Missile Defence Shield

Contributor: Vox

Date: 2003-03-07 22:28:46

I am a little confused by your posting. My current understanding of the missile shield issue is that the US and Russia have come to an understanding on it and are "working with each other" on the framework and systems. Here are some on-line sources that illustrate my understanding:

May 16, 2002 - story in 'Guardian of London'
"... After a year of bitter Russian opposition to a scheme which Moscow warned could jeopardize global nuclear stability and spark a new arms race, the Kremlin has accepted a White House offer to cooperate on the national missile defense project (NMD). .."
Here's the URL to a copy of the story: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0516-08.htm

Jan 9, 2003 - 'Associated Press' story
"... The Russian Foreign Ministry said Thursday that Moscow has proposed a plan to work with United States on missile defenses, but a top Russian general warned that U.S. plans to build a missile shield were a threat to Russia.

The United States has said the two nations could cooperate in developing defenses against ballistic missiles, and Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko expressed hope Washington would agree to a draft "political agreement" on missile defense submitted by Russia..."
Here's the URL to a copy of this story: http://www.macon.com/mld/philly/news/world/4908592.htm

Jan 27, 2003 - AFP ( Agence France-Presse)
"... Russia will cooperate with the United States in the joint construction of a missile defense shield "step by step," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said in an interview with the weekly Itogi magazine. .."
Here's the URL to a copy of this story: http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030127142956.xablq1hh.html

So if you have (newer) contradicting information on the matter I would be most interested to update myself with it. Please post the location of the information so I can look it up.

As regards your concern that any such defence system would pose a threat to Canada, I think there is some truth to that fear although the risks existed even under NORAD and one can also argue the issue in different ways. Let me list the other possibilities and views:

- if a defence system existed then would attackers be deterred or encouraged?
- if the US were attacked anyway (without a defence system) would Canada not be threatened even worse since the missile(s) would then likely "arrive" at its(their) destination(s), and result in low altitude as well as high altitude fall-out somewhere in North America as opposed to somewhere before reaching its target?
- if a defence system existed then would it be possible to intercept missiles before they get across either of the two oceans?

A lot depends on how such defence systems would be implemented. I recall suggestions made by the US to have countries like Turkey and Russia "host" the establishment of small shorter range weapons that could bring down Iraqi missiles soon after they are fired. I suppose the idea is to explode them while they are still over Iraq. Perhaps similar ideas were suggested regarding South Korea as a possible "base" - this is just my speculation.

Actually, none of this is news. I recall experts warning in the late 80s and early 90s that the fall of the Soviet Union will actually bring on greater instability because of missing Soviet weapons (like 40 unaccounted-for "suitcases"), rogue states and terrorists. I don't recall who the experts were but I understood and agreed on their assessment at the time. I wish it weren't so but it does seem not everyone wants to. You must remember: an arms treaty only works when the participants play by the rules and actually do not want war. If you throw in rogue states where the decision is in the hands on a single person or throw in terrorists, they will laugh at your arms treaty. If the US just wanted to use its weapons to dominate the world it must first be willing to use them to take out Russia and China as well as France and the UK. There would be no world left for any idiot of a US government (or anyone) to dominate over so such scenarios are essentially mad. Terrorists can afford to use 1 missile to take out Washington DC and disrupt the US for decades. Since they are terrorists the US has no legitimate target to fire its missiles against so defence is the only response the US has.



Vox Canadiana