The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Defending the homeland > Comments

Defending the homeland : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 18/7/2007

The Bush administration’s blind pursuit of missile defence technology has blasted a ruinous swathe through the agreements that have supported global stability.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
and we may very well soon add the INF treaty into the mix as well; although I think Russia's suspension of CFE, at root, is CFE specific.

My own feeling is that the destruction of these treaty regimes is actually one of the main goals of BMD (rather than a consequence). BMD is the vanguard or trojan horse for the weaponisation of space and the ABMT and verifiable strategic arms control were the two most important legal barriers to the weaponisation of space. Bush has scuttled both.
Posted by Markob, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
with bush/cheney still riding the range, any criminal or insane act appears possible, even likely.

but let's not worry about the yanks, like the weather, they are out of control.

got any good ideas about bringing oz policy under control?
Posted by DEMOS, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 1:52:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bush is a lame duck president intent on spending his final year at the White House realising some of his wildest unilateralist neo-conservative dreams. Never mind the vehement resistance from the human race to the weaponisation of space.

Star Wars (SDI) is another example of Bush's total disregard for international treaties that stand in the way of perpetual super-power military supremacy by a U.S. president.

Howard has been happy to indulge him, playing whatever supporting role is available, from Pine Gap to buying over-priced military hardware.

Consequently, a resurgent China has this year demonstrated its technological knowhow destroying a space target - adding a deadly orbiting ring of scrapnel for scientific satellites to navigate past in the process.

Let's hope the next president, Hillary, Obama or an outsider, will live up to their campaigning pledges ushering in a new era of international relations based on respect and co-operation as a team player.

Inspired ethical US leadership within a reformed United Nations could do more to remove security threats to the US than Bush's current foreign policy of acting unilaterally in the world's hot spots on a wing and a prayer. Sure, he has weapons that have the shock and awe factor, for a while at least, but how can he be satisfied with their capacity to subdue his enemies? If anything, they have had the opposite effect on the insurgency.

The US commander in chief has never ceased in his belief that with enough money invested in the US defence industry, the ultimate super weapons - directed from space to any target on Earth with GPS accuracy - will be under his control. Of course he is our buddy, and a good mate of Johnny, so we should feel very safe, shouldn't we? If you have any doubt, a TV advert from the Australian Government will be broadcast to let you know you that whilst you are being watched, you shouldn't worry - unless your SIM card has a history.
Posted by Quick response, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 1:56:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Authors strident tones remind me of dictators and their flunkies the world over.
“ The Criminal Bush”, The Devil Bush” etc.

Remember when you are defending the current arms treaties, especially the ABT, that they were implemented under the strategy of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. For those who don’t understand it, MAD kept the peace by contending that any nation that launched a nuclear weapon would itself be wiped out by its opponents second strike capability. Ie Countries committed to retaliate with nukes causing overwhelming destruction to the aggressor.

A cornerstone of this theory is that those leaders who possessed nuclear weaponry, were competent, sane people who had no illusions and cared about their peoples lives. Unfortunately in the twenty first century I can think of a few nuclear armed leaders who don’t fit this bill and may be willing to gamble their and their countries futures in order to strike at the heart of ‘the great satan’.

I am going to assume that my opponents don’t support the death penalty. But by supporting MAD, you are saying “if you attack me, I am going to wipe you out.” Similar to the deterent effect of capital punishment.

Missile defence says instead “ I am going to try and protect people by defending them from aggressive acts”. This is surely a more progressive approach.

Anyone who knows about missile defence knows that it is really only a defence against rogue states with a very small number of nukes. The Russian response says more about the Russians than it does about American strategy. Vladamir Putin is taking an aggressive stand against American global hegemony. He is prepared to totally rearm because he wants a more dominant role in world affairs for Russia.

As for buying overpriced American weapons, to which program do you refer? The only one I can think of is the SEA SPRITE helicopters, and that was due to bungling in defence acquisitions. In any case the Army/Navy and AirForce determine which platforms they want, not Howard
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 7:55:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its The Economy stupid ... THEIR 'Economy' that is!

Without the untold billions of U$ (and Australian) taxpayer dollars handed over to the obscenely overpaid 'executive' employees and shareholders of the giant American military-industrial complex each and every year, THEIR Economy would be in even deeper crisis... based as it is upon the fantasy of unlimited and endless 'growth'.

Although not too bright, even millionaire 'statesmen' such as Ronny Ray-gun, Dubbya and Little Johnny know full well how their bread is buttered and have people around them to explain how important it is to parrot the 'war on terrorism' message at every opportunity and rubber stamp whatever piece of oppressive domestic legislation the well-rewarded senior bureaucratic draftsmens put in front of them.

The long 'cold war' was a cynical scheme to keep the U$ military-industrial corporations 'gainfully employed' - helped along of course by the 'police action' on the Korean Peninsula and the 'humanitarian intervention' in Viet Nam - and at the same time bankrupt the Russian and Soviet 'economies', leaving them easy pickings for the parasites once The Economy was 'liberated'. However as the ignorant and unruly masses in the former 'evil empire' also just happened to be dirt poor, new markets had to be found for the products of the war machine.
This necessitated the creation of a new enemy, as many of our former enemies were suddenly our 'allies', 'business associates' and 'trading partners'.

At the same time, an essential spin off for the U$ war machine has been the increasing militarisation of domestic police and para-military forces around the 'free' world.

'Defending the Homeland' from whom?
Posted by Sowat, Thursday, 19 July 2007 11:16:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gary

I don't agree with much that you say but you have established the history well and ignited passionate debate. Even Paul L. has transmogrified characteristic petulance into reasoned, almost likable, argument.

I would not be too hard on Reagan. His Star Wars wasn't expensive at all in US Strategic Air Command terms and even the Russians admitted it outmatched them. The Russians admitted they no longer had the money, technology or the will to match the megaplans of a seemingly insane cowboy.

Reagan scared them - the Russians then disarmed and dismantled their puerile Empire which was spending around 20% of its GNP on the military. If that makes Reagan an idiot - many people in Eastern Europe who were tortured by the Russians thank him and the US.

If Putin's neo KGB Russia is exploiting continued US arms development thats expected. Putin’s formative influence was working alongside the Stasi in East Germany. Would you expect his Russia to be nice and non-violent?

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 19 July 2007 11:28:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy