Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Defending the homeland

By Gary Brown - posted Wednesday, 18 July 2007


In the process, he withdrew from the ABM treaty. That action caused Moscow to immediately abandon its long-delayed ratification of the 1993 START 2 treaty, which was to have been the nuclear equivalent of the CFE agreement, placing agreed limits on the long-range nuclear forces of both the US and Russia. A much watered-down treaty of doubtful effectiveness eventually took its place. As a consequence Russian mobile land-based ICBMs, which would have been decommissioned under START 2, now remain in service.

A further consequence was that Russia retained its multiple warhead (MIRV) missiles in service until 2016 (under START 2, they would have been phased out before 2003 and eliminated by 2007). About 190 missiles and many more nuclear warheads are involved.

The younger Bush version of the much-diminished Reagan fantasy is supposed to offer the US a defence against a few warheads launched either accidentally by an existing nuclear power, or deliberately by a “rogue state”. The threats cited by the US included Iraq - we know all about that now, don’t we? - Iran, and North Korea. The latter, of course, is now in the process of dismantling its nuclear program. That leaves just Iran.

Advertisement

I have written about Iran’s nuclear program in On Line Opinion before. But nobody thinks Iran has nukes at present, and the US cannot show that Iran is anywhere near having the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead (if it had one suitable) by missile to the US. In fact the Iranian missile program is still a long way short of such a goal - if indeed that is the Iranian goal - and many obstacles remain.

Consider two other points.

If a “rogue state” launches a missile at the US with, say, a nuclear warhead aboard, then whatever happens with that missile and its target, the United States will know almost in real time where the missile came from. This is so because the US has a sophisticated satellite network capable of detecting the launch site of any significant missile. In fact, Australia hosts an automated ground station for that network at Pine Gap near Alice Springs (the station used to be at Nurrungar near Woomera but when it was automated it was shifted to the already existing electronic intelligence station at Pine Gap).

If, therefore, an Iranian nuclear missile destroyed a US target, Iran would rapidly be identified as the source and would lie wide open to any level of nuclear response the Americans, probably half mad with grief and justified rage, chose to make.

In short, to attack the US with a nuclear missile - especially if you have little if any follow-up capacity - is to invite potential nuclear obliteration in return. This is the essence of deterrence: the cost of launching this kind of an attack can be as high as national suicide. Therefore, unless the regime in Teheran is actually suicidal, it would be deterred from attacking the US. “Missile Defense”, which probably won’t work, is unnecessary.

The difficulty of deploying a reliable missile defence is my second point. Ballistic missiles, and in particular their warheads, travel at speeds we measure in kilometres per second. For this reason the task of shooting one down with an anti-ballistic missile has been likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet, though bullets actually move far slower. The key point is this: to be successful, such a system must be perfect: not even one warhead can be allowed to reach its target. To my mind, construction of a perfect system is in the same league as an “unsinkable” ship (remember the Titanic?) or an “impregnable” fortress (remember Singapore in 1942?).

Advertisement

So, in pursuit of this unachievable “missile defense” fantasy, the much-decayed legacy of Reagan’s Star Wars gullibility, the Bush administration has itself destroyed one long-standing global arms control treaty (the ABM treaty) and provoked the Russians into abandoning another (START 2) and now into suspending a third (CFE). With Iraq, this destruction is indeed a fitting legacy to the neo-conservatives’ mad ideological fantasies.

It is noteworthy that in all of this, both the missile defence madness and of course the rape of Iraq, Bush has been loyally followed into the abyss by his little pet, John Howard. Thus Australia stands as an accomplice not just in the Iraqi disaster but in the ruin of a whole system of carefully constructed treaties intended to support global strategic stability. Gee Johnny, thanks a lot.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Until June 2002 Gary Brown was a Defence Advisor with the Parliamentary Information and Research Service at Parliament House, Canberra, where he provided confidential advice and research at request to members and staffs of all parties and Parliamentary committees, and produced regular publications on a wide range of defence issues. Many are available at here.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Gary Brown

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Gary Brown
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy