|low graphics version | feedback | help|
|You are in: Talking Point|
Wednesday, 17 January, 2001, 10:42 GMT
Missile defence: Is it a good idea?
The opposition Conservative Party in the UK has come out in support of a controversial US missile defence system.Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
The proposed system is designed to protect America and its allies from missile attacks by rogue nations, like North Korea or Iraq. It has the support of the incoming US president, George W Bush.
But Russia and China have repeatedly condemned the project, saying it could lead to a new arms race. European countries have also voiced concern.
Can such a missile system ever work? Does it endanger current disarmament efforts? Should America's allies support it?
Rajeev Dutt, Germany
Ten years after the end of the Cold War it seems people are quick to forget the fear we all lived under and the financial ruin and suffering it brought to so many people. This is merely a shallow attempt by Bush to raise support among arms dealers and the military-industrial complex.
Whatever happened to diplomacy, understanding and rational thought? I hope that one day Americans stop imposing their idea of order and realise that the "pursuit of happiness" should apply to all nations on this earth.
The NMD system is not a cold war
Relic - it is a dream that has persisted
throughout history. It will be realised
by those bold enough to do the work.
I can't imagine why anyone should be
offended by another's intention to try
to defend one's self.
In any case, the NMD should proceed.
Why help pay for a system that makes conflict more likely and protects someone else, not us? This is the reality of the "special relationship". We put ourselves out for the benefit of the world's richest (and greediest) nation!
US foreign policy has for decades been to advance their commerce at the expense of everyone else (including UK).
Is it unlikely that most of the anti-Europe propaganda that we eat daily from US owned media is part of this and funded by vested interests?
KA Parker, UK
I am amazed that the UK is even considering supporting this. Why does Britain always have to do everything the US wants. If there is anti-American feeling in Europe it is because people have woken up to the fact that they are fed up with the US telling us what to do when they can't even get their own country in order. Remember Britain you are part of Europe - be proud of that fact and say no to this. Talk about turning the clock back!
I personally agree with the suggestion of NMD in Britain. We are living in a VERY unstable world, one with several UNKNOWN nuclear carriers. It seems people are forgetting this is a defensive not an offensive weapon!
As for people in the EU stating on this Talking Point that Britain should leave the EU. It is thanks to the US and Britain that there is an EU! I would much rather team up with the Americans and defend freedom than be a European who bows to dictators for the price of a few exports!
Everyone is missing the point! In an interview on the BBC, Reagan's Chief of Staff said that Reagan's intention with Star Wars was not only to clearly win the arms' race, but also to destroy the Soviet economy in the process. The objective was achieved. National Missile Defence and theatre defence has the real purpose of luring China into an arms race they cannot win with similar consequences for their economy. The U.S. knows that before the century is out, China will be the strongest economy; American conservatives will do anything to prevent it. The big question is who protects the world from America which is fast becoming the super rogue nation?
The scientists involved in this project have spoken, this system does NOT work. The tests of the system prove that it does work. Any potential enemies would not use a missile system to attack as it would be suicide for them to launch a missile that could easily be tracked back to its source. Instead an enemy would use small nuclear/biological weapons that can easily be smuggled into the country and used it in heavily populated cities. It is absolutely absurd to keep on funding an impossible system that even if it worked would not be useful in modern warfare.
A lot of the advocates of the anti-missile programme appear to be missing the point that it would basically allow the US to attack whoever they wanted to without fear of ballistic retaliation. Great for the Americans admittedly - not so good for anyone who doesn't jump when the US tells them to. I think William Hague should be wary of speaking out on matters of such importance, since Tory policy rarely seems to be well thought-out these days (remember their drug manifesto anyone?)
Why is it that not wanting to place Britain's collective neck into a US produced noose is regarded as being anti-American? In the pursuit of world freedom, Britain sacrificed its predominant world position, through the economic realities of two world wars. The US did very nicely out of those same conflicts, entering late and avoiding economic difficulties.
Alex Banks, Walse (living in Sweden)
We should allow the US to use RAF Fylingdales if they agree to install and pay for a UK missile shield and giving the keys to the RAF to operate.
If the Conservatives oppose it I would think it is a good idea. They tend to oppose anything sensible these days.
Paul of UK is correct.
To a Briton living in
the US, the degree
Europeans is appalling
What seems especially
unsettling is the
way in which pro-EU
sentiment has become
with even Government
that the purpose of
the Euro and the
Rapid Reaction Force
is to challenge the
Let's hope we don't
have to appeal for
help to the US for
a third time in a
hundred years. Next
time their price might
be permanent control
Anything that protects Britain and the USA from the Saddam Husseins, Milosevics and Gadaffis of the world has to be a good thing. Not embracing this system and using the same sort of diplomacy that was used by Chamberlain meeting Hitler is lunacy. You fight wars by being cunning and nasty, not by being wimps. What happened to the British Bulldog spirit?
I think that although missile defence may a good idea in the short term, it may start another Cold War, especially as I read in an American newspaper that China has signed a treaty with Russia.
The proposition of building a missile defence system to afford protection to the "allies" is a ludicrous one. It reflects on the pervading tendency of the United States to adopt a hostile posture at the earliest possible opportunity. Such a proposition would merely generate acrimony between the West and other countries that are bearing the brunt of America's indignation.
Rich Vose, California, USA
Building this system would be very costly and even if it did work there would be soon countermeasures invented to neutralise it. A far better and cheaper method would be to simply change our foreign policies which have generated so many needless enemies for us..
Surely if no country is expecting to attack the US or even the UK in the near future with missiles, then they shouldn't have a problem with a "defensive" missile system?
"All you need is Love"
Moreover there is still a strong anti-nuclear movement in the UK and Europe..Does Mr Hague think they will quietly accept such a 'system' being placed on British soil? Call me an old cynic, but I feel Mr Hague's support of this daft idea, has more to do with upsetting our European partners, than appeasing our American cousins.
Pat Vincent, UK
There will always be nations that are looking for trouble in the East somewhere, and without such defences the lives and freedom of good and honest citizens is threatened. I think it is good that the US with the backing of the Conservative Party has the "spine" to stand up to these nations, whereas so many people in today's politics are "spineless".
Woo-hoo! Back to the eighties, with a Bush in the White House and SDI back on the agenda.
Isn't that taking revivalism a bit too far?
Nick Marsh, UK
Piloting a small boat up the river Thames laden with chemical, biological or a nuclear device does not require an exorbitant amount of cash of even intelligence. The breakup of the Soviet Union has made acquiring these weapons relatively simple and the proliferation of small terrorist nations has made their use more likely. The most likely target would be a major city such as New York or London. Can someone please explain to me how the new "Missile Defense System" can prevent this?
I really don't believe that China or North Korea are our main threats as they probably wish to continue living. I believe the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is still alive and well. Does anyone still remember M.A.D.?
The conservatives of both Britain and the USA are (as usual) living in the past. I wonder if anyone has informed these relics that the USSR is no longer in existence.
Bassam Sulaiman, Kuwait
The missile defence system is expensive, but what is the cost of a city like New York, Los Angeles or London. When you compare that with the price of this system, especially with the huge loss of life a nuclear strike would cause, it seems cheap. The only problem is that it doesn't stop terrorists bringing in a nuke on a commercial freighter or airliner. That is more frightening than rogue state missiles as you wouldn't know who had exploded
Nigel Baldwin, UK
Modern day Don Quixotes tilting at the windmills!
Missile defence is another form of welfare for companies that rely on warfare. Contracts will be doled out, billions of dollars will be wasted, and after years of more testing, the same conclusion will be reached, namely, that the whole system still won't work.
Given the fantastic pace at which technology is advancing and is also becoming available to all, a missile threat from the likes of Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic could be a worrisome reality. Leaders of any country must accord protection to its citizens especially from the threat of mass annihilation. Hence Bush or the proponents of an anti-missile defence system are quite right to give impetus to the idea, which if reliable and properly developed would in fact deter an arms race.
Nobody can convince me that the US really feel threatened by the likes of North Korea etc. There is no justification for such a missile system. As some people have stated here, maybe it would be better for Britain to became an integrated part of the US and leave the EU. It is nothing but trouble for the rest of us Europeans anyway.
Will McDonald, UK
The issue is not so much about securing the US from attack or professing support for an ally, rather the crucial point is how a NMD system will affect the global balance of power. The likelihood of the system being 100% effective is unlikely in the first instance, what system is? Secondly, any potential enemy will be encouraged to seek a numerical or technological means of counteracting the advantage an effective NMD system would give the US, subsequently sparking a potentially lethal new arms race.
In the history of warfare there has never been a weapon's system that has proved effective indefinitely. The NMD system may well be labelled as defensive but will it be interpreted that way by others?
Let's weigh up the arguments: It probably costs billions. With the decline of the cold war, there is no obvious "enemy" against which to defend ourselves (most conflicts are localised; none are global. Like it or not, we still have our UK "deterrent" in the form of Trident, and the USA maintains a vast arsenal of weaponry which could respond instantly in the event of threatened attack. The technology is unproven. "Star Wars 1" was written off by many analysts as unfeasible and likely to fail. Finally, it increases the likelihood of targeting rather than reducing it.
In consequence, this system would not be a good investment by anyone's appraisal criteria.
For a man who is so diametrically opposed to Europe, Hague seems a little keen to put foreign interests ahead of the safety of the British people. We do not get any protection from this ludicrous testament to America's new isolationism, and all we get from it is complicity in igniting a new cold war and breaching international treaties, as well as lighting up North Yorkshire as a nuclear target.
I think it's a great idea. It will allow the US to act with impunity against any regime they feel is not following the free American way. The minor shortfall is that the UK will become a prime target for rogue nations as well as their terrorist groups acting on their behalf. Still, a small price to pay for US security.
Neil Warwick, UK
The reason that America (and the other significant powers in the world) signed arms treaties was to prevent the start of a futile arms race.
The building of a missile defence shield will inevitably trigger massive investment in arms to the detriment of many countries who can ill afford the waste of scarce resources.
The missile defence system was never designed to protect the UK; all the US wants to do is use Britain as an early-warning radar for missiles aimed at the good old US of A, which makes Britain a valid target for anyone wishing to nuke America the Cold War way.
I think it is very much up to the US government to decide what level of protection is in their nation's best interest.
The US may not be the ideal "global policeman", but they have played a vital role in keeping world stability. The arms exporting nations and countries with less ethical foreign polices such as Russia, China, and even France, have too much of a vested interest in having a little instability.
Two points are clear. Although the system is solely for defence purposes, it can easily be seen as giving the impression that the USA mistrusts some of its current allies, and will clearly ruffle a few feathers unnecessarily. In fact, it may lead to an old-style arms escalation. Secondly, Hague is being so prematurely supportive in order to get into Dubya's good books by showing his party supports the system before the Government has made a decision. It's political points scoring, nothing more.
Dodgy, but it will have to be done. We've avoided nuclear war for fifty-five years
by the guarantee of mass destruction on both sides, but once every country
in the world knows how to make nuclear missiles, the day will come when a maniac
will come to power in a nuclear country and fire them anyway. Negotiate installing NMD across all the existing
nuclear states at the same time if necessary - if we don't we could regret it later.
Tom McDonald, UK
In principle it is a good idea, but I'm not sure how much help it will be against the more localised terrorist cells of the 21st century. Russia is unlikely to launch its missiles on the US and the smaller nations know that a single missile launched is likely to result in their entire nation being levelled. A scientifically intriguing project, but not entirely relevant anymore.
I have to admit that I'm baffled. Virtually every nation on earth builds a disgusting array of weapons of mass destruction with hardly a peep from the global media. Yet the US dares to consider a shield system aimed at thwarting attempts to kill millions of innocent civilians with these same weapons and gets pounded in the press. To say this logic is twisted would be an understatement.
As this is a purely defensive system, I cannot see the problem with it ... even though I would agree with the argument that if so-called "rogue states" deploy a nuclear weapon, it is more likely to land at JFK in a suitcase than via an inter-continental ballistic missile! The more honest argument might be that the technological spin-offs are likely to be enormous in building a system that pushes the envelope of our scientific knowledge ... this is how the United States subsidises R&D in American industry; in just the same way, EU governments subsidise Airbus. I criticise neither, though ... it's just the way of the world!
12 Jan 01 | UK Politics
Hague backs 'Star Wars' scheme
02 Aug 00 | Americas
Bush backs missile defence system
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy