umm, plz just check if this is alright, as it is an outcome
Essay:[Aquisition of missile shield for Australia]
-Against
Australia has signed up for the missile defence system. After the goverment decided that Australia is under threat from rogue states and fundamentalist groups. That was a bad move made by the liberal party lead by John Howard, as the program will create several problems that will harm Austarlia's national interest and hamper her image on the global community.
Firstly, the huge price tag of 100 billion USD will have an impact on the economy and therefore reduce our domestic expenditure, such as health care. Social services like Medicare is going down the drain while we're spending more and more money on wars and missile (06/12/03 - The Age Shayne Davison). Billions of dollars could be injected into social security such as our ailing medicare cover and our unfairly underfunded public schools. The protection missile shield offer is mainly geared towards North Korea with its cruel and unstable regime who concentrates all of their efforts on the destruction of the U.S. Given the proximity and their tie with the US,South Korea is not even regarded as a main enemy, much less Australia. The much debated about threats from the middle east are also unrealistic, Iraq is one fine example, CIA has confirmed there are no WMD in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632436/), other Middle East countries do not have the technology to develop delivery vehicles capable of hitting Australia. If anything, Australia should pour more resources on ASIS and ASIO, Australia's own intelligence elements, to prevent events like Bali from ever happening again, because the missile shield definately won't stop terrorists with box cutters and C4 wrapped 'freedom fighters' sneaking through immigration.
In addition, foreign relations are also under fire, with countries like Malaysia and Insonesia critisizing Australia for this destablelizing move.The close co-operation has led critics in Australia and abroad, especially key regional powers Malaysia and Indonesia, to accuse Australia of becoming an American satellite without an independent foreign policy, at the expense of important regional issues. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/23/358437-cp.html) This shield program involves fitting the system onto current battleships, which effectively extends the radius of the shield thus posing a threat to neighbours as it is also capable of targeting aircrafts.
Moreover, the program's unlikely to succeed, it relies solely on kinetic energy from the impact of the interception, this requires pinpoint accuracy, analysts believe this is highly unlikely to work, and this technology is easy to be countered with by manuvering the launch vehicle to evade the missile interceptor. Reports have revealed that Russian has already developed counter measure against the missile shield (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FB25Ag01.html), which has indicated that countermeasures will be developed sooner or later, this leads to doubts regarding the shield's effectiveness and whether its original purpose still stands and therefore leads to the debate on whether or not the program should continue. This type of fixed strategy are always broken through, one way or another, "Descending from the Great wall of China through to Germany's Siegfried line in WW1, and the French Maginot line in WW2. All of them point to the futility and folly of such fixed strategies: the walls are eventually broken." (Siddharth Prakash 08/12/03 - The Age)
There has been documents published regarding the orientation of the missile defence shield, that its defensive and therefore do not pose danger to neighbours. However, the missile shield can and will be installed on our navy vessels which can be mobilised and acts as a mobile shield for an advancing army. For example, China has missiles lined up aimed at Taiwan, if war sparks up, the U.S and Australia are likely to be involved, the missile shield will then pose a credible threat to China's much boasted missile force therefore render its missiles ineffective. The shield also poses a significant threat to opposition airborne elements, such as enemy fighters as it also has the capability to target and aquire aircraft at stand off range.
Goverment stressed that our alliance with the U.S is important, and that by getting our selves in this would further strengthen our diplomatic relations, senator Hill said this acquisition is a: "reflection of the already strong relationship" -The Australian (05/12/03) between Australia and the U.S. However, we are already purchasing American hardware, such as our $60 million USD spent on 59 refurbished tanks, and our aquisition of the JSF stealth fighter also costing millions. Austraila has also let U.S to set up bases in Queensland,"The United States wants to shift military equipment and supplies to northern Australia, setting up a defence staging post near Darwin in a historic move that would deepen ties between the two countries' forces." (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027050122.html?from=storyrhs. This will allow them to secure their interest in the region. And lastly, Australia has signed a free trade agreement with the super power that has devastated aussie farmers. How much is this alliance costing us, any more discounts given into the U.S, the Autralian goverment is going to worry about relations with its own people instead of the U.S.
All in all, this program should be terminated immediately and scrapped. Its cost, the damage on foreign relations and the high risk of it being unsuccessful physically should have been thoroughly discussed and thought over before signing the contract, on top of all the negatives, this also lead to people from all over the globe thinking Australia is a weak country who can not guarantee her own security and is seen as a lapdog of the U.S and overly dependant on foreign assistance.
Bibliography:
Jane's Information Group http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw030828_1_n.shtml
The Age - http://archive.education.theage.com.au/article.php3?article_id=114958
Asia Time - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FB25Ag01.html
SMH news - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027050122.html?from=storyrhs
The Australian - (05/12/03) [Canberra Signs on to missile defence]
The Australian - (10/02/04) [Shield 'won't start arms race]
The Age - (05/12/03) [Australia signs up for 'star wars']
The Age - (08/12/03) [Revisiting the dream of Star wars']
The Age - (08/12/03) [Futule Excercise]
ECHO - [Should Australia become involved in the United States missile defence program, 'Son of Star Wars']
http://www.echoed.com.au/protected/adocs/doca2004/starwars.htm *(ECHO account required to access)
Taipei Times - http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/12/05/2003078376
Crosswalk.com - http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1234426.html
CNEWS - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/23/358437-cp.html
Essay:[Aquisition of missile shield for Australia]
-Against
Australia has signed up for the missile defence system. After the goverment decided that Australia is under threat from rogue states and fundamentalist groups. That was a bad move made by the liberal party lead by John Howard, as the program will create several problems that will harm Austarlia's national interest and hamper her image on the global community.
Firstly, the huge price tag of 100 billion USD will have an impact on the economy and therefore reduce our domestic expenditure, such as health care. Social services like Medicare is going down the drain while we're spending more and more money on wars and missile (06/12/03 - The Age Shayne Davison). Billions of dollars could be injected into social security such as our ailing medicare cover and our unfairly underfunded public schools. The protection missile shield offer is mainly geared towards North Korea with its cruel and unstable regime who concentrates all of their efforts on the destruction of the U.S. Given the proximity and their tie with the US,South Korea is not even regarded as a main enemy, much less Australia. The much debated about threats from the middle east are also unrealistic, Iraq is one fine example, CIA has confirmed there are no WMD in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632436/), other Middle East countries do not have the technology to develop delivery vehicles capable of hitting Australia. If anything, Australia should pour more resources on ASIS and ASIO, Australia's own intelligence elements, to prevent events like Bali from ever happening again, because the missile shield definately won't stop terrorists with box cutters and C4 wrapped 'freedom fighters' sneaking through immigration.
In addition, foreign relations are also under fire, with countries like Malaysia and Insonesia critisizing Australia for this destablelizing move.The close co-operation has led critics in Australia and abroad, especially key regional powers Malaysia and Indonesia, to accuse Australia of becoming an American satellite without an independent foreign policy, at the expense of important regional issues. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/23/358437-cp.html) This shield program involves fitting the system onto current battleships, which effectively extends the radius of the shield thus posing a threat to neighbours as it is also capable of targeting aircrafts.
Moreover, the program's unlikely to succeed, it relies solely on kinetic energy from the impact of the interception, this requires pinpoint accuracy, analysts believe this is highly unlikely to work, and this technology is easy to be countered with by manuvering the launch vehicle to evade the missile interceptor. Reports have revealed that Russian has already developed counter measure against the missile shield (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FB25Ag01.html), which has indicated that countermeasures will be developed sooner or later, this leads to doubts regarding the shield's effectiveness and whether its original purpose still stands and therefore leads to the debate on whether or not the program should continue. This type of fixed strategy are always broken through, one way or another, "Descending from the Great wall of China through to Germany's Siegfried line in WW1, and the French Maginot line in WW2. All of them point to the futility and folly of such fixed strategies: the walls are eventually broken." (Siddharth Prakash 08/12/03 - The Age)
There has been documents published regarding the orientation of the missile defence shield, that its defensive and therefore do not pose danger to neighbours. However, the missile shield can and will be installed on our navy vessels which can be mobilised and acts as a mobile shield for an advancing army. For example, China has missiles lined up aimed at Taiwan, if war sparks up, the U.S and Australia are likely to be involved, the missile shield will then pose a credible threat to China's much boasted missile force therefore render its missiles ineffective. The shield also poses a significant threat to opposition airborne elements, such as enemy fighters as it also has the capability to target and aquire aircraft at stand off range.
Goverment stressed that our alliance with the U.S is important, and that by getting our selves in this would further strengthen our diplomatic relations, senator Hill said this acquisition is a: "reflection of the already strong relationship" -The Australian (05/12/03) between Australia and the U.S. However, we are already purchasing American hardware, such as our $60 million USD spent on 59 refurbished tanks, and our aquisition of the JSF stealth fighter also costing millions. Austraila has also let U.S to set up bases in Queensland,"The United States wants to shift military equipment and supplies to northern Australia, setting up a defence staging post near Darwin in a historic move that would deepen ties between the two countries' forces." (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027050122.html?from=storyrhs. This will allow them to secure their interest in the region. And lastly, Australia has signed a free trade agreement with the super power that has devastated aussie farmers. How much is this alliance costing us, any more discounts given into the U.S, the Autralian goverment is going to worry about relations with its own people instead of the U.S.
All in all, this program should be terminated immediately and scrapped. Its cost, the damage on foreign relations and the high risk of it being unsuccessful physically should have been thoroughly discussed and thought over before signing the contract, on top of all the negatives, this also lead to people from all over the globe thinking Australia is a weak country who can not guarantee her own security and is seen as a lapdog of the U.S and overly dependant on foreign assistance.
Bibliography:
Jane's Information Group http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw030828_1_n.shtml
The Age - http://archive.education.theage.com.au/article.php3?article_id=114958
Asia Time - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FB25Ag01.html
SMH news - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027050122.html?from=storyrhs
The Australian - (05/12/03) [Canberra Signs on to missile defence]
The Australian - (10/02/04) [Shield 'won't start arms race]
The Age - (05/12/03) [Australia signs up for 'star wars']
The Age - (08/12/03) [Revisiting the dream of Star wars']
The Age - (08/12/03) [Futule Excercise]
ECHO - [Should Australia become involved in the United States missile defence program, 'Son of Star Wars']
http://www.echoed.com.au/protected/adocs/doca2004/starwars.htm *(ECHO account required to access)
Taipei Times - http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/12/05/2003078376
Crosswalk.com - http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1234426.html
CNEWS - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/23/358437-cp.html
Facebook
Twitter