With some possible co-operation between us and others (Japan).

Some of the nations we'll be stirring are our best trade partners.

For or against?

With the F-35 the US will not be giving buyers the key codes to kernel computer systems. Any missile defense shield must allow us to have control over own destiny, even if there are two shields a global [to support the US) and a regional under own control.

Against
- Australia faces little obvious threat of a broad scale missile attack.
- Development and deployment of an effective missile shield would be massively expensive.
- Keeping a missile shield effective would be massively expensive and unlikely to succeed - our scientists would have to find defences against every possible avoidence strategy our oponents scientists might come up with and keep adding them. As they say we have to get it right every time, they only have to be right once.
- As the complexity increases the risk of failure increases. The more able the system is to work against any conceivable threat the more likely it is to fail when needed.

Far better to put our efforts into reducing the conditions that increase our risk of being attacked and confronting real life threatening risks that people face in this country and elsewhere.

R0bert

"Far better to put our efforts into reducing the conditions that increase our risk of being attacked and confronting real life threatening risks that people face in this country and elsewhere."

It seems to me that the efforts of our governments foreign "policy" (frightenly similar to GW Ballbags) is only creating a risk of being attacked.

I believe there's a defense shield...and then there's a DEFENSE shield. Nothing wrong with a pre-emptive effort of a battery of patriots or something. That should be a fairly standard thing these days, but I'd agree that a co-ordinated defense shield (as per proposed) would be unnecessary.

I think though, that because of our close affliation to the States currently can potentially put us in a position of a very real threat. Why else would Bush want us so close for?...new U.S base in QLD remember.

if we don't fire missiles at other people, why will they fire missiles at us? we don't have missiles, do we? or nuclear warheads?

surely the chief purpose of missile defense systems is to transfer large sums of money to the american defense companies that make them. there may be an attempt to further ensnare australia in america's imperial ambitions by locating launch sites and/or target acquisition bases here, as well.

hard to believe ozzies would be dumb enough to allow this to happen, but i've had a lot of practice, and i'm willing to believe they are. good thing oz is a lucky country, 'cause smart they ain't.

In Australia "Defence" is spelt with a "c" and not an "s" which is the Yank spelling.

The term "Defence Shield" is an illusion as you can always get past a shield. Just ask any aboriginal hunter who's curved boomerangs were able to flick passed an opponents shield if it hit it on the edge I understand.

Ned Kelly's iron shield did not work either as he was shot in the legs and captured.

In the USA if that countries air defence shield was so good how did S11 happen?

adrian, it's impolite to inject reality into the discussion of weapon systems.

Adrian: "Countries" in the context you were using it is "Country's".

Adrian; Missile defence shields are only really effective against medium, long range and ICBM's (someone correct if I'm wrong). In Australia's case they would be effective against Indonesian missiles and ship bourne...'cause we could prepare for the launch. Unlike if they were launched from an undetected Sub.

9/11 were civilian aircraft that took off from close proximity to the target. There are rules of engagement, and you can't just shoot something down if it is off course. By the time you figure out it's a threat, she's all over.

Missile defence shields would be actioned by alert status through political talks with potential threats. You can never be completely 'covered'.

StG,

Has anyone proved that so called missile "shields" work against incoming ICBM? Remember in 1991 (Gulf War)in Greater Palestine they had both SCUDS and PATRIOT debris raining down on both the Zionists and Arabs.

Yes the S11 attack did use civil aircraft which proves my point. Any nation can be dislocated by non conventional means (without missles). For example water reserves polluted or power and gas plants blown up.

This paranoid about Iran and North Korea is just that and is a distraction from the big picture that the "coalition of the will" now face - they failed in Iraq. No politician wants to admit that they failed so they keep sending more troops into the mincer in desperation.

As a former Liberal (1994-2003) that opposed the Iraq invasion in 2002/3 I can not wait to see the 2003 Howard Cabinet put on trial for war crimes. Incidentally, I joined the Liberals mainly to help Jeff Kennett get Victoria back onto the rails as Cain/Kirner also failed.

Adrian Jackson (Australian Regular Army Infantry Officer from 1972-1995)

"In Australia "Defence" is spelt with a "c" and not an "s" which is the Yank spelling." - Adrian

Yes, as you say above, but not when its a verb, methinks. No Fowler to hand.

"Remember in 1991 (Gulf War)in Greater Palestine they had both SCUDS and PATRIOT debris raining down on both the Zionists and Arabs."

Those were put in place (I beleive) as a way to deal with percieve threats of Biological and Chemical attacks from Iraq. Hoping that the toxins would be incinerated before they hit the ground...plus they needed to test them out...they weren't perfect, but they got a few.

"Yes the S11 attack did use civil aircraft which proves my point."

Not really, it proves you're wandering off topic. Missiles won't completely protect you from ALL forms of attack, obviously. They didn't stop Martin Bryant...eh? *rolls*

My Aussie Macquarie Dictionary has defence with a "c" however refers to the US spelling with a "s". I win the point I think. I did not go to Uni and got "E" for English in HSC (grade 12) in 1971 but I try to improve myself. I could Google "Fowler" but I have not heard of him/her.

In relation to the other persons comment about the PATRIOT missles. I notice you said that the Bio and Chem (non existent) in the SCUD would "hopefully" be destroyed. No they would have covered the target as they could have had they not been shot down. Which gets me back to the view that "shields" are an illusion for the masses and is a trendy phrase the media to swallow.

Who gives a toss about the 'c' and 's'. Typos happen, deal with it.

In 1991 there's no reason to believe Hussein wasn't capable of dropping Chem and Bio weapons on Israel at that time (remember the Kurds?). What would you have expected the yanks to do when they had the technology to at least attempt to defend Israel from such attacks after a coalition 'instigated' escalating the hostilities?(yes he did, but allied attack started bombing of Israel). Hussein wasn't all that sane at that time...or predictable. Remember the oil wells?.

Forgot what my point was..lol

Missile shields aren't a trendy phase. Keep up with the news.

StG,

Israel were not part of the "Coalition of the Killing". Why do the dirty work yourself when you can get gentiles to do it; that is a Zionist mentality.

Yes Saddam was a brutal dictator and gassed the Kurds - terrible but bombing and maiming 300,000 to 600,000 Iraqis since the invasion in 2003 is also a war crime.

Don't forget Saddam as a US ally in the 1980's when Iraq attacked Iran after their Islamic revolution.

Saddam was tryed for his crimes and so should Bush, Blair and Howard and the other 2003 national leaders, like Poland, Portugal and Italy who formed the "Coalition of the Killing", for theirs aggression which has made a bad situation in Iraq only worse.

Get off the soap box champ. Other threads are for ranting. Discuss missile defence shields or piss off. So far I've discussed the concept with you because some of what you've been on about is kinda related to the topic. I'll discuss Zionist conspiracies and the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq where it's appropriate to the topic.

I often find that when someone is loosing an argument or do not like what they are reading they often get personal as they have nothing to say.

All of what I have said is linked to world conflict and of which the so called missle shield is part. The US military industrial complex since WW2 has had to have a conflict to keep production going and Yanks in jobs and they do not care how many people they have to kill or countries (spelt correctly this time) they have to bomb or invade and lay waste. The USA is the most evil country of earth.

No need to reply StG and "HAVE A NICE DAY".

If you can't differentiate between 1991 use of missile shields in Israel and what we now know about the Hussein regime I can't be arsed talking with you. The topic is "Australian Missile Defense Shield". Lets discuss the pro's and con's of the concept through its use in history, or examples of current missile defence shields...but if you're gonna ramble on about 'whatever' and attempt to give me the boring old "I'm a tried and tested regular at debating sites" snore line...don't bother. I've argued this line with people with more talent than you. It bores me.

Cletus?, is THAT you?. lol

Will somebody who enjoys war please whisper in John Howard's ear that the best way to have our own Nuclear Weapons would best be served by installing Nuclear Power Stations one in each city for starters.
Canberra alongside Parliament. Sydney alongside the opera house this will be an icon as one of the wonders of the world. Melbourne in the middle where we hold the Formula One races. Hobart harbour alongside the Test Cricket Ground. Perth not in the heart of the City of course but between Fremantle and Perth at Peppermint Grove if the Council oppose it then it will have to be at the top of Kings Park by the War memorial. Port Douglas would be a nice tourist attraction to have a Nuclear reactor in a position of pride of place. Nuclear Waste could be buried close to Darwin. Neighbours our childrens friends victims of emissions Strotium B 90
My family lived very close to Bradwell Nuclear Power Station in Essex and we were part of a Community that campaigned for the closure because of the tremendous amount of various type of cancer deaths that was unexplained especially with school children. Friends of the Earth local Residents Associations and Labour Party Branches were finally successful. (Campaigners and local residents today (Thursday 28 March 2002) welcomed the closure of Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. The station is due to be shut for decommissioning on Easter Sunday, after 40 years operation. Friends of the Earth today called on the Government to rule out the building of another nuclear power station on the site and to encourage investment in renewable energy, such as wind power instead.) We are all interested to know that if John Howard and his Government has intentions of expanding uranium mining this would be a disaster for us all because this would mean that we would be condoning nuclear power and subsequently nuclear weapons. We cannot guarantee that China or Russia would not give uranium or plutonium to Iran.