Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------------------------
Nicholas Camerota spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited site and thought you should
see it.
To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to
http://www.guardian.co.uk
The MADness of President George
The Bush administration's decision to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty has
put the British government in a difficult position
Special report: George Bush's America
Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday July 31 2001
The Guardian
The preamble of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty the Bush administration wants to
scrap states that "effective measures to limit anti-ballistic missile systems would be
a substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms and would lead to
a decrease in the risk of outbreak of war involving nuclear weapons".
It says the intention of the US and the then Soviet Union was "to achieve at the
earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to take effective
measures toward reductions in strategic arms, nuclear disarmament, and general and
complete disarmament". The two parties, it adds, wanted to contribute to "the
strengthening of trust between states".
On May 1 this year, George Bush spoke of the time the ABM treaty was signed, in 1972.
"Security of both the United States and the Soviet Union was based on a grim premise,"
he told students at the US National Defence University, "that neither side would fire
nuclear weapons at each other, because doing so would mean the end of both nations."
The ABM treaty, he said, was "based on the doctrine that our very survival would best
be insured by leaving both sides completely open and vulnerable to nuclear attack".
The doctrine was called mutual assured destruction, or MAD.
Singling out Saddam Hussein, he went on to describe the proliferation of ballistic
missile technology, placing the weapons "in the hands of... states for whom terror and
blackmail are a way of life". The missile defence project, he insists, is not being
planned with Russia in mind.
"Deterrence," he said, "can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear
retaliation... We must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM treaty. This
treaty does not recognise the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the
past".
He raised the prospect of land-based and sea-based interceptors, of hitting missiles
in mid-course, after they re-entered the atmosphere, or early in their flight, in
their "boost phase". Since Bush's speech, the Pentagon has raised the possibility of
space-based lasers and anti-satellite weapons (Asats).
The ABM treaty is dismissed by the Bush administration as being the product of a
bipolar, cold war world of two superpowers. Under the treaty and its subsequent
protocols which Russia and China (and until recently Britain) insist they still
regard as the cornerstone of international strategic stability, the US and the Soviet
Union agreed not to build a national missile defence system. They agreed to deploy
just one ABM system - around Moscow and Grand Forks, North Dakota - thereby leaving
both countries vulnerable to retaliation in the event of a missile attack, enshrining
the principle of deterrence based on MAD.
At each site there may be no more than 100 interceptor missiles and 100 launchers
(limited to launch only one interceptor at a time).
Both sides agreed to prohibit development, testing, or deployment of sea-based,
air-based, or space-based ABM systems and their components, along with mobile
land-based ABM systems. The treaty also imposes restrictions on radar systems.
Both sides can withdraw from the treaty by mutual agreement, or unilaterally on six
months' notice.
Planned talks between Russia and the US over the coming months will be crucial in
determining whether Moscow is prepared to do a deal, but not whether the US will go
ahead with new missile defence systems. That it will do so, Washington has made
abundantly clear, is not in doubt, saying the US is likely to breach the treaty within
months rather than years. There is already a dispute over at what precise stage the
testing and construction of proposed ABM sites would breach the treaty.
Democrat senators have criticised the Bush administration for its plans to deploy an
"emergency" missile defence system by 2004 starting with a test facility for five
missile silos at Fort Greely in Alaska. Clearing trees there next month would put the
US on a "collision course" with the ABM treaty, they say. Russia says the pouring of
concrete to prepare the site would definitely breach the treaty. Meanwhile, US
negotiators are playing down reports that they will link missile defence to cuts in
nuclear warheads - a putative offer seized on by the British government - on the
grounds that the Pentagon was still reviewing US nuclear strategy.
What are the implications for Britain? "Without the involvement of the upgraded early
warning radar at Fylingdales," the Foreign Office has said, the effectiveness of
America's missile defence plan "in meeting threats to the United States from the
Middle East would be likely to be significantly impaired". Upgrading Fylingdales to
track, rather than simply detect as it now does, missiles to guide interceptors to
them would breach the ABM treaty.
"Time may be running out for the British government," says Sir Timothy Garden, a
former assistant chief of defence staff. "It would be an extraordinary break with
post-war policy if the UK were to refuse the US facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith
Hill as part of a missile defence system." He warns that the issue will become a
difficult one for Tony Blair: "He will lose stature in Europe and in the Labour party
if he appears to cave in to US demands yet again. However his inclination and advice
from Geoff Hoon [the defence secretary] will be to do just that."
There is no evidence so far that missile defence technology works. Meanwhile,
commentators point out, MAD, far from being outdated, has actually kept the peace for
50 years. "We will continue to rely on MAD for decades to come," wrote Thomas
Friedman, the New York Times columnist last week, adding that even Saddam understands
the difference between evil and crazy.
"Even if it worked perfectly," Steve Pullinger of the International Security
Information Service thinktank has said, missile defence "would not be able to prevent
the delivery of weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile, bomber, suitcase, spray
tank, cargo ship, and so on."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
-------------------------------------------------
This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been
shut down
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://Topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: [email protected]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
