Search: guardian.co.uk Comment is free Web News
Sport
Comment
Culture
Business
Money
Life & style
Travel
Environment
Blogs
Video
Jobs
A-Z
Comment is free
Unproven and unwantedThe Czechs don't want the US missile defence programme on their soil. Why should Britain roll over and accept it?Comments (40)
Peter Kilfoyle guardian.co.uk, Wednesday November 05 2008 10.20 GMT
Article history
There was little coverage here when Czech parliamentarians went on hunger strike earlier this year. Representing 70% of the Czech people, they were objecting to a base in the Czech Republic as part of the American missile defence programme. Like most Europeans, they believe that missile defence makes Europe – including the UK– less safe, not more. Indeed, polls have shown that less than a quarter of Britons disagree that missile defence involvement puts Britain on the front line.

This Czech base would be linked to another in neighbouring Poland, designed to house ten interceptor missiles as part of the same shield. Forty more missiles are being sited at Fort Greeley in Alaska, and yet more at the Ronald Reagan missile base in California.

On top of this deployment, it is proposed to settle another one hundred and thirty interceptor rockets on naval vessels. Ultimately, the United States Department of Defense plans to incorporate space-based, laser, and high altitude elements to this shield, in line with their military doctrine of full-spectrum dominance.

However, there are many problems associated with this "son of Star Wars". Firstly, it aims to shoot down missiles in space – akin to a bullet hitting a bullet at a closing speed of four miles per second (14,900 miles per hour). Senior scientists and former US government figures like Ted Postol and Dick Garwin insist that the programme is a chimerical pursuit of the unworkable.

The only tests to date which appear to have worked involved planting a homing device in the target to ensure accuracy. What about a hostile missile equipped with countermeasures, throwing out decoys against interceptors? Surely anyone capable of launching an inter-continental ballistic missile would also be prescient enough to include protective counter measures?

This is also a hugely expensive programme. It has been priced at $450bn (£280bn). One hundred billion dollars have already been spent on development without any solid evidence that missile defence actually works. Although John McCain is an enthusiast, Barack Obama has questioned its huge cost and doubtful outcome.

Yet the biggest problem is its destabilising effect. It sets Russian against Pole and Czech. It has created a world where Putin and his generals can point to an encircling American military. Ever since the US revoked the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, Russia has looked nervously at American expansion. Missile defence, they fear, is ultimately aimed at them, and their strategic defence capability.

The Americans point the finger at "rogue states" – nowadays, a euphemism for Iran. However, when North Korea was the prime concern, the US engaged in an ultimately successful dialogue with them on their weapons programme. If Russia and the European Union had their way, talking with Tehran would remain the way forward.

Russia has actually called America's bluff on missile defence, offering co-operation against rogue states, and the use of radar facilities within Russia. The Americans turned them down, as our government surreptitiously allowed the incorporation of RAF Fylingdales and RAF Menwith Hill into the American system. This was without the public and parliamentary debate demanded by more than two thirds of the British public, and promised by Tony Blair in February 2007.

Now, what would I think if I were Russian?