|
"THE
LAST THING WE NEED IS MISSILE DEFENCE"
John
Polanyi
The Globe and Mail
Wednesday, May 7, 2003
The Canadian government, having held back from President George W.
Bush's rush to war in Iraq, appears likely to join his rush to missile
defence.
And it is quite evidently a rush. The Pentagon's top evaluator of
weapons programs, Thomas Christie, said in a report in February that
the anti-missile system to be deployed next year "has yet to
demonstrate significant operational capability." Nonetheless,
it represents the first component of the Bush administration's projected
$1-trillion national missile defence (NMD) system planned as a shield
against long-range missiles.
If Canada agrees to participate, it will be for political reasons.
Having angered the Americans over Iraq, we must now placate them over
missile defence. Neither Prime Minister Jean Chrétien nor his
cabinet have troubled to convince Canadians of NMD's worth. Instead,
in recent days, Liberal cabinet ministers have lined up to give laconic
endorsements. Only Heritage Minister Sheila Copps seems to remember
that her party has traditionally opposed Star Wars as a dangerous
fantasy.
Why this studied calm? Are her colleagues counting on the new Star
Wars to go the way of its predecessors? First there was Nike-Zeus
in 1960, and then, when this was cancelled, the Sentinel system. After
that, there was Safeguard and, most recently, Ronald Reagan's Strategic
Defence Initiative of 1983. Each was the white hope of its time, and
each ended up on the scrap heap. Quite likely, this will be NMD's
ultimate fate.
But are we to take that as a recommendation? Why has missile defence
proved again and again to be a costly and hazardous irrelevance?
First, there is the fact that the defended nation would be foolish
to depend on NMD to be more than a half to three-quarters effective.
It is, after all, a missile trying to hit another missile, a bullet
aimed at a bullet. The ground-based missile defence now being prepared
for deployment has yet to prove even that effective.
And this is in recent tests against target missiles of known characteristics,
fired from a known place at a known time. The nuclear-armed missile
coming from a rogue state (North Korea and Iran being the rather far-fetched
candidates) will not be so obliging. Still less, in the distant future,
would be a long-range missile were it to be fired by terrorists.
The purpose of this limited defence is stated by the Bush administration
to domestic audiences as being the provision of "options"
to the President, and to foreign audiences as a "deterrent"
against attack. It is neither. Senator Joe Biden, then chair of the
U.S. foreign relations committee, said sarcastically in conversation,
"How splendid that NMD would give our leaders the option of only
losing San Francisco and Chicago."
Nonetheless, NMD will have consequences. China already sees it as
a device for reducing the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent and
will correspondingly increase its nuclear weapons arsenal. So, then,
will Pakistan and India. Other nations will feel entitled, indeed
obligated, to follow the NMD path. The U.S., of course, will welcome
the opportunity to sell obsolescent NMD components.
It is evident that NMD points the world down the wrong path; it is
the path of fortress-building, which, in the 21st century, is hopelessly
anachronistic. Unchecked, weapons and counter weapons lead only to
the development of further weapons. In the course of NMD, outer space
will be weaponized. Satellites, now the vital eyes and ears of the
world, will then become targets. The pursuit of security through unbridled
armament will have led to a pandemic of insecurity.
Mr. Bush was closer to the truth when he declared all-out war on weapons
of mass destruction, particularly those in irresponsible hands. Rightly
pursued, this is a proper quest, leading, as it must, to restrictions
on all such weapons, in whatever hands. The international control
of armaments offers the only protection for the weak, as for the mighty.
But dare we tell the emperor that he has no clothes? It would be an
act of friendship were we to do so.
Nobel laureate John Polanyi is a senior fellow at Massey College,
University of Toronto.
© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
