By Jim Backwell
One of the more ludicrous post-Cold War developments is the United States administration's insistence on the continuation of the "Star Wars" project. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the cuts to nuclear stockpiles, one would think that the need for this system had significantly diminished. However, President Bush wishes to commit $US46 billion to the project.
Star Wars' justification is still couched in terms of deterrence — no country would even think of targeting the USA when the system is in place. In other words, the USA is deterring something that does not exist and may never exist.
An absurdity to emerge from the Liberal-National Coalition here is support for Star Wars. If the conservatives win the next federal election, they will commit Australia's Defence Science and Technology Organisation to the project.
Star Wars, or the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) arose out of a fantasy of Ronald Reagan to provide a leak-proof shield against nuclear attack. Large sections of the world scientific community rallied against this proposal, believing it ineffective and likely to involve spending trillions of dollars for nothing.
Since 1983 SDI has been modified to become a little more realistic.
GPALS — Global Protection Against (ballistic missile) Strikes is designed to counter a deliberate or accidental launch of a long-range ballistic missile. This will be done by the positioning of 1000 "Brilliant Pebbles" missiles in orbit around and 1000 anti-missile missiles based on the ground. Brilliant Pebbles are self-guiding missiles that calculate a launched missile's trajectory and attack it.
GPALS is estimated to cost around US$46 billion, of which US$10.96 billion was budgeted in 1992-93. Over US$20 billion has already been spent on the project, and GPALS is not particularly advanced. Due to the exponential cost of such high technological research, a figure of US$100 billion is more likely.
A bigger flaw than its technical difficulties is the program's reason for existence. With the collapse of the USSR and the massive nuclear arms cuts, the chances of a Russian nuclear strike are even more remote. Washington has had to justify
GPALS by pointing to the nuclear proliferation in the Third World. Yet the chances of these countries obtaining such long range weapons is remote. The development of these weapons requires literally billions of dollars, well beyond the economies of any "potentially hostile" Third World country.
The global nature of GPALS is also suspect. SDI has always been couched in terms of the protection of the USA and the USA's interests. Australia may have a role in this due to the US bases on our soil. But it would be safer to remove all chances of nuclear attack by removing the bases rather than relying on a theoretical anti-missile system. The benefits of being involved in this research are questionable. Aerospace technology is inappropriate for Australian defence, which should be designed to counter low-level threats.
GPALS, SDI and the Coalition's support for these programs are all Cold War dinosaurs. The continued support in Washington for this project has more to do with the military industry complex and the votes in the United States defence production heartlands than with any global reality.
While achieving little, the project will consume extraordinary amounts of US public money. The Liberal-National support for this squandering is a worrying omen that a conservative government in Australia may well embark upon a military build-
up.
[Jim Backwell is secretary of the Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament.]