China shoots down Australia's "Star Wars"

[Yorick]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/National/story_46273.asp
------------------------------------------------
Star Wars plan shot down

Australia has been told the US-developed son of star wars shield against ballistic missile attack could trigger a fresh global arms race.

In a stark reminder of regional concern over US plans to develop a missile shield capable of destroying incoming missiles, China's embassy in Canberra said the high-tech system would be a risk to regional security.

An embassy spokesman said Beijing feared US development of a so-called theatre missile defence (TMD) would undermine the global strategic balance.

"It would lead to a new round of (the) arms race," Feng Tie told AAP.

"We think that TMD would have a deep and wide negative effect on world peace and stability.

"And TMD counteracts the confidence-building efforts in the region and deepens the instability in the region in terms of security."

Mr Feng said China also feared cooperation between countries in a theatre missile defence shield could lead to the development of security pacts which would also threaten other countries not taking part.

"The TMD area should not compromise other countries' security interests and should not lead to the establishment and the strengthening of any exclusive military or political blocs," he said.

Possible Australian involvement in the US missile defence program was foreshadowed in the defence strategic review released yesterday.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said he could not rule out American missiles being located on Australian soil if Australia signed up to the star wars program.

Prime Minister John Howard said the Australian people would want the government to investigate involvement in the shield, even if the multi-billion-dollar program never came to fruition.

But in a sign that worries about the shield spreads far beyond the region, France's ambassador to Australia, Pierre Viaux, backed China's concerns.

Mr Viaux said it was understandable Australia would look to take advantage of its close relationship with the US and seek involvement in the missile shield.

But there was also a danger of a fresh arms race, he said.

"We know very few things about what this anti-missile protection will be," he told AAP.

"But generally speaking, when the US started a few years ago to speak about building this kind of shield, we said what the Chinese are saying.

"It will only push the arms race a little further."

Mr Viaux said China, as an emerging superpower, would likely seek to counter the US system with a missile shield of its own.

"It's true that if they see their neighbours, Australia is not exactly neighbours, but doing it, they'll do it also," he said.

Senator Hill said Australia was looking at the shield as a possible counter to long-range North Korean missiles under development.

There were also fears terrorists could obtain missiles and fire them at Australia, he said.

The US ambassador to Australia Tom Schieffer refused to comment on the missile shield and any involvement by Canberra.
-------------------------------------------------

©AAP 2003

[Harkoliar]

kinda scary since it is the younger generation would suffer.. like me!

[Luvian]

Ok, seriously... what exactly is the bad thing about developing a technology that prevent countries from getting hit by missiles? It seem to me that it would only help peace, not war. If no one can shoot nukes at each other, they the world is a lot safer.

It just seem to me that china don't want that to happen, because like they said, they are becoming a superpower, so it's not in their interest to see the world become nuke safe.

[ 02-27-2003, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Davros]

I heard on the radio this morning from some physicist that the biggest downside of the missile shield program is that while it will be possible to solve the technological problems currently in the way of effective interception, the biggest problem the project faces is that there is substantially greater technological advancement available on the side of missile evasion systems. So lots of work in making better interception systems could well be easily counteracted by improvements to evasion systems.

[Luvian]

You never know when something is going to happen that will ruin your projects. Is that a good reason enough not to try anymore?

[Davros]

Originally posted by Luvian: You never know when something is going to happen that will ruin your projects. Is that a good reason enough not to try anymore?

I am never against trying something Luvian (enev though I am reminded of the "Try not" speech of Yoda's ) - but the implication of what this guy was saying is that he percieved that there was much greater technological advance possible on the side of the missile that on the side of the interception. That indicated to me that a lot of money could be wasted if the interception can be readily circumvented.

[sageridder]

That's kinda like saying you shouldn't wear kevlar because sombodys gonna devolope a bullet that get's through.

[Kakero]

hehe, who knows the so called defense misile that US is installing might be ICBMs with nuke warhead. on the face they tell you they are developing the defense misile for security but deep inside it's something else.

maybe that's why China is protesting. IMO.

[Davros]

Originally posted by sageridder: That's kinda like saying you shouldn't wear kevlar because sombodys gonna devolope a bullet that get's through.

OK - let me out it a different way - the thrust of his statements were that you could spend the next 2-5 years getting around the current issues and perfect a response. His belief was that this response could be circumvented in a matter of months, and how do you continually innovate the shield against unknown and unpublicised innovation on the side of evasion? His argument was that evasion could be improved very simply and quickly, and that the interception technology would always lag in the race.

If it is true (and I grant you I have no idea) that the upside in technology is in favour of evasion, and (heaven forbid) someone wants to make the pre-empive strike, then what is stoppng someone developing new evasion technology just prior, and for the express purpose of use in such a strike.

I have no way of knowing the extent of this guy's knowledge, and I can understand that many here will want to believe in (and passionately defend) the effectiveness of a shield. I want to belive in it too - anything that can reduce or neutralise our ability to blow each other up is a good thing in my view.

[Wulfere]

I fail to see why an anti-ballistic missle system is a bad thing.
Remember I used to deal with these things. The fact that a for real ICBM re-entry vehicle travels at something like 14,000 mph on re-entry is the biggest hurdle.

Second you can not manuver an RV during rentry. It would burn up.

Third you would have to build New re-entry vehicles that had the needed hardware to manuver, once they are within the atmosphere. They would have to also slow the vehicle down appreciablly to get any manuverability out of it. Thereby increasing the chance it can be taken out by a shield. You would have to test such systems and we WILL see that.

Fourth and finally it costs bucks and time to do all that. It also requires extra space/weight aboard the launch vehicle and reduces the number of RV's that said vehicle could loft into space.

Just some thoughts on the matter....