Missile defense shield Pretext for a new arms race.”

[usman_1112]

Missile defense shield Pretext for a new arms race.”
Ballistic missile launch by North Korea has apparently changed the position of US President Barack Obama, who stated in Prague (5 April) he now wants the Central Europe-based missile defence shield to be built The United States will develop anti-missile defences as long as an Iranian nuclear threat persists, and North Korea must be made to change after its rocket launch, President Obama said in Prague in a major speech focusing on nuclear non-proliferation. The system would use radar in the Czech Republic to detect and track an Iranian missile, with interceptor missiles fired from batteries in Poland to stop such an attack.

Planning for the shield began in fiscal 2007, and the system will receive $456 million in fiscal 2009. Between 100 to 200 troops, contractors and Defense Department civilians could be running each site with everything operational by 2013 if host-nation agreements are ratified.

Russia has received new U.S. proposals on confidence measures on the missile defense issue and the reduction of strategic arms, a source with the Russian Foreign Ministry .--As to the missile defense issue, Rood said that the document in particular includes new proposals on securing the access of Russian officers to missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

As to strategic arms, he said that this document is a follow-on to the START I of 1991, which expires in December 2009, and was sent to Moscow. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans the build up or stockage of military weapons including nuclear arms or weapons of mass destruction -- in orbit and their installation on the moon, but not the shooting down of satellites."Weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in a chain reaction.

And this, in turn, is fraught with a new spiral in the arms race both in space and on the earth Ballistic Missile Defence is not mentioned in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), or EU Strategies on Security or Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, Javier Solana, has said that the EU has no plans to participate in a US anti-missile system but that its member states are free to join if they wish.

However, members may consider that the relevance of the issue to the whole of Europe USSR, CHINA, India, Pakistan, Japan,Brazil,South Africa, would suggest that Poland and the Czech Republic should at least consult with other states before making a deal with the US.

Russia in strongly criticizing the missile defense plan, which would build a radar base near Prague as part of a missile shield The question today is “does Europe need an anti-missile defense shield” and it is Undoubtedly being posed at this time because of the recent request by the United States to position bases in the Czech Republic and Poland as part of its National Missile Defence (NMD) system.

Within Europe there is some unease about the deteriorating U.S.-Russian relationship.German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has been quoted in a newspaper article in March as saying that, in protecting against a possible Iranian threat, “the price of security must not be new suspicion or, worse still, fresh insecurity.”

He also stated that “[We cannot allow a missile defense system to be either a reason or a pretext for a new arms race.” The arms race may already be with us. Russia has already announced new additions to its armoury to overcome the missile shield and missile defence encourages nuclear states to enlarge their arsenals so as to keep their deterrent effective.

Russia is to build new space and missile defence shields and put its armed forces on permanent combat alert, President Medvedev announced September 27, 2008.

It can therefore be accused of being responsible for contravening the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Barack Obama is keeping people guessing about whether he will pursue a Bush administration plan to set up a missile shield in central Europe but analysts say Russia has shot itself in the foot with threats to deploy missiles in retaliation. Analysts see the threats as amounting to loose rhetoric and do not expect a showdown that will test Obama during his first six months in office after his inauguration as president on January 20.

Hours after Obama's victory on Wednesday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced plans to deploy Iskander short-range missiles in the western Russian territory of Kaliningrad, wedged between Lithuania and Poland, in response to US plans for a missile shield in former Soviet bloc territory.

• What is the threat of missile attack?
• How effective is missile defence likely to be?
• What are the consequences of deploying a European missile defence system?

• Are there alternative forms of action?
Before we look at these we will need to say something about what missile defence systems are.

What is Missile Defence?
The US Ground Based Mid Course Defence (GMD) system currently consists of some 40silo-based interceptors at Ft Greely, Alaska and Four at Vandenberg AFB, California. There would also be 130 interceptors based on. There are also associated ground based early warning and tracking radars, including those at Thule in Greenland and Fylingdales in the UK (recently upgraded for the NMD role) and a $1 billion sea-based X-band radar to track, discriminate and assess targets from a mobile semi-submersible platform in the Aleutian Islands. The US has proposed that a further 10 interceptors be based in Poland and a modified Xband radar system moved to the Czech Republic.

The U.S. claims it needs to have these sites operational by 2012 in order to counter any possible future threat from Iran or North Korea. Although originally conceived as a system for long range missiles aimed at the US, the suggestion now is that it be combined with the missile defence system under consideration by NATO to form an integrated European defence system.

A Charter for an Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) was approved by NATO in March 2005. The 20-year cost of this undertaking is reported to be 1 billion euros and in addition some 20 billion euros would be spent by individual member states on missile defence batteries. Increasing costs are the cause of some concern; most European NATO states are unable or unwilling to increase spending on defence as other concerns such as education and health take precedence. Despite this, NATO is considering extending the system to protect population centres - leading to the possible eventual integration with the US NMD system.

What is the threat?
None of the EU member states appears to have any immediate concern about the threat of a missile attack. There are differences of opinion within NATO on the assessment of threats from ‘states of concern’ but even NATO’s own parliamentary assembly does not have immediate access to classified threat assessments carried out on their behalf. It does seem odd that parliamentary democracies are expected to act on and pay for threat assessments and feasibility studies that they are not even allowed to see.

The United States is very concerned about the threat of missile attack and successive US governments have continued to fund and develop a cut-down version of President Reagan’s unrealistic idea of a missile defence umbrella. In the justification of their 2008
budget request for European NMD sites the US Missile Defence Agency stated that the bases are needed to improve protection of the United States by protecting its existing European based radars and providing additional and earlier intercept opportunities.

Currently Iran has no nuclear warheads and may not obtain any for some time (if at all). It does however, posses a medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 1,200kms but has denied that it is developing the next generation with a range of 2,900kms. Although that denial may be controversial what is certain is that they are not developing the Shahab-5 which, with a range of 6,000kms, would be able to reach greater parts of Europe but still not threaten the US (some 10,000kms away).

It has been predicted that Iran may possibly develop missiles that could reach the US by 2015 at the earliest. However, placing a primitive nuclear warhead on an unreliable ballistic missile would be a risky and costly business and even if successful would result in a retaliation so devastating that it would mean national suicide.

Additionally, the shield will be integrated within NATO’s structure, which means that NATO will most likely place an Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) base in Poland. The AGS base will create at least 3,000 new NATO jobs in Poland and will be the first base of this type ever to be built in a Central or Eastern European country.


Because of the initial missile shield agreement signed between the United States and Poland in August 2008, Poland will receive a Patriot III missile battery in 2009 in order to address potential threats from Russia or other nuclear states. This missile battery will most certainly have U.S. military personnel tied to it as well. It is important to note that despite what decisions are made regarding the shield this year, Poland will most likely receive this Patriot III missile battery. Having an American Patriot III missile battery and U.S. personnel on Polish territory inextricably ties the U.S. military to defending Polish territory.


What are the costs of this missile defense program? Between 1983 and 2008, the United States spent a total of $120 billion on missile defense. $56 billion of this was from between 2002 and 2009. the government has spent $144 billion on missile defense since 1985, according to the CBO

According to the most conservative predictions, the U.S. is likely to spend another $50 billion between 2009 and 2013. according to some estimates cost the U.S. at least $95 billion, which excludes replacing infrastructure and the impact on financial markets.


Even if the shield is better than complacency, does the missile defense system even work? Since September 2005, the Missile Defense Agency has successfully conducted 25 out of 26 tests.4 However, it is important to note that these tests did not include decoy missiles. If a rogue nation attacks the U.S. or its allies, it would most definitely use decoys of some sort. In short, these successful tests occurred when the Defense Department knew the exact time, location, and trajectory of the missile launch. Additionally, the type of missile used in the interceptors in Poland will be standard missile-2. The missiles in American defenses in California and Alaska are standard missile-3 (SM-3) and all the previous missile tests have also been conducted on SM-3. Therefore, President Obama could technically and accurately claim that the missiles to be used in the interceptors in Poland have never been tested and are not proven to work.


.The US is preparing for a future potential threat rather than an imminent one. Their desire to place interceptors in Europe requires European co-operation and this can be hastened by persuading Europe that there is an imminent threat to them. There is no evidence that Iran wishes to attack Europe. Their reason for developing a nuclear capability (if they are) could well be the same as that claimed by all nuclear states – for deterrence purposes.

Effectiveness President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, in order to build an “effective” missile defence system.

annual report of the Pentagon’s testing office, released earlier this year,stated that a lack of flight-test data “limits confidence in assessments” of the system.

A report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in March this year concluded that the system “has not completed sufficient flight testing to provide a high level of confidence that [it] can reliably intercept ICBMs.” In addition the system can be readily overcome by numbers. Ten interceptors would be seriously challenged by eleven or more real or decoy warheads. There is an added complication for the proposed European interceptor site. The groundbased interceptor missiles in Poland will only need to be two-stage missiles rather than the three-stage interceptors in Alaska and California. Research and development on a twostage interceptor has only just begun.

There is also a question as to whether testing of the new intercepts would be illegal under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty which eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500kms. If it can’t be tested, how will we know if it works? So, with missile defence we seem to be considering the use of interceptor missiles that have not so far been developed as part of a costly, unproven system that is easily overcome to defend against a threat that probably doesn’t exist.

What are the consequences?
The cost of building the bases in Poland and Czech Republic is estimated to be some $3.5 billion and there is also a probability that the program would later be extended to protect all European territory by the inclusion of sea-based missiles and missile tracking systems in space at considerable (but unspecified) extra cost. The technological problems
encountered in developments of this kind are complex and cannot be accurately predicted and massive extra costs and overruns are common.

Perhaps the biggest problem with missile defence however, is how its development is perceived by others. It is argued by some that a workable missile shield would enable the U.S. to strike first with nuclear weapons as any limited retaliation could be dealt with effectively. Even if this is not the intention, it is easy to see how the antagonistic nature of U.S. defence policy leads many states to this conclusion. The highly accurate nuclear missiles in the U.S. arsenal are not required by deterrence but could be used to destroy enemy missile silos.

The proposed new U.S. NMD bases are in states formerly in an alliance with Russia which the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently included in a list of potential threats to US security. Is it so surprising then that Russia has reacted strongly to the NMD proposals calling them an “unfriendly step” with President Putin threatening to target European sites with nuclear weapons? The U.S. says that the missiles are not aimed at Russia.

However, an analysis of the geographic locations and missile trajectories shows that the radar and interceptors could be deployed against Russian missiles from some of its western launch sites and even though 10 interceptors clearly do not pose a threat to the 500 or so missiles in Russia’s nuclear arsenal

A Russian Foreign Ministry statement suggests that: “one cannot ignore the fact that U.S. offensive weapons, combined with the missile defense being created, can turn into a strategic complex capable of delivering an incapacitating blow.” The U.S. proposal to include Russia in further cooperation on missile defenses has generated an interesting response from President Putin who has suggested joint US Russian use of an early warning radar in Gabala, Azerbaijan.

This radar would give a good coverage of missiles from Iran but not of Russian launches because of an intervening range of mountains. However, the U.S. has now said this cannot replace the proposed Czech radar. Within Europe there is some conmcern. In the 2003 EU document entitled ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World, European Security Strategy’, we find the following: “In contrast to the massive visible threat in the Cold War, none of the new threats is purely military; nor can any be tackled by purely military means. Each requires a mixture of instruments.”

The Obama Administration’s recent announcement to cut missile defense isn’t exactly logical, Missile Defenses Are Necessary to Fighting the Wars America Is in, but Secretary Gates Proposes Cutting the Missile Defense Budget by $1.4 Billion. Secretary Gates is fond of saying that he is focused on re-balancing the Department of Defense's programs

Missile Defence is an example of an instrument applied too late. There is a danger that if a convincing defence against missiles did exist we would put too much faith in that and not enough effort in preventing situations getting to the stage where it might be deployed and engage with states outside to build mutual trust and security. Indeed, if we are to survive as a civilization, as a species, even as a planet, we need to learn how to develop technologies for a positive future and tolerate cultural differences. This is our greatest challenge and to fail is unthinkable.why amercian want to make peace of world fargile just need to study
usman karim based in lahore lmno25@hotmail.com

 

[gambit]

The writer obviously have never had any experience at testing new products...

Even if the shield is better than complacency, does the missile defense system even work? Since September 2005, the Missile Defense Agency has successfully conducted 25 out of 26 tests.4 However, it is important to note that these tests did not include decoy missiles. If a rogue nation attacks the U.S. or its allies, it would most definitely use decoys of some sort.

First...It is certainly NOT 'most definitely' that the attacking ballistic missile on US would have decoys. The problem here is that of limited warhead volume. Decoys take up space. The reason why the once Soviet Union can afford to have decoys on its ballistic missiles is because the Soviets had plenty of missiles to spare. It must be understood that a missile is essentially very much a throwaway weapon -- launch vehicle and explosive. Whereas an aircraft can deliver multiple explosives to multiple locations and presumably return to base and do it again. One launch vehicle for multiple explosives. Plus the aircraft can be recalled for any reason. For the missile, self-destruct is the only alternative from its target. Self-destruct or on target, either way, an entire weapon is expended.

Second...Decoys have different behaviors than the genuine warhead simply because it is lighter and will have different descent trajectories than the real warhead. If there is a capable enough detection system to distinguish decoys from the real warhead, and have no doubt the US is at least developing such a system or have a deployed system already, the real warhead will be targeted the moment decoys and warhead begin their descents.

In short, these successful tests occurred when the Defense Department knew the exact time, location, and trajectory of the missile launch.

What is wrong with that? In product development, initial tests are highly controlled based upon the test itself.

For example...If the test is for radar acquisition, then the initial test or tests should not include distraction to see if the ground radar is capable of detection, tracking and finally targeting. For the next round, the target remain under tight control while the interceptor's radar is tested to see if it can communicate and coordinate with the ground radar to calculate an interception. Once all the problems, be it mechanical or else, have been identified, addressed and re-tested, variables such as decoys or unpredictability of target delivery can be introduced. The influential factors, such as weather or electronic interference, are GRADUALLY introduced as the SCOPE of the testing conditions widened. There is nothing wrong with this methodology. This is how scientists and engineers works.

The problem with intercepting a ballistic warhead on the descent have always been the high closing speed. That is the sum of the warhead and the interceptor. There is practically no chance of another attempt FOR THE SAME INTERCEPTOR of reacquiring the target in the event of a miss, so the greater the precision of the interceptor's radar, for either a kinetic kill vehicle or a proximity fused explosive, the greater the odds of a successful kill. So with a %95 success rate, and we can safely assume that those tests are incrementally difficult for the interceptor, this should be cause for concern for any potential adversary of the US that their ballistic missile force will be worth sh!t. It is better that they launch their missiles now.

This is a very weak attempt by the writer to discredit the US ballistic missile defense program.

 

[aboutimeee]

Self delete -- Sorry double post

 

[aboutimeee]

Quote "The system would use radar in the Czech Republic to detect and track an Iranian missile, with interceptor missiles fired from batteries in Poland to stop such an attack."

hypothetically speaking --- if missiles are launched by Iran and North Korea, interceptor missiles will be fired from Poland - where will that interception take place over Poland? does that mean all the Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological crap will fall over Poland and thus save USA?

 

[usman_1112]

The writer obviously have never had any experience at testing new products...
yes Gambit i do not want arm race in space sea ,air, i want peace in universe ,with respect and mutally understanding between worlds nuclear power not a arms race which is esclated by USA and their EU allies.
USA achievement of Full Spectrum Dominance. There is another angle too - space. SEA ,AIR ,SPACE.
However, the truth is, missile defence has less to do with defence and more to do with control. And its consequences are frightening. An arms race, war in and from space, "Full spectrum dominance" and the likelihood of making the EU a bigger target to enemy states are all very real threats posed by the system.
The United states argues that the need for a missile defence system stems from their need for protection from "rogue states" - countries like North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Syria. They argue that these countries may one day have the capability to fire nuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missiles at the United States and as such they need a shield to protect themselves. iRAQ AND SYRIA capacity do not exist what about iran it's never has such capicty and no such abailty yet.
In other words, the country with the shield would have "first strike ability". Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force director, called missile defence: "...the missing link to a First Strike."
response of states such as China, Russia ,india pakistan North Korea are to threaten to increase their arsenals of nuclear warheads, by appearing to give the USA the final piece in the jigsaw of military power and by supporting the idea of aggresive military escalation, missile defence threatens to provoke nuclear proliferation the world over .
Space is becoming more and more militarised.The USA wants to make space weaponised too, and missile defence is a big step in that direction.
Missile defence plans include:
- Firing interceptor missiles out of the atmosphere to intercept inter-continental ballistic missiles in space
- Developing lasers on satellites that can not only intercept inter-continental ballistic missiles in space but also fire through the atmosphere on to the Earth
- Developing a system of spying and monitoring satellites in space Missile defence is key to the US's dream of developing space for warfare and so achieving “full spectrum dominance.”

 

[usman_1112]

The writer obviously have never had any experience at testing new products...
yes Gambit i do not want arm race in space sea ,air, i want peace in universe ,with respect and mutally understanding between worlds nuclear power not a arms race which is esclated by USA and their EU allies.
USA achievement of Full Spectrum Dominance. There is another angle too - space. SEA ,AIR ,SPACE.
However, the truth is, missile defence has less to do with defence and more to do with control. And its consequences are frightening. An arms race, war in and from space, "Full spectrum dominance" and the likelihood of making the EU a bigger target to enemy states are all very real threats posed by the system.
The United states argues that the need for a missile defence system stems from their need for protection from "rogue states" - countries like North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Syria. They argue that these countries may one day have the capability to fire nuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missiles at the United States and as such they need a shield to protect themselves. iRAQ AND SYRIA capacity do not exist what about iran it's never has such capicty and no such abailty yet.
In other words, the country with the shield would have "first strike ability". Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force director, called missile defence: "...the missing link to a First Strike."
response of states such as China, Russia ,india pakistan North Korea are to threaten to increase their arsenals of nuclear warheads, by appearing to give the USA the final piece in the jigsaw of military power and by supporting the idea of aggresive military escalation, missile defence threatens to provoke nuclear proliferation the world over .
Space is becoming more and more militarised.The USA wants to make space weaponised too, and missile defence is a big step in that direction.
Missile defence plans include:
- Firing interceptor missiles out of the atmosphere to intercept inter-continental ballistic missiles in space
- Developing lasers on satellites that can not only intercept inter-continental ballistic missiles in space but also fire through the atmosphere on to the Earth
- Developing a system of spying and monitoring satellites in space Missile defence is key to the US's dream of developing space for warfare and so achieving “full spectrum dominance.”

 

[usman_1112]

dear Gambit i do has a lot of words and a lot sources to tell ya missiles defense shield is really wastage of money and putting the arch rivals in a new arm race .
The US is currently spending around $7.4bn per annum on missile defence research and development - money that could be put to much more effective uses. By 2034 missile defence is projected to have cost about $1.2 trillion. Enough money to feed, clothe, educate and house everyone in the world. Despite the large amounts of money invested to date, missile defence is a high risk, as yet unproven project which faces vast technological challenges.
Missile Defence is the most costly and high risk strategy for tackling the threat from ballistic missiles. The most effective way to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is by strengthening international non-proliferation and disarmament agreements, not by developing expensive and technologically questionable missile defence programmes.

According to UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala: "When all is said and done - after all the alternatives of missile defence, arms control, counter-proliferation, deterrence (extended or minimal), and the quixotic pursuit of "full-spectrum dominance" are tried - nothing quite delivers the concrete security benefits that all countries would enjoy from the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is not simply an ideal, but arguably the most truly realistic of all approaches to international peace and security at the global strategic level."

 

[gambit]

Quote "The system would use radar in the Czech Republic to detect and track an Iranian missile, with interceptor missiles fired from batteries in Poland to stop such an attack."

hypothetically speaking --- if missiles are launched by Iran and North Korea, interceptor missiles will be fired from Poland - where will that interception take place over Poland? does that mean all the Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological crap will fall over Poland and thus save USA?

The question is obviously loaded.

You are implying that the US imposed such a station upon the Poles. It is wrong.

Poland and U.S. move closer to missile shield deal | Politics | Reuters

Poland's leaders Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the prime minister and his twin brother Lech, the president, are in favor of hosting the rockets but want assurances from the United States about a strategic political and military partnership and aid for the Polish army.

This is a mutual agreement between Poland and the US. This is just as much for Poland's protection, which would be an ally, as it is protection for the US. A militarily powerful Russia is not favorably viewed by Europe, just in case you have not noticed.

You are also mistaken in the belief that if the interceptor is launched from a location, the interception itself will be over that geographical locale. The mechanics for that topic is not that simple but suffice to say that if such an interception does occur over Poland and that debris, no matter what type, were to fall upon the Poles, it will mean that Poland, not the US, was the target of the warhead. In any case, debris are far better than an intact warhead of any type.

Nice try at such a loaded question, but no dice.

 

[gambit]

yes Gambit i do not want arm race in space sea ,air, i want peace in universe ,with respect and mutally understanding between worlds nuclear power not a arms race which is esclated by USA and their EU allies.

So do I. But before we embark on this probably Quixotic quest to achieve this dream, we must ask ourselves how did 'arms' came to be necessary in the first place, for without 'arms' there would be no 'arms race', correct? One possible solution would be to have the world under one rule founded upon one ideology. There would be no 'arms race' because there would be no competition because there would be no such things as 'countries', plural, to compete for anything. The problem for this solution is already obvious -- no single ideology to satisfy everyone. There are many ideologies and political systems and each have their own fervent believers, fervent enough to 'arm' themselves to either defend or convert others to their beliefs. So once different factions are 'armed', either in defense of their beliefs or in trying to propagate those beliefs, an inevitable 'arms race' will ensue.

USA achievement of Full Spectrum Dominance. There is another angle too - space. SEA ,AIR ,SPACE.
However, the truth is, missile defence has less to do with defence and more to do with control. And its consequences are frightening. An arms race, war in and from space, "Full spectrum dominance" and the likelihood of making the EU a bigger target to enemy states are all very real threats posed by the system.

Why do you think the EU has 'enemy states'?

The United states argues that the need for a missile defence system stems from their need for protection from "rogue states" - countries like North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Syria. They argue that these countries may one day have the capability to fire nuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missiles at the United States and as such they need a shield to protect themselves. iRAQ AND SYRIA capacity do not exist what about iran it's never has such capicty and no such abailty yet.

What is wrong with taking precautions? Just because a country currently does not have an ICBM force does not mean that country is incapable of producing such a force. Iran already demonstrated a medium range ballistic missile program.

In other words, the country with the shield would have "first strike ability". Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force director, called missile defence: "...the missing link to a First Strike."
response of states such as China, Russia ,india pakistan North Korea are to threaten to increase their arsenals of nuclear warheads, by appearing to give the USA the final piece in the jigsaw of military power and by supporting the idea of aggresive military escalation, missile defence threatens to provoke nuclear proliferation the world over .

This flawed argument is rejected by the US for good reasons. The argument demands that we allow some of our citizens be held hostage, vis-a-vis allowing hostile missiles to hit US targets. Not just US but every country has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Take away the missile for a moment and substitute in the aircraft. It can also be argued that an effective anti-aircraft gun system would escalate a similar 'arms race' since now other air forces are uncertain that they will be able to bomb other cities, so more and more bombers and anti-gun systems will be built by everyone. I do not see Mexico or Canada worry about a US 'first strike' capability. But it is telling that the ones who worries the most are the Russians or the Chinese or North Korea, states that were once allied in an ideological conflict against US.

Space is becoming more and more militarised.The USA wants to make space weaponised too, and missile defence is a big step in that direction.
Missile defence plans include:
- Firing interceptor missiles out of the atmosphere to intercept inter-continental ballistic missiles in space
- Developing lasers on satellites that can not only intercept inter-continental ballistic missiles in space but also fire through the atmosphere on to the Earth
- Developing a system of spying and monitoring satellites in space Missile defence is key to the US's dream of developing space for warfare and so achieving “full spectrum dominance.”

All of these items are true. Good thing we are on our way.

dear Gambit i do has a lot of words and a lot sources to tell ya missiles defense shield is really wastage of money and putting the arch rivals in a new arm race .

Certainly you and them are entitled to opinions. I do not share your views.

The US is currently spending around $7.4bn per annum on missile defence research and development - money that could be put to much more effective uses. By 2034 missile defence is projected to have cost about $1.2 trillion. Enough money to feed, clothe, educate and house everyone in the world.

Typical loaded statement. Are you implying that the US is responsible for feeding, housing, education and clothing of everyone on Earth? Just because we can afford to develop these weapons?

Despite the large amounts of money invested to date, missile defence is a high risk, as yet unproven project which faces vast technological challenges.

Financial and intellectual investments are valid IF the goal is to develop, refine and to be competence with new products, of which we are well on our way. I am glad not everyone is as pessimistic as you are about new challenges just because they are 'unproven' and technically difficult. May be such pessimism is common where you come from but certainly not in the US. May be such optimism is the reason why when Raygun announced 'Star Wars' back in the mid-80s, Ivan nearly had a massive heart attack. He knows he cannot compete against such optimism.

Missile Defence is the most costly and high risk strategy for tackling the threat from ballistic missiles. The most effective way to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is by strengthening international non-proliferation and disarmament agreements, not by developing expensive and technologically questionable missile defence programmes.

Wrong...'Speak softly and carry a big stick' is the most effective deterrence against any potential adversary. That does not apply solely to US but anyone can develop their own 'big sticks'. Just do not complain if you go bankrupt, your citizens are hungry, uneducated and poorly dressed in the process. North Korea is certainly doing just that, North Koreans are hungry, uneducated and very poorly dressed. South Koreans would love to improve their Northern brethens' condition and the South Koreans could do it without touching a penny of US missile defense money.

According to UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala: "When all is said and done - after all the alternatives of missile defence, arms control, counter-proliferation, deterrence (extended or minimal), and the quixotic pursuit of "full-spectrum dominance" are tried - nothing quite delivers the concrete security benefits that all countries would enjoy from the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is not simply an ideal, but arguably the most truly realistic of all approaches to international peace and security at the global strategic level."

And who is going to enforce the plan and punish violators of this plan? The UN?

Excuse me while I clean up my PC monitor from laughing and spitting out my coffee at such an idea...



There...Much better...

Laws are no good if there are no enforcement mechanisms to punish violators of the laws. I suggest you take a basic law course and see why we need judges, attorneys for both sides and the police. Currently the UN does not even have its own police, meaning a military force that is accountable to no one else but the UN itself, and must rely upon members who are wealthy enough to divert portions of their own militaries as contributions to make up those 'blue helmets' forces that you see on the news. So when all is said and done, may be The Honorable UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala should take a harsh look at the ideologies and motivations of those who would violate basic human rights in their own countries and say something about them instead of why the US feel the need to have a missile defense shield.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

dear Gambit i do has a lot of words and a lot sources to tell ya missiles defense shield is really wastage of money and putting the arch rivals in a new arm race .
The US is currently spending around $7.4bn per annum on missile defence research and development - money that could be put to much more effective uses. By 2034 missile defence is projected to have cost about $1.2 trillion. Enough money to feed, clothe, educate and house everyone in the world. Despite the large amounts of money invested to date, missile defence is a high risk, as yet unproven project which faces vast technological challenges.
Missile Defence is the most costly and high risk strategy for tackling the threat from ballistic missiles. The most effective way to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is by strengthening international non-proliferation and disarmament agreements, not by developing expensive and technologically questionable missile defence programmes.

According to UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala: "When all is said and done - after all the alternatives of missile defence, arms control, counter-proliferation, deterrence (extended or minimal), and the quixotic pursuit of "full-spectrum dominance" are tried - nothing quite delivers the concrete security benefits that all countries would enjoy from the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is not simply an ideal, but arguably the most truly realistic of all approaches to international peace and security at the global strategic level."

N-tipped Agni III set for fresh test


Hemant Kumar Rout
First Published : 22 Jun 2009 04:04:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 22 Jun 2009 10:57:32 AM IST

BALASORE: The Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) is set to test-fire India’s most powerful nuke-capable ballistic missile Agni-III. The China-specific missile would be test-fired from a defence base off the Orissa coast soon. Preparations were on for the crucial test, a source close to the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur-on-sea, 15 km from Balasore, said today. Agni-III test-fire is seen as a deterrent to China’s growing missile power.

`The country’s missile programme received a jolt on May 19 when the first training user-trials of the 2,000-km plus range Agni-II missile failed to yield the desired result. The focus now is on Agni-III and its test has become a prestige issue for the scientists involved in the project,’ the source added.

Agni-III, which has a velocity of 5 km per second, is a new system, defence sources said. It is a short and stubby, two-stage missile. It weighs 48.3 tonnes and is 16.7 metres tall with an overall diameter of 1.8 metres. It can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads weighing around 1.5 tonnes. It will be propelled by solid fuels, facilitating swift deployment compared to missiles using a mix of solid and liquid fuels.

Though the maiden test of the longest range missile in 2006 was a failure, its second trial in 2007 and third test in 2008 were successful.

`It is ready for induction but it will require a few more tests before it can go for limited series production (LSP) trials by the armed forces. However, two more years will be required for its operational deployment,’ a scientist said on condition of anonymity.

The missile is a deterrent to the Chinese missiles. A successful induction of Agni III will allow India to catch up with China’s nuclear strike capability in the next few years since its range is expected to be long enough to target major Chinese cities like Shanghai and Beijing.

India’s ‘Pakistan-specific’ Agni-I and Agni-II missiles have already been inducted in the armed forces.

`Our next project is Agni-V missile which is expected to have a strike range of about 5,000 km.



What this means is Agni-V is targeted for Europe & America.

 

[usman_1112]

Better ask from INDIAN forgien office about Agni -v.is it's for china ,Pakistan for EU or for russia.we are still in confused.why india is sending thousands troops near to china border.are india is really going for a new adventure due to The Tsangpo River diversion project in Tibet .may be india try to destablise the tibet area by insurgency by dissdent sitting in Daramshala area (Exile leadership in india).we are really worried now why india is beefing up security near inida china border in tibet.really matter of concern for both pakistan and china.