| ||||||
|
Home | |
Join Now | |
CND Shop | |
|
| ||||||
|
There are many reasons to oppose missile defence, but ultimately the development of missile defence increases the risk of nuclear proliferation and reduces Britain's security. Missile Defence is triggering a new nuclear arms raceMissile Defence is triggering a new nuclear arms race as other states increase their nuclear arsenals to overcome the US missile defence shield.China is already modernising its nuclear forces to include multiple independent targeting of nuclear warheads - a technology aimed at overcoming missile defence. China's nuclear modernisation programmes encourage other nuclear proliferators to develop their nuclear forces too. China's neighbours, India and Pakistan may respond to enhanced Chinese nuclear forces by increasing their own arsenals, in order to redress a perceived imbalance. Such increases exacerbate the dangerous nuclear standoff in South Asia. The possibility that countries such as Japan and South Korea may in future be covered by US missile defences also encourages North Korea to develop further nuclear and missile capabilities. Countries may develop decoy warheads and countermeasures to try to confuse and overcome missile defences. As President Chirac put it, "the more improvements that are made to the shield, the more improvements are made to the sword. We think that with these (anti-missile) systems, we are just going to spur sword-makers to intensify their efforts".(1) The US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty to pursue missile defence breaches disarmament commitments made in the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Final Document. If a nuclear-tipped interceptor system were used this would also break the Outer Space Treaty, which bans the use of nuclear weapons in space. It sets a bad precedent for other international treaties. If the US walks away from any international treaty it doesn't like, what is to stop other countries following suit? Missile Defence makes US military policy more aggressiveAccording to the US Nuclear Posture Review, missile defence is not a purely defensive system, but a key component of the US's "New Triad" of military forces. Missile defence is to be used in conjunction with nuclear and non-nuclear offensive strike systems.Missile defences will therefore play a key role in a more aggressive US nuclear posture, which includes:
Missile Defence is part of US plans for military domination of SpaceMissile defence technologies also play a key role in US plans for "full spectrum dominance" - military control of land, sea, air, space and information.According to General Joseph W. Ashy of US Space Command, the US has development programmes "in directed energy and hit-to-kill weapons because 'we're going to fight a war in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space...'" (Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 9, 1996) US plans for domination of space have profound implications for international peace and security and risk triggering a future arms race in space. Bases in the UK such as Menwith Hill and Fylingdales should not be used in US missile defence and space strategies. Missile Defence makes Britain a sitting targetThe use of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill as the eyes of the US missile defence system makes the UK a target for any adversary seeking to overcome the system.As former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Timothy Garden writes, "The upgraded... radar sites would become the forward eyes of a defence system. They would therefore become the priority targets for any enemy that wished to strike the US with ballistic missiles. An attack on these sites would not necessarily be carried out by ballistic missile."(2) Missile Defence is costly and riskyThe US is currently spending around $8-9 bn per annum on missile defence research and development - money that could be put to much more effective uses.Despite the large amounts of money invested to date, missile defence is a high risk, as yet unproven project which faces vast technological challenges. To date 14 out of the 17 of the missile interception tests having failed. Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction is the best defence against ballistic missiles Missile defence will not provide effective protection
from weapons of mass destruction as there are many ways that such weapons
could be deployed other than on ballistic missiles. 1. Interview with the New York Times, Dec. 17,
1999
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
