U.S. discusses missile defense with Russia

[V-G]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration says it's getting some positive feedback as it tries to sell its missile defense idea to other nations. But it is not laying claim to converting skeptics and opponents.

But:
A 1972 treaty bars U.S. and Russian national missile defenses. The theory is that potential aggression will be averted because retaliation could be devastating.
Just read it http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/11/mis....ap/index.html

[vdanishevski]

Mr.George.W(c) Bush will have big problems in Europe cos he thinks USA is ruling but in fact they're not ruling anymore the "ruling"countries are: Japan,Germany,Russia Mr. Bush has a slowdown in his own economy so what he'll do to boost it make interest rate lower 2.3 basic points or declares USA an off-shore zone I think NDS is just a bluff

[Lilly]

You think so? Read my topic heading Star Wars Project-Missile Defence System which I posted on the russia.com site 19 months ago, and the last month's posting from the Toronto Star.

Read the similarities

LillyNomad

[Lilly]

ARE WE GOING INTO A RENEWAL OF THE ARMS RACE?

On Tuesday Jan.18,00 the U.S. government unsuccessfully tested an experimental anti-missile system. A mock warhead was launched to simulate a nuclear attack. A prototype missile interceptor was supposed to detect and destroy the mock warhead, but failed to hit its target.

But it is far from the end for missile defence......

The Whitehouse plans on spending $2.2 billion to the coming year's budget to pay for more testing. The Republican-dominated Congress is in favour of developing a missile defence system. Texas Governor George W. Bush and
Senator John McCain of Arizona are also behind it.

A green light for missile defence would have profound implications for North American security.

For more than a generation, Western strategic docrine has rested on the principals of "Mutually Assured Destruction," or MAD. That principle helped prevent a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. To keep MAD in its place, the two super-powers agreed not to develop missile defences by signing an Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty.

If the USA succeeds in developing a working defence system, they would have the upper hand with 1st strike capability; MAD is thrown out of the equation.
Russia feels threatened and China is angry and that would leave them no other recourse but to go ahead with developing their
own systems.
If the Americans develop this, Europe would feel isolated and be compelled to side with Russia, and then we would again have, pacts and blocks; - continental blocks.

I know we have heard some sabre rattling from Moscow by acting Prime Minister V. Putin about the use of nuclear missiles, but most people have missed the key word in his speech.
"IF we are attacked, we will use every means at our disposal to protect our Sovereignity, and that includes...nuclear missiles."

Despite the end of the Cold War, the American government says, that Russia still has thousands of nuclear warheads.
Duhhhh!!!You think??????
Moscow would be tempted to improve and modernize its offensive arsenal to close the technological gap.

The Topol-M, can slip past the even best U.S. defence shield. (Don't you agree, MADRUSSIAN?)(by the way, where is the little
bugger?)

~~~~~~Welcome to the New Arms Race!~~~~~~~~

All the billions could be put to better use.

My questions are:

Do we need this, and what would the implications be?

Is it because Pakistan and India each have unveiled new missiles,
or the ultra-Communist regime in North Korea tested a missile that could possibly reach the West Coast of the USA?

Is it feasible that these countries have sophisticated technology
to build a carrier like a Minuteman II, that would be able to deliver a warhead as far as North America?

Is President Clinton agreeing to spend money on research just to take the thunder out of his Republican opponents?


Does anyone know about THAAD,(Theatre High-Altitude Area Defence System, which the army is working on?

During WWII, Admiral Yammamotto posed this question, "Do we want to wake the Sleeping Giant?" He was referring to the United States.
Today, one can ask the same question about China....

Phillip: Did those missiles whizzing near Australia keep you up and interfere with your watching the Australian Open? ~smile~

This is a step back into the dark shadows of the mushroom clouds.....leaves me a little edgy....
No wonder 29 Palms is on alert. ;-)

Regards,
LillyNomad




[This message has been edited by Lilly (edited 21 January 2000).]

[Lilly]

Hello Everyone!
Below is the first of three parts culled from the news. I thought you might find it an interesting read.

Deep in a mountain, SON OF STAR WARS STIRS.......

Star Wars: Behind U.S. missile plan
missile plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of 3 parts

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, Colo. - Beyond the 45-tonne, nuclear blast-proof doors and 500 metres down through a mountain of granite lies the future brain of ``Son of Star Wars.''

The high-tech bunker is the most likely command and control centre for Washington's proposed missile defence program. It's the worst-kept secret at this 15-building warren.

Staff at NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command) headquarters here expect their Canada-U.S. operation would take on the National Missile Defence program as it has every other continental defence task since its opening in 1958.

``National Missile Defence is really an extension of our current mission - the aerospace defence of North America,'' says Canadian Maj.-Gen. David Bartram, NORAD operations director.

``Ask Canadians if a missile was launched toward North America, would they want to avoid the impact, and I'm sure they would say yes. Canada doesn't have the capability to do this without the United States,'' he adds. ``Maybe Canada doesn't appreciate that when it's cutting its military to the bone.''

That's the message Defence Minister Art Eggleton and Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley can expect to hear today when they tour the facility.

While Canadians work

alongside Americans here so seamlessly that they are indistinguishable in their gray flight suits, it is only Washington that is touting the National Missile Defence (NMD) system as the continent's best response to missiles from so-called ``rogue states'' such as Iraq and North Korea.

The rebirth of the science-fiction line system that most observers thought had died when president Ronald Reagan left office in 1989 has angered Russia and China and raised fears of a new arms race.

President George W. Bush and his defence minister, Donald Rumsfeld, have led the charge to revive ``Star Wars,'' long championed by Republicans seeking greater security against these ``rogue states'' and wary of the nuclear capability of China.

Officially, Canada has joined most world leaders in warning that the NMD would shatter major arms control pacts and fuel another global arms race.

Unofficially, Canada is on-side.

With the departure last year of then-foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, one of the most vocal foes of NMD, Canada has quietly backed off outright opposition to Bush's plan, expected to cost $60 billion (U.S.).

Prime Minister Jean Chr*tien has joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in trooping to Washington this year to press for reassurances that the U.S. won't create ``Son of Star Wars'' without consulting its major defence partners.

Both leaders insist that the United States has yet to ask any of its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies to join NMD.

But enough overtures have been made by Rumsfeld and, in the last few years by political and military leaders in Bill Clinton's administration, that such an invitation is seen by many as only a formality.

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have made clear Washington expects the support of Canada and Britain, partly to persuade NMD opponents in the Atlantic alliance, such as France and Germany.

The U.S. needs upgrades of Britain's radar system for National Missile Defence and, while there's no hardware on Canadian soil that would be crucial for the scheme, NORAD's tracking and early-warning operation would be key to what would be continent-wide defence.

``It just makes sense,'' says a senior Canadian defence official. ``Everything is going to come over us. No matter who sends it, the smartest route (for a long-range missile) to the United States is over the North Pole. It's the quickest, closest way, and if it's a crude one, it hits Canada. Better to have it intercepted in space above us than have it impact.''

Because Rumsfeld has ordered a comprehensive review of all the land, sea and space proposals for an NMD plan, the Pentagon won't speak publicly about Canada's possible role.

Yet the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization that oversees all missile defence programs at the Pentagon has fingered Cheyenne Mountain as the obvious command and control centre for a future system.

``It would be at Colorado Springs - NORAD headquarters - unless the deployment decision changes . . . the architecture,'' says a senior Pentagon official. ``We're not certain if it would be a new, separate command or under NORAD. The Canadian role has not been addressed yet.''

About two-thirds of the duties required for missile defence, such as space surveillance, missile alerts and identification, are already being shared by Canadians and Americans at Cheyenne Mountain, officials here say.

``It would really be no different than the fighters we have on alert who would be deployed to meet an incoming threat,'' Bartram says.

``I think by and large, there is support in Canada for this.''

If the U.S. rejects the still unproven NMD program (it ``hits a bullet with a bullet'' by sending an unarmed ``kill vehicle'' into space to collide with an enemy missile), it may instead opt for another $4.1 billion system under development that would destroy missiles with space lasers.

Canadians here regularly are involved in clearing a space ``window'' for those laser tests. They routinely join U.S. war games that simulate futuristic space battles at nearby Peterson Air Force base.

A Canadian air force major led NMD war games in mid-December and continues to work with Americans on the command, control and communication system the proposed defence shield would require.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Ask Canadians if a missile was launched toward North America, would they want to avoid the impact, and I'm sure they would say yes. Canada doesn't have the capability to do this without the United States. Maybe Canada doesn't appreciate that when it's cutting its military to the bone.'
- Maj.-Gen. David Bartram, NORAD operations director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A Canadian scientist is soon to sign on to NMD development here and Eggleton has announced that Canada will soon assign a military officer to the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization office at the Pentagon. The officer would join about 100 Canadian military personnel working on exchange programs or in liaison jobs in the U.S. military.

``This will help facilitate consultation on missile defence issues and will keep Canada abreast of U.S. developments in this area,'' Eggleton told the standing committee on national defence and veterans' affairs last week.

It's not a signal that Canada has agreed to join NMD, officials insist.

``It just helps our department to have a better understanding'' of the U.S. programs on missile defence so that it can provide information, advice and guidance to Ottawa, the defence department's Jill Hawkins says.

When it comes to Canada's possible involvement in NMD, ``the 49th parallel is irrelevant,'' says a senior Canadian defence official here. ``NORAD is a seamless operation. We're totally integrated in defending North America.''

If Canada opted out of NMD, it could spell the end of NORAD as the world's only binational defence command, observers believe.

``There is nothing like it in the world and it has always worked,'' Bartram says. ``The Americans consider us an equal partner. There's never any question about our decisions by our U.S. counterparts. In many cases, they come to us for advice.''

Canada's $300 million (Cdn.) annual contribution is less than 10 per cent of the NORAD budget. (Canada's entire defence budget is $11.2 billion (Cdn.) this year, compared to Washington's $310 billion (U.S.) defence budget.)

Ottawa's financial contribution might be modest but Canadians participate equally in NORAD according to Canadian Col. Murray Bertram, vice-commander of the Cheyenne Mountain operations centre. It's the ``war room'' where missile warnings sound and where officers assess threats before alerting the White House and Ottawa.

The 700 Canadians working at headquarters and other sites, such as the North Bay early-warning centre, represent about 20 per cent of total NORAD staff.

A Canadian has always been No. 2 in command at NORAD - the chief commander is always an American - and Canadians routinely have leadership posts over Americans.

``That's the beauty of NORAD,'' says Canadian Maj. Jamie Robertson, a NORAD spokesperson. ``You become blind to nationality. You're one team. There is no rivalry. It's very rare to have anything that's just Canadians or just Americans.''

There aren't even separate hockey or baseball teams.

Attacked by some as near-obsolete after the Cold War, NORAD's super-computers have 2001 software but still include some 1970s hardware. A $1.5 billion (U.S.) upgrade over the next 15 years will replace old computers and integrate more than 100 separate computer systems spread through the underground maze.

NORAD is still known as ``The Granite Sentry,'' a global watchdog that follows every man-made object that moves in space and anything that slips into North American airspace, on or below radar. Thanks to NORAD warnings, the international space station has been manoeuvred out of harm's way three times. Various space shuttles have taken evasive action 10 times in the past few years.

Its world network of 14 radar stations and five telescopes, a string of dirigibles tethered along the U.S.- Mexico border, and an unspecified number of space sensors (the U.S. military owns 100 of an estimated 600 active satellites) track everything that's launched too.

NORAD has annually reported about 248 launches of missiles, spacecraft and satellites since it started picking up Scud missile firings during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In the Russian conflict in Chechnya, NORAD computer screens sometimes pinpointed 10 short-range missile launches in a day.

NORAD monitors an estimated 7,000 craft that enter North American airspace each year but it's impossible to track all of the 2.5 million planes flying inside those borders.

There were 129 ``scrambles'' last year that required Canadian or U.S. fighter jets to investigate.

In about 50 cases, planes suspected in drug trafficking or other crimes were escorted by U.S. or Canadian jets until they landed in the care of police, customs or other authorities.

``It's strictly escort,'' says Canadian Capt. Trent Morrisey, operations officer at NORAD's air-warning centre. ``NORAD has never fired in anger.''

Compared to the 3,600 fighter jets on alert during the Cold War, only 270 planes in the NORAD network are on alert and even then, only 20 on 24-hour standby.

Still, there were three full alerts that required sending jets to the Arctic in the past 18 months when Russian fighters strayed too close to North American air borders.

``The Russians have been a little more provocative than we would expect at this point,'' says Canadian Col. David Higgins, vice-director of NORAD plans.

In Arctic exercises, the Russians are ``very cautious and very, very precise'' in staying beyond Canadian sovereign territory, he adds. The last time a Russian jet was detected inside North American airspace was in 1993.

The post-Cold War demand for a peace dividend has not eroded the need for NORAD, its officials contend.

``If anything, it's more and more relevant,'' Bartram says. ``I think it's more dangerous. At the height of the Cold War, we knew exactly who our enemies were and where the threat was coming from.

``The average Canadian thinks no one is going to do anything to Canada. That may be true, but our biggest and best ally is not that far away. Ninety per cent of our population lies within 100 miles (of the U.S. border) and those missiles are not that accurate,'' Bartram says.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow: A new battleground in space

__________________
__________________

LillyNomaD





27th March 2001 18:37 IP: Logged

Lilly
Senior Member

Registered: Jan 2000
Posts: 681

A new battleground
Despite protests, the U.S. is pressing ahead with its new missile defence system, including lasers in space
ZAP! A network of satellites like this one would orbit Earth, ready to destroy missiles by shooting powerful laser beams.


STAR WARS:
BEHIND THE U.S. MISSILE PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
second of three parts

KIRTLAND, N.M. - DEATH STARS. Killer lasers. Invisible beams that, in the words of one senior U.S. military official, can ``reach out and touch the enemy at the speed of light.''

No longer the stuff of comic-book villains, multi-billion-dollar weapons being developed by the Pentagon and the world's largest defence contractors are swiftly turning ``killer light'' from science fiction to fact.

Ground-based lasers already have been used, in one U.S. Army test, to hit an aging American satellite.

It's all part of the United States' controversial missile defence plan that would destroy long-range missiles, from land, sea, air and space.

Supporters say the system will protect the U.S. and its allies from missile attacks launched by so-called ``rogue states'' such as North Korea and Iraq. But the proposal has angered Russia and China and raised fears of a new arms race.

Some military leaders, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, not only envision a space force in future, like the army, navy and air force, but insist the U.S. must reach ``superiority'' in putting weapons in space.

The U.S. military is wasting little time.

Since last summer, a joint Israeli-American military venture has successfully shot down almost two dozen Russian-made Katyusha rockets in experiments in the New Mexico desert, using a ground-based laser weapon.

To learn how lasers might be knocked off course by air turbulence, the American military has fired low-powered beams at the bellies of small planes.

At the air force base here in northwestern New Mexico, the military is using low-power lasers and high-power telescopes to create ``artificial stars'' in nightly tests to find ways of using laser weapons in varied atmospheric conditions.

``I think most Americans still see it as science fiction, at least for my generation that grew up with Star Wars,'' says Col. Ellen Pawlikowski, a chemical engineer and program director of the U.S. Air Force's airborne laser (ABL) project.

``This is ground-breaking, in terms of rising, revolutionary technology. It's out-there, in-front technology,'' she says. ``This is part of a new era for the air force.''

Throughout history, says physicist John Pike, an international weapons expert, aggressors seek the high ground in conflicts, and so it's inevitable that the world's only superpower covets the ``ultimate high ground.

``Whoever controls space has control of the Earth. The United States is unable to resist it. If the U.S. is in a position to control Earth from outer space, there's nothing to stop us. Of course, we're going to do it.''

Several Star Wars-type weapons are under development, including the long-feared, space-based laser (SBL), nicknamed Death Star.

A $4.1 billion project funded by the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defence Organization is testing lasers for space at defence contractor TRW's labs near the Los Angeles airport.

By year-end, the space-based laser group - teaming defence industry giants Lockheed Martin, Boeing and TRW - expects to break ground on a larger test facility in Mississippi.

The goal is to put a laser into orbit in 2012 and start experimental attacks on missiles the following year.

The Death Star project includes a constellation of about 20 laser-firing satellites circling Earth, ready to blast a missile anywhere within seconds.

Recent space-simulation tests of the high-powered laser have been so successful that some air force leaders contend the space-based lasers could be launched by 2010 if the U.S. Congress agrees to accelerate funding.

``The basic technologies have been proven,'' says Douglas Crawford, a Pentagon physicist who has been working with high-energy lasers since he graduated from college in 1979. ``There are no inventions left to perform.''

Still, it's tough to simulate the conditions under which a space-based weapon would operate. And the actual spacecraft housing the laser hasn't been built yet.

Weapons designers are concentrating on reducing weight, size and cost of the laser - the launch and space tests are estimated at $3 billion - while trying to improve its efficiency. Among the major problems they're working on is keeping the laser beam stable.

The laser is designed to be so accurate and so concentrated that it can destroy a long-range missile thousands of kilometres away. Yet the weapon must not be so powerful that it could accidentally hit Earth. Its creators insist that, if a target is missed, there would be no threat because Earth's atmosphere would absorb all the beam.

But fallout from a nuclear, biological, chemical or conventional warhead hit by the laser could land back on the attacker's territory.

Critics contend the space-based laser is no more a sure thing than its controversial and still unproven cousin, the National Missile Defence (NMD) scheme.

That $60 billion, ground-based program, promoted by President George W. Bush and scheduled for operation in 2006, is designed to destroy long-range missiles by ``hitting a bullet with a bullet.'' In theory, the U.S. fires an unarmed missile interceptor known as a ``kill vehicle'' into space, where it destroys an oncoming warhead in a high-energy collision.

``This is right up there with the war on cancer and a cure for the common cold,'' says Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington defence policy organization. ``A lot of money goes in and not much comes out. They've been working on this for 25 years . . . They're no closer to flying this thing than they were 25 years ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'This is ground-breaking, in terms of rising, revolutionary technology. It's out-there, in-front technology. This is part of a new era for the air force.' - Col. Ellen Pawlikowski,
Airborne laser project

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


``But throw enough time and money at it and you'll probably get a gadget with a high-powered beam that occasionally destroys targets,'' Pike concedes. ``Presumably, having campaigned hard on missile defence (during the 2000 election campaign), we can expect Bush to throw more money at the space-based laser.''

Lethal lasers have been studied in earnest since president Ronald Reagan initiated his ``Star Wars'' weapons research program in 1983 to counter Russian missiles. But funding that hit an annual high of $2 billion was cut dramatically after the collapse of the Soviet Union and wasn't revived until the 1991 Gulf War showed the gaps in anti-missile technology.

The ``Son of Star Wars'' campaign surged under president Bill Clinton, after a 1998 commission headed by Rumsfeld reported that rogue nations were years closer to threatening North America with intercontinental missiles than was earlier forecast.

The 1999 National Missile Defence Act that followed commits the U.S. to a national missile defence plan ``as soon as is technologically feasible.''

Yet Canada and major European allies have joined Russia, China and India in warning that the U.S. scheme could ignite another global arms race.

And missile defence, whether it's ground-based or space-based, violates the 1972 Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, considered the cornerstone of international arms control.

The American military and political establishment insists the U.S. must build a missile defence - Bush favours a combination of sea, land, air and space systems - against the threat of terrorists or Third World nations keen to lob missiles against the U.S. or its allies. About 70 countries already have short-range ballistic missiles - and Iraq, Iran and North Korea are among those believed to be developing long-range missiles that could have nuclear or biochemical warheads.

``We don't have anything to defend ourselves against ballistic missiles,'' says Crawford at the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization. ``We're defenceless.''

Some U.S. military leaders predict that with an infusion of more money, laser weapons will be ready long before the more technologically difficult land-based missile system.

According to air force Col. Neil McCasland, it's quicker to knock out a missile from space than from Earth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Intercepting at the end (of a missile launch) is very difficult. There's something very lucrative about hitting the missile on its way up rather than the warhead on its way down'- Col. Neil McCasland,
Space-based laser project

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


``Intercepting at the end (of a missile launch) is very difficult,'' says McCasland, director of the SBL project. ``There's something very lucrative about hitting the missile on its way up rather than the warhead on its way down.''

After more than 20 years of Pentagon-fuelled research on high-energy lasers, McCasland says, ``I'm confident this is worth the country's trust.''

With private and military - army, air force and navy - laser experiments blossoming across the U.S., the defence department last year published a Laser Master Plan encouraging more research and development in chemical, solid-state and other lasers.

According to Jane's International Defence Review, the U.S. has spent more than $14 billion since 1962 on developing high-energy lasers. The Pentagon's marquee project is the airborne laser (ABL), a $1.6 billion project that is turning an ordinary 747 jumbo jet into the world's first laser combat plane.

The jet is undergoing two years' worth of modifications at a Boeing hangar in Wichita, Kan. Its belly is being reinforced with titanium and a six-tonne, swivelling nose turret is being built that would direct the laser beams to their target. The plane's laser technology has been developed and tested at TRW labs at Capistrano, near San Diego, and here at the huge Kirtland air force base.

``The ABL will be our first line of defence against (short-range) ballistic missiles,'' says Pawlikowski, the program director. ``It gives us the ability to use something clean - very intense light - very, very quickly . . . to protect our troops.''

The first firing of the laser is set for August at TRW. The ``00-0001'' jet, so-named because it is the first prototype the air force has designed this century, is due to begin flying in October, without its lasers.

The plane is scheduled to be moved to Edwards air force base in California by mid-2002 for laser-loaded flight tests.

If all goes according to plan - in a field where cost overruns, technical glitches and production delays are common - the ABL is to attempt its first test in 2003 off the California coast. Tests would simulate war conditions in which the laser plane would attempt to destroy several dummy Scud missiles.

``I believe the system will work,'' Pawlikowski says. ``We have some challenges ahead of us . . . there could be some problems with the integration, some technical problems, but no showstoppers.''

At Kirtland, charred and punctured hulls of missiles are propped up as exhibits at ``The Pit,'' a sub-surface, laser-testing lab that simulates space with vacuum chambers.

Unlike comic-book weapons, however, the ABL won't vapourize its target but will soften it for explosion by burning into the missile's metal casing and creating enough pressure to cause an explosion.

``It's proven it will work,'' boasts site director Grant Denton of Boeing. ``We know the lasers work. We know the beam-control system works. We've never put them together.''

The plane will feature 14 lasers capable of firing about 20 to 30 times against a multiple-missile launch.

Once the hot plume of a newly fired missile is detected by the plane's four infrared sensors, a ``ranger'' laser on top of the aircraft would locate the missile and relay information to on-board computers to estimate the missile speed, origin and intended target.

The missile would then be tracked by beacon lasers that lock on to its fuel tank before the attack laser is fired.

The mammoth jet would be so automated, it would require only a crew of eight, including two pilots and two co-pilots in the usual first-class area and four computer analysts working in what would normally be the business-class section.

While the network of space-based lasers would be designed to hit missiles anywhere on Earth, the airborne laser would have a more limited range, of at least 350 kilometres. The ABL jet would fly above the clouds, at about 40,000 feet.

The current project calls for a fleet of seven ABL-jets to be ready by 2009, at a final cost of $11 billion. Two jets would always be aloft, with five able to rush to a combat zone within 24 hours.

``This has the potential for many applications down the road,'' says Pawlikowski. ``This is just a first step.''

Leaders of both the air- and space-based programs say they're heartened by current tests at the White Sands missile range in New Mexico - home of the atom bomb tests - that are regularly exploding Katyusha rockets.

``At least they proved we can kill something,'' says Pawlikowski. ``It was an important step that took us out of the realm of science fiction.''


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow: The man behind Star Wars



__________________
__________________

LillyNomad


27th March 2001 18:38 IP: Logged

Lilly
Senior Member

Registered: Jan 2000
Posts: 681

Targeting the `ultimate high ground'
U.S. defence secretary's militarization plan designed to avoid a `Space Pearl Harbour'

STAR WARS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEHIND THE U.S. MISSILE PLAN
Last of three parts

WASHINGTON - A once-fantastic vision of American military control of the heavens is so closely identified with the goals of U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that he has been dubbed Darth Vader.


Rumsfeld is the key promoter of America's controversial national missile defence plan, a futuristic system that would destroy enemy long-range rockets from land, sea and space.

Just prior to his cabinet appointment, Rumsfeld led a commission that released a major study assessing U.S. security and capability in space.

That commission issued a 100-page report in January calling for U.S. ``superiority'' in space and its ``mastering operations in space.''

It also called for U.S. weapons in space.

Supporters say the system will protect the U.S. and its allies from missile attacks launched by ``rogue states'' such as North Korea and Iraq. But the proposal has angered Russia and China and raised fears of a new arms race.

Canada has not committed to ``Son of Star Wars'' yet and other U.S. allies such as France are critical of the scheme.

The U.S. already is spending billions of dollars in developing space-based laser weapons, as well as the $60 billion national missile defence system teaming satellites and non-nuclear warheads that would explode in space.

Several nations, including Russia, China and the U.S., have worked on anti-satellite weapons that would jam, disable and kill rival space sensors.

While conceding there is a public ``sensitivity'' to weaponizing space, Rumsfeld's 13-member Space Commission contends the U.S. should have that capability ``for offensive or defensive purposes.''

President George W. Bush should ``have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to, and if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests,'' the report states.

U.S. failure to control space invites a ``Space Pearl Harbour,'' the commission warns.

Throughout history, aggressors always have sought the high ground in conflicts, and so it's inevitable that the world's only superpower covets the ``ultimate high ground,'' says physicist John Pike, an international weapons expert. ``Whoever controls space has control of the Earth. If the U.S. is in a position to control Earth from outer space, there's nothing to stop us. Of course we're going to do it.''

Rumsfeld told his Senate confirmation hearing in January that ``defence of space assets'' is one of his top priorities.

The Rumsfeld report insists: ``The present extent of U.S. dependence on space, the rapid pace at which this dependence is increasing and the vulnerabilities it creates, all demand that U.S. national security space interests be recognized as a top national security priority.''


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Whoever controls space has control of the Earth'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The U.S. owns about 300 satellites, including about 100 military sensors of an estimated 750 orbiting Earth. The $80 billion international space industry forecasts another 1,500 satellites - for everything from wireless Internet connections to digital TV - are scheduled to be launched in the next few decades.

The Pentagon and CIA are scheduled to replace all U.S. reconnaissance satellites over the next decade at a projected cost of $60 billion.

While many U.S. military satellites are considered radiation-proof and bear other shields, most commercial and civil satellites - the ones that guide ambulances, for example - have little protection because of the prohibitive cost.

Americans have long been world leaders in militarizing space. Defence experts estimate the U.S. already controls about 80 per cent of the world's military satellites.

Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War - the Pentagon often calls it the world's ``first space war'' - the U.S. military has become more reliant on satellites for intelligence, as well as guiding weapons and moving troops.

During the 1999 Kosovo war, some Americans tried to buy hand-held global positioning system units for family members in combat because troops were so reliant on satellite-transmitted data and didn't have enough equipment.

The global positioning system is used by everything from military ships to jets. It is used by recreational boaters, hikers and even farmers trying to perfect ``precision'' agriculture based on satellite information.

``Space domination is something we've actually had for some time, when you consider how much our military space systems lifted the fog of battle in Kosovo and the Gulf,'' says physicist Pike. ``One of the reasons the U.S. is the world's only superpower is because of our military space systems. No one can match them.''

But Washington should resist its obvious urge to develop anti-satellite and other space weapons, adds Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based think tank on defence policy.

``Space should be a sanctuary from which American military satellites can operate to support troops on the ground,'' he says. ``Attacks on satellites should be seen as untenable as attacking hospital ships.''

There is no global treaty banning all space weapons.

The Outer Space Treaty signed by most nations in 1967 prohibits weapons of mass destruction in space or putting weapons on the moon or other planets.

The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the U.S. and the then-Soviet Union bans developing, testing or using space-based missile defence systems.

The current Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - the U.S. Congress refused to sign it last year - bans nuclear tests or nuclear explosions in space.

No treaty bans anti-satellite weapons such as lasers. Rumsfeld opposes any deal that would outlaw space weapons. He has been a long-time opponent of chemical weapons-ban treaties and anti-nuclear pacts.

For the past decade, the U.S. has consistently abstained from voting on United Nations' resolutions urging members to avoid an arms race in space. The votes win approval from most of the other U.N. members.

``We need a public groundswell - like we had from (against) land mines in Ottawa - for a treaty banning the stationing of weapons in space, that the U.S. would be forced to sign,'' says researcher Dan Smith of the non-profit Centre for Defence Information in Washington.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`The present extent of U.S. dependence on space, the rapid pace at which this dependence is increasing and the vulnerabilities it creates, all demand that U.S. national security space interests be recognized as a top national security priority.'
- Donald Rumsfeld, in report on U.S. security in space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



``We should ban all weapons in space before anyone puts anything up there. Once they are there, no treaty will have a chance against them.''

Russia, China and key U.S. allies such as Britain have warned any missile defence scheme could trigger a new global arms race.

``Space will become a new weapons base and battlefield,'' China's disarmament spokesperson Sha Zukang said last year. ``Since other big powers will not sit and look unconcerned, this will inevitably mean the extension of the arms race into space.''

The U.S. risks initiating the very conflict Rumsfeld and other military and congressional leaders insist they're trying to avoid.

``It's mind-boggling. I really can't understand why people like Donald Rumsfeld want to go down this road,'' says Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned Scientists, based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ``It can be very dangerous.

``If the U.S. is going to do it (create space weapons), then others will follow. It's a really big incentive for less sophisticated countries without satellites to take that fight one step further and try to shoot down one of our satellites.''

The U.S. is in a unique position to shape international norms, yet appears bent on building missile defence systems and space-based weapons over the objections of all its allies and nuclear nations such as India, China and Russia.

While the Rumsfeld report doesn't call outright for a U.S. space combat force, it recommends the White House approve a new space policy that makes it possible. It also calls for a separate Space Corps of leaders in the future and says ``a military department for space'' may be needed to ensure the U.S. has independent space systems to answer ``hostile actions.''

``It's very pre-Cold War and it's wrong,'' Gronlund says. ``At its core, the U.S. is saying, if the world is that chaotic and if you can't rely on institutions or laws or legal constraints, all we're left with is our military strength and we'd better go for it whole hog.''

Congress is set to debate the Rumsfeld report in mid-April.

__________________
__________________

LillyNomad