A Man who Loves his Son

Prior to 9/11, this was the sort of thing Dubya spent his time talking about. We can already see the unilaterism and arrogance that was to become the calling card of his administration in the approach to the Son of Star Wars defence initiative.



Ahhh, Dubya! He’s like a kid with a new toy sometimes. I refer to Dubya's Son of Star Wars initiative that he's so very keen on. From what I understand of it, the idea is to develop a national shield against ballistic missiles by the use of a network of better and faster missiles. If we discount for a moment the fact that he's a Texan and therefore loves guns and weapons of all kinds, we can examine whether or not it could actually be a good idea.

We have been living in the shadow of nuclear weapons to a greater or lesser degree since the end of WWII. One would have thought that something that reduces this threat would have been welcomed with open arms. Instead, it has been greeted with a reaction bordering on the use of arms. The best reaction has been from the UK and Canada who have given very diplomatic responses along the lines of "Thank you for consulting with us about it, and seeing as whatever we say isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to what you're going to do, we may as well try and stay on your good side".

Since the idea was first mooted, Dubya has done his best to sweeten the pill somewhat. He has promised that he will cut the US stockpile of nuclear weapons, and has hinted that the defence system would not just cover America, but it's allies as well. He has also, however, disregarded the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, which is the basis of many of the major arms control treaties since then. It banned the use of defensive systems, thus establishing a balance of sorts (i.e. No-one would start a nuclear war as nobody could hope to win it). If he ignores the treaty, then why should any other nation pay attention to it? Could this lead to all of the other nuclear nations (Russia, China, and India) not aligned with the US to try and increase their nuclear capabilities?

There seem to be two points of view here; there is the view that the development of a defence against nuclear missiles is a very good thing (this is the view of America). Then we have the view that it is very much not a good idea for one nation to have a defence against it when no bugger else does (the view of the rest of the world).

So what do we make of each argument? As I am hardly Dubya's biggest fan, I'm sure you'll have a rough idea of what I think of all this. However, as nuclear war is one of my biggest bugbears then I feel I owe this issue a fair hearing. So despite the fact that it kills me to talk about Dubya and not mention the words "Gimp", "Wanker", "Tosspot", or "Fucknut" in association with him, I shall swallow my pride and continue.

Firstly we have the American point of view. The line of thinking seems to be that the safety of their citizens is paramount. This is a laudable motivation, of that there can be little doubt. However, it is not a particularly far-seeing or well thought out idea. With a defensive shield, the American public need never worry again about a nuclear attack by a hostile nation. However, despite what a large number of Americans might think, there is a world outside of the US and they are rather upset at the idea that another country could deploy a weapon of mass destruction against them without the satisfying knowledge that vast numbers of Americans will also die in a blaze of nuclear fire.

It is rather high minded of the Dubya administration to assume that they have the right to create a worldwide problem in order to alleviate a domestic one. And if we think about it a little more, one has to wonder whether it does actually address the main threat to America, and whether it is actually creating more problems than it solves. Firstly, is there actually a danger of an ICBM based nuclear attack on the US? Russia has it's own problems and there has also been doubts raised as to the maintenance of their missiles. They can hardly launch an attack when they'd have to fire their missiles using catapults. China has never struck me as an impetuous sort of nation, so the odds of them attempting to launch a surprise attack on America are low at best.

Certain elements of US intelligence and military already acknowledge that the biggest threat to national security comes from multi national terrorist groups (like multi national supermarkets with Semtex) and cyber terrorism. Neither of these are likely to be launching missiles soon. The former is feared for the possibility that they will use "suitcase bombs" (portable bombs carried by individuals; they can carry nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry) and the latter because they have the power to paralyse the US computer networks. The Son of Star Wars offers no protection from these threats.

Moreover, if we look at the views of the rest of the world, we can see that it has the potential to create far more dangerous problems for the rest of us. If one powerful nation has the ability to destroy another with minimal fear of reprisal, how long will it take for America to start and impose its will on the rest of us? Hollywood has already done more than it's fair share to educate us that America is the best damn country in the world (they won the second world war you know, and they captured the Enigma machine). It is quite natural for people to think that if their way is the best, it is right. Therefore everybody who holds a different view is wrong. Could anyone imagine what it would have been like during the Spy Plane crisis if the missile defence shield had been in place? Would the US have been quite so conciliatory?

Also, Dubya has hinted that America's allies will also receive the benefit. This is a curious statement, and it is one that puts me in mind of The Godfather offering protection to those who promise to somehow further his own aims. Are we going to be getting this free of charge? Or are we going to have to jump to whatever tune the US government decides to play? (Not that that's a new situation for we Brits; Kyoto treaty anyone?)

Under a more benevolent leader, perhaps the objections wouldn't have been quite so great. But Dubya (perhaps through no fault of his own) has a reputation as a leader who does not pay any attention to the wishes of others. Thus far, he has been very single-minded about pursuing his policies (the only real setback he has suffered has been the derailment of his plans to provide a funding boost for evangelical church educational programs) and he has only made any pretence of modifying policy when he needs to tread carefully. He's hardly going to worry about upsetting Europe, Asia, or anywhere else in the world if he knows that we can be railroaded into agreeing with US policy due to fear. Maybe I am being a little paranoid, but anyone who has studied history will see time and time again that a position of absolute power does indeed corrupt. The missile defence would give America that absolute power. I think perhaps we should stop looking at Dubya as an ignorant hillbilly and perhaps give some thought to just where he is leading not just America, but all of us.