Questions

1.Proponents of the missile defense system in Central Europe explain its need by pointing to the nuclear threat posed by Iran. Criticism, however, has emerged from Russia. Moscow is concerned that the plan threatens its own defense systems, and also its power in the region. Do you think the Iranian threat is sufficient reason for the United States and its partners to continue building and installing the system, despite Russian criticism? Why or why not?

ALFRED WEBRE:

“There are multiple false premises inherent in the rationale to build and install the U.S. National Missile Defence (“NMD”) system in Central Europe, indeed anywhere. Two hawks – Pres. Leonid Brezhnev and Pres. Richard Nixon - outlawed Missile Defense systems with the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile Defense (ABM) Treaty because NMD systems are hair-triggers to nuclear first strikes, and all-out nuclear war. National Missile Defence is a misnomer, as NMD can actually be used in aid of a nuclear first strike by the U.S. No wonder Russia – which many experts say is the true target of the NMD systems in Central Europe – feels threatened by this system. There is no objective evidence that Iran is building weapons of mass destruction capability that would justify a U.S. NMD system – this is more Iraq War-style propaganda fraud.

“Moreover, the 1972 ABM Treaty between the U.S. and Russia, which the Bush Administration unilaterally terminated on Dec. 13, 2002 under the pretext of 9/11, had prevented the weaponization of space for 30 years. In fact the 9/11/01 “attacks” were a false flag operation of the Bush Administration. See my Memorandum to the U.S. Congress at: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/2007/04/memorandum_summ.html
The Bush Administration unilaterally terminated the ABM Treaty under the pretext of the 9/11/01 false flag operation in order to (1) provide a cover for a $1 trillion weapons system boondoggle, and (2) provide the pretext for the weaponization of space, and its unlimited arms race and profits to the permanent war economy.”

2.Failed tests and delays have brought the effectiveness of a missile defense shield into question, while the recent shooting down of a malfunctioning spy satellite gives credence to supporters. What are some the most pressing concerns regarding the technical feasibility of a missile defense shield, and how do these concerns make the case for or against the system?

ALFRED WEBRE:

“There are multiple expert evaluations which demonstrate that the U.S. National Missile Defense system is in essence - as the costliest planned weapons system in history with its planned over-all $1 trillion price tag – gigantic war industry corporate welfare. Over the past decade, half of the 13 NMD tests have failed, despite the fact that the tests were given advance information – which an enemy would not do.

“Moreover, NMD systems are extremely vulnerable to decoys and countermeasures, which, according to experts, is akin to trying to hit a hole-in-one “when the golf hole is moving 17,000 miles an hour and the green is covered with black circles the same size as the hole”. Decoys can include any object designed to resemble incoming missiles or warheads, for example cone-shaped balloons. Chaff and debris to confuse search radar of the NMD system can be spread, as well as infrared-burning pellets to confuse infrared NMD systems. Radar jamming and electronic interference can be used to evade NMD, and “stealth” or radar-absorbing materials can be used in incoming ballistic missiles, as well as jamming or electronic interference to evade radar detection. NMD radar and interceptor sites themselves are prime targets to be taken out in a pre-emptive attack. Moreover, according to the official Missile Defense Agency Fiscal Year 2008 MDA budget request:

‘This initial capability is not sufficient to protect the United States from the extant and anticipated rogue nation threat [emphasis added].’”
Reference: http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/22_1/special_report/001.html

3.The total cost of the missile defense system is unknown, but projections place it in the billions of dollars over the next five to 10 years. It would seem that the feasibility and reliability of the system would largely determine its affordability? Can Americans be assured that their tax dollars are supporting a legitimate and necessary enterprise? Why or why not?

ALFRED WEBRE:

“U.S. NMD is the ‘Trojan Horse’ of the weaponization of space - the ultimate arms race to keep the permanent warfare economy going – because one of its main purposes is to fund research on space-based weapons. There is no real “enemy” or “threat” which the NMD is meant to deter. The 1972 ABM Treaty outlawed NMD systems because they are unstable and can lead to nuclear first strikes and all-out global nuclear war. All of the purported “enemies” are trumped up. NMD is an engineering failure in original design, a gigantic white elephant, whose true long-range cost has been estimated at $1 trillion. To ask the question whether NMD should be supported by U.S. taxpayer dollars is to answer it with a resounding: ‘No Way!’

“The sensible approach to the issue of the weaponization of space is not to build the U.S. NMD system. It is to keep outer space weapons-free with the Space Preservation Treaty which bans all space-based weapons (including space-based NMD) and warfare in space. A U.S. Army War College Study on “United States Policy on Weapons in Space” concluded, after studying the Space Preservation Treaty, that ‘The best course of action for a new space policy is reducing our vulnerability by decreasing our reliance on space assets and preserving space as a weapons free sanctuary.’ For more information on the Space Preservation Treaty visit www.peaceinspace.com.”