E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Australia May Buy American Missiles
EFL
Looks like somebody took the Bali bombing personally.
Australia might buy U.S. missiles as part of the Bush administration’s planned defense shield, the defense minister said Tuesday while acknowledging the plan could fuel a regional arms race.
Who in the region's going to keep up with Australia?
The government announced in December that it would join the American plan to build a missile defense system, calling the threat of ballistic missiles too grave to ignore. Details of that involvement were being hammered out with U.S. defense officials visiting Australia — one of Washington’s staunchest allies — this week to negotiate a memorandum of understanding.

Defense Minister Robert Hill on Tuesday offered the first hint about the contents of the agreement being discussed, saying the government might incorporate the missile defense systems on three air warfare destroyers planned for the Australian navy. Hill previously had said his country likely would help research the multibillion-dollar defense project and had no plans for a ground-based missile defense system on its own soil. Hill said he was impressed by last month’s successful firing of a Standard Missile-3 interceptor missile from a Navy Aegis cruiser that knocked a target rocket out of the sky over the Pacific. "It’s got the capability to basically meet and intercept missiles outside of the atmosphere," Hill told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. Hill did not give more details about the missiles being considered and a spokeswoman declined to comment while discussions with the American representatives were ongoing. Critics says the technology for such shields is complex, unreliable and expensive, and that the plans could spark a new arms race.
So did critics of the gattling gun. Soon they changed their minds while low-crawling away from the battlefield.
Asked if Australia’s moves could escalate an Asian arms race, Hill said: "There is an argument that that would encourage others to develop their attack missiles further or to proliferate them. But the proliferation is already there."
Sounds sensible.
Hill’s comments came just days before Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was due to visit Australia for talks. Australia has in the past angered some Asian neighbors with its close strategic links to the United States.
Getting blown up will change your friends.
In Jakarta, an opposition lawmaker in the Indonesian parliament insisted Tuesday that Indonesia was a clear target of any proposed Australian missile defense system.
No, you don’t understand. The target is the missiles that our flying at our populus.
"We are really concerned with this military buildup, it’s not defensive anymore, it’s offensive already," lawmaker Djoko Susilo said.
How exactly can shooting missiles out of the sky be considered offfen... Forget it. I figured out who might be offended.
Ron Huisken, an expert in U.S. defense policy, said the government needed to justify why such systems were necessary. "It’s a complicated business. It makes a big difference whether you aspire to defend Australia itself or whether you aspire to defend Australian expeditionary forces going overseas, there’s a lot of holes in the story so far before we spend lots of money," said Huisken, who is based a the Australian National University.
Ah, Mr. Huisken works at a University. What a surprise.
What part about "sea of fire" can't he comprehend?
Last year, Hill announced government plans to spend $10.3 billion, or 1.9 percent of the nation’s economic output, on defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004.
Hopefully, Japan will follow as well. Wouldn’t do to look like an easy target.
This sea-based system was outlawed under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but the United States withdrew from the treaty last year. The plan also calls for the development of ground-based interceptors.
Seems to me that any treaties held with the Holy Roman Empire and the Ching Dynasty would also be abrogated.
Posted by: Super Hose 2004-01-13
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=24281