Missile defence system: peacekeeper or deadly provocation?

Is being able to shoot down missiles a recipe for peace? The Bush Administration seems to think so. The rest of the world is not so sure. MATHEW DEARNALEY investigates.

It has been dubbed "Son of Star Wars" and some are already characterising it as potentially the darkest threat to world peace for three decades.

When George W. Bush raised his thumbs in a victory sign after a successful missile defence "hit" above the western Pacific Ocean last weekend, a growing body of world opinion took it as a two-fingered gesture of another sort.

The United States President was celebrating a milestone towards a unilateral defence strategy aimed at making his country invulnerable to missile attacks, while knocking out a doctrine which has for 30 years kept the main nuclear powers from blowing the world up.

A dummy warhead fired from California, after a brief delay forced by Greenpeace protesters, blazed 7700km across the Pacific before being exploded into space by an interception missile launched from an atoll in the Marshall Islands, southwest of Hawaii.

It was the second successful interception and the first direct hit in four tests that have cost about $US100 million ($246 million) a pop - the early phase of a project which, if approved despite doubts about its technical feasibility, could end up at more than $US200 billion.

But the leader of what has become a Republican minority in the US Senate, Trent Lott, is confident this achievement of "hitting a bullet with a bullet" can be built on to turn his country into an impregnable fortress where Americans can sleep safer.

The Pentagon wants to conduct 20 more interception tests in the next five years and is seeking a 57 per cent increase in its missile defence budget for 2002, pushing it to $US8.3 billion ($20.5 billion), about one-fifth of New Zealand's GDP.

There could be a test firing by 2006 of an interceptor missile from a space satellite, although the Bush Administration is trying to avoid the "Star Wars" tag attached to President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative of the 1980s. It is focusing most of its efforts for now on systems based on land, at sea and in the air, rather than in space.

But Democratic senators are challenging an announcement that the Administration will within months move ahead with construction of an Alaskan interceptor base that could violate a long-standing arms control treaty with Russia.

And British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is to receive Mr Bush today, faces a possible revolt by many Labour MPs if he agrees to upgrades of US installations in Britain which could be critical to the missile defence system's success.

What do New Zealand and other states think?

New Zealand opposes any such scheme, as do many European countries.

Foreign Minister Phil Goff and Disarmament Minister Matt Robson fear it will sweep away a delicate web of agreements to limit and eliminate nuclear stockpiles, sparking a new arms race.

Mr Bush hopes to soften Russian opposition with unilateral nuclear weapons cuts, but critics claim he is simply planning to get rid of old stock.

China is already believed to be boosting defence spending in answer to the missile defence preparations and US arms sales to Taiwan.

The Australian Government is a rare supporter. It plays host to the US-operated Pine Gap satellite tracking station near Alice Springs, which would be expected to play an important role in detecting offensive missiles. But the Labor Party has undertaken to review any such involvement if it wins office at the end of this year.

Mr Robson sees strong parallels between an isolationist push on strategic defence and American defiance of other international moves.

These include the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions and a bid, thwarted by the Americans at a United Nations conference last week, to control the world small arms trade.

Mr Bush will face strong pressure on these fronts at a summit of the G8 countries in Genoa this weekend.

But what's wrong with building defences against assailants?

Mr Goff is adamant that the best safeguard against nuclear attacks is to eliminate nuclear arms, while Mr Robson says the Bush Administration seems bent on unpicking an elaborate framework set up by the world community to do this.

There is grave danger, says Mr Robson, of other countries perceiving the US as a potential threat and tooling up their arsenals accordingly.

"Other countries will think that if the United States is invulnerable, it can launch an attack on them without fear of reprisal. I am not saying the US is going to attack those countries, I am saying that is the way those countries will reason."

Which countries are most likely to feel threatened?
The US says its strategy is aimed not at the main nuclear powers such as Russia or China but at allegedly "rogue" states, notably North Korea, Iran, Iraq - all three of which are suspected of developing long-range missiles.

But Victoria University teaching fellow and former New Zealand Ambassador to the United Nations Terence O'Brien believes the real target on this side of the world is China, as North Korea is in no position even to feed its people or buy enough fuel to fly its jet fighters.

"The US does not need missile defence, it has enormous superiority in both nuclear and conventional weapons. Asia is surrounded by submarines and if a rogue state only attempted to fire a missile at the US, it would be obliterated from the face of the earth."

China has about 425 nuclear warheads, but only 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles. This compares with 7200 operational warheads left in the US arsenal, of which 5600 are for strategic, long-range use. Russia has more than 28,000 warheads, but 18,000 are awaiting dismantling or in reserve.

The other main nuclear powers, both signatories to the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, are Britain and France.

India and Pakistan have exploded nuclear devices but refuse to sign the treaty, and Israel is believed to have about 100 warheads but has never declared nor tested its capability.

Mr O'Brien says China is alone among the five main nuclear powers in offering an unequivocal guarantee not to be first to launch a nuclear strike.

Russia renounced a similar policy in response to the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

But China has announced an 18 per cent boost to defence spending this year, to 141 billion yuan ($42 billion), and some analysts suspect the real budget is far higher as the People's Liberation Army is upgraded into a high-tech force capable of invading Taiwan.

What does Russia make of the missile defence scheme?
Mr Bush says Moscow has nothing to fear, as the Cold War is over and Russia is no longer an enemy.

And Russia badly wants to negotiate more weapons cuts to reduce the cost of its nuclear arsenal.

But the US has confirmed Russian fears by disclosing that its development of missile defence will conflict, in a matter of months rather than years, with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty it signed with Moscow in 1972.

Russia and China denounced the latest test at a summit in Moscow this week, with their leaders insisting the treaty should be preserved as a "cornerstone of strategic stability" and the foundation for nuclear arms cuts.

Mr Bush will discuss the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G8 summit, but will keep pressing for a new security framework beyond the anti-ballistic treaty.

A Washington think tank, the Centre for Defence Information, fears that if Russia becomes too nervous about new American capabilities, it will put its rundown nuclear missile network on heightened alert at greater risk of accidental or unauthorised firings.

Centre president Dr Bruce Blair says Russia's early warning system is growing more and more susceptible to false alarms, with deteriorating communication systems increasing the danger.

One terrifying incident occurred in 1995 when a scientific rocket launched by Norway set off an alarm in Russia that began the countdown to a nuclear launch.

What does the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty do?

Although only the US and Russia signed it, 32 other arms control and security agreements have flowed from the treaty, including a ban on nuclear weapons testing for which New Zealand operates three Pacific monitoring stations.

The anti-ballistic missile treaty places severe limits on missile defence, relying primarily on a concept of "mutually assured destruction," by which nuclear powers must accept a likelihood of being obliterated by retaliatory attacks should they strike first.

Mr Goff fears that if this equilibrium is upset, other countries will try to restore it by boosting their arsenals to achieve a higher "balance of terror."

What does President Bush say?

Mr Bush says the treaty served its purpose in a time of dangerous confrontation "that resulted in thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert."

But he says the most urgent threat now is a small number of missiles in the hands of other states "for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life" and which are run by "tyrants gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America."

Cold War deterrence is no longer enough to keep the peace in such a world: "We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces - deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation.

"No treaty that prevents us from addressing today's threat, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies, is in our interests or in the interests of world peace."

Surely he has a case? Doesn't every state have a responsibility to protect its citizens?


Mr Goff has sympathy for that sentiment, but says the missile shield cannot guarantee safety.

"It is ultimately no protection - someone could put a nuclear weapon in an aircraft cargo hold and detonate it - the Oklahoma bomber has shown what could be done with a bit of fertiliser."

He says the world now has the technical means to verify that countries have stopped nuclear testing, and New Zealand will continue pushing in that direction as one of a group of seven countries seeking ways to fortify the test ban and extend nuclear-free zones. The others are Sweden, South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico and Ireland.

Mr O'Brien notes that there has been no attempt to negotiate an international treaty to control and eliminate missiles as such, as opposed to nuclear warheads, and says a defence system should not be contemplated at least until this is done.

The Bush Administration has removed the word "national" from the project, to offer the possibility of extending it to other countries and avoid the isolationist appearance of the US as a missile-proof sanctuary prepared to leave friends and allies to fend for themselves.

But the greater the area to be defended, the greater the technical challenge.

Mr O'Brien believes this would suit the "military Keynesians" in the American defence establishment, a reference to the late economist John Maynard Keynes, who successfully prescribed major public works as a cure for recession.

Will a defence shield work?

Even the Pentagon's own technical advisers admit it will be devilishly difficult to intercept clusters of more than about 20 missiles at once, particularly if accompanied by light-emitting decoys travelling faster than seven kilometres a second.

A nightmare scenario envisaged by nuclear weapons consultant Richard Garwin is of missiles squirting out hundreds of minibombs containing anthrax or some other disease-producing agent.

There is also the risk of enemy warheads starting their onslaught by knocking out radar installations essential to any defence system.

Mr Garwin wants a decision to go ahead delayed until the Pentagon can firm up ways of intercepting missiles in their initial post-launch phase, when it will be relatively easy to detect the intense flame of a first-stage rocket.

That would mean basing interception missiles close to potential enemy states, such as on Russian territory to fence in North Korea, rather than "putting a lid over the entire US and much of the eastern Pacific."