radar
Able to destroy ballistic missiles
-No defence against sustained missile attack
-Expected to include space and sea-based defence
Nato Secretary-General George Robertson welcomed Mr Bush's commitment to consult closely with allies on the anti-missile defence scheme.
"The president is right to focus on these new challenges, and I welcome his commitment to close consultation with the allies," he said in a statement.
'Invitation to proliferation'
China stressed in a report by its official Xinhua news agency that Beijing was "hostile" to a missile defence plan.
Even among US allies, many object to the system
It quoted analysts as saying such a system "will not only spark a new arms race... but will also threaten world peace and security in the 21st century".
BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says China may modernise its own nuclear arsenal if it goes ahead.
Several Western countries also fear a missile defence system could disrupt the arms status quo between the US and Russia.
French President Jacques Chirac has called it an "invitation to proliferation".
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he hoped the ABM treaty would not be scrapped.
"In promoting respect for the rule of law in international affairs, there is a need to consolidate and build upon existing disarmament and non-proliferation agreements," he said.
'Son of Star Wars'
Britain, which along with Denmark will be a base for some of the early warning systems, welcomed the plan.
The US Defense Department venue for Mr Bush's speech was the same as that used by former President Bill Clinton eight months ago to announce that he did not think technology was sufficiently advanced to commit to missile defence.
But the so-called "Son of Star Wars" programme was a key Bush campaign pledge.
We may have areas of difference with Russia, but we must not be strategic adversaries
George W Bush
Giving no details of the number of missiles or the programme's budget, Mr Bush challenged critics who say the anti-missile programme is costly and unproven by acknowledging that the technology is far from perfect.
"We know that some approaches will not work, but we will be able to build on our successes," he told an audience at the Pentagon's National Defense University.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 613 times:
I tend to agree that the ABM treaty is out of date. At that time only a few major powers had nukes, and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was enough to keep things under control.
That is no longer the case however. Some jackass like Saddam, or bin Laden, or other could get himself a rudimentary nuclear device if he really tried.
My problem with NMD is that I find it unlikely that Saddam or some other nut would be so crazy as to make an overt launch of a missile. Such a launch would be immediately spotted, and retaliation would be on its way right quick. Plus, it assumes that the "rogue" has not only acquired a nuke, but also a long range missile system, which is just as difficult to obtain.
I think a rogue state or terrorist would prefer to sneak the nuke into a U.S harbor (or other country) in the hold of a cargo ship or a civilian transport plane. That way, it will be much more difficult for the target to figure out where the strike came from. They might develop a pretty good idea, but a western country could never launch a retaliatory strike unless they were absolutely sure (like they SAW the launch from that country).
So my problem with NWD is that it does not shut all the doors, even if it does work as designed.
Ryanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16 Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 606 times:
I must admit I am a little bit concerned about Bush's attitude to foreign policy, with his 'This is what I am going to do and you can take it or leave it' attitude. The US can do what it likes as far as protecting its citizens is concerned, just don't ask to have part of the NMD system located in the UK (as is planned) because if that is the case then Bush can go and stick his system up his backside.
Also, if he goes ahead with the system I trust the US will not be hypocritical enough to complain about nuclear proliferation in countries such as China...
I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
Nicolaki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 571 times:
Capt'n I guess it's pretty easy to define my opinion here. I Think the NMD is totally out of proprotion. Like I said, I think some US officials really don't beleive that the cold war is over. The sad thing is that with their stupid actions of going ahead with their mostiquo (sp?) blower they are going to put the whole world back into that cold war state of mind.
Now what really pisses me of is that approximatelly 80% of the canadian population lives within 40km from the US border. Now if the yanks wants to play GI joes with Sadam or whoever they want, guess who will also bite the dust? CANADA.
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 560 times:
I don't really see how a national missle defense shield will be of any benefit. It will only increase international tensions, and quite frankly, I don't want to see the North Koreans or Iraqis attempting to test the durability of the system.
I am bemused as well as amused by the fact that Bush repeatedly described the ABM treaty as an anochronism while he is unwittingly perpetuating an anochronism by conjuring up a cold-war era pipe dream that will do nothing but waste time, resources and international tolerance for an administration that is skating on extremely thin ice.
Kolobokman From Russia, joined Oct 2000, 1180 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 556 times:
You expect Russians to pay the old USSR debt back to you, and at the same time you say that the ABM treaty is outdated because the country doesn't exist anymore...
Make a choice! Either forget the debt and cancel the treaty, or stick to your promisses and agreements!
You can save time and nerves...just flush your 60+billions down the toilet... This crap is not going to work anyway.
It's safer for the so called "rouge state" to ship a nuclear warhead to the US in a cargo compartment of a ship (airplane!) and detonate it somewhere on the east coast...
Rouge state: "HEY, DON'T BLAME US! IRAN DID IT! or IRAQ DID IT! or N. KOREA DID IT!"
If you choose to flush the money, use my toilet.
PEACE ON EARTH
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 553 times:
I think Cfalk is right about his assertions that so-called rogue states would 'transport' a nuke then detonate it, rather than launch an ICBM, which would be immediately detected and have a return one following within minutes.
Whatever reasons Bush (whacked) is doing this, (and more than likely not has something to do with pacifying the armed forces) him and his cronies need to be a lot more diplomatic than the current "bull in a china shop" way of dictating these things to other nations.
The NMD would perhaps be a better prospect if it was developed and put in place to protect the entire planet. Although the expense would be horrendous, and it would take years for all parties concerned to agree.
It's frightening enough that there is enough nuclear weapons floating around the planet to completely destory all life on it already. Why make ridiculous policy statements that are more than likely going to create an arms race all over again?
Doomfox From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 125 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 534 times:
I don't know about this. I haven't heard or know enough about this to make a educated stand on this yet.
But, if Bush wants to make this to save our citizens from foreign attacks, he should also not take such a big tax cut to hurt our countries poor and uneducated.
He just isn't making much sense to me right now. Take money away from pediatric research with tax cuts and build more missiles? Something isn't right.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for protecting our country, but I don't think that Bush is going about this the right way. I sure don't think we should get other national powerhouses angry right now. One of the quickest ways out of a depression is a war, right?