cj> Rumsfeld | War in space | Korea & China


Richard Moore

Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:20:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Preparing for War in Space?


Published Friday, January 26, 2001

Miami Herald
by Ira Chernus

Rumsfeld preparing for war in space?

Last century, in times of peace, U.S. military researchers
were busy inventing new weapons for the next war. New
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld seems determined to
lead us now under the banner of ``While you have peace on
Earth, prepare for war in space.´´ As Rumsfeld takes office,
we should demand a public debate on his favorite cause: the
militarization of space. Otherwise, we may plunge blindly
into the era of space warfare that Pentagon-paid scientists
already are planning.

The military-technology wizards flourish in times of
relative tranquillity. From 1871 to 1914, Europeans enjoyed
a peace that many thought would never end. Hence their shock
when they saw in World War I the horrors of machine guns,
tanks, submarines and poison gas. After the war, the shock
waves reached the United States. American leaders signed a
treaty purporting to outlaw war in 1928; by 1935, thousands
of young men had added their names to a formal pledge never
to take up arms again. But in the meantime devotees of
aerial warfare were designing new armaments: bombers
carrying massive bombs, aircraft carriers launching deadly
fighter and torpedo planes. Even as newspapers reported in-
vestigations of ``the munitions makers´´ of World War I,
there was little public notice, let alone discussion, of the
new weapons systems.

Only sci-fi devotees even imagined the discoveries that were
paving the way for the most monstrous bombs of all. When
public debate erupted after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was
too late. In the post-Cold War era of peace, weapons
development continues at U.S. nuclear laboratories, which
plan to test the next generation of bombs on computers
rather than under the ground.

But who's paying attention? The real challenge with both
nuclear and conventional weapons is figuring out where to
use them and ensuring that they hit their intended targets.
Military-might advocates have a passionate booster in

The Air Force's Space Command boasts that it can develop
computerized satellites that will tell U.S. commanders
everything that is happening, at every moment, everywhere in
the world. It also promises that these satellites will guide
U.S. weapons precisely to the target every time. It has
spent billions of dollars preparing for the militarization
of space. But it wants much more.Military-might advocates
have a passionate booster in the defense secretary.

We already have more destructive power than any one nation,
or even the world as a whole, could possibly use. We have
that power because of another revolution in military
technology that went largely unnoticed. During the detente
of the late 1960s and 1970s, the weapons designers went as
far as they could with big, unwieldy, city-busting bombs. So
they invented a new generation of ``smaller´´ strategic
weapons, precision-guided by computers, mounted eight or 10
at a time on a single warhead. Apart from a brief flap over
defensive-missile systems, there was scarcely any public

The Space Command plans to use its satellite-and-computer
network not only for guiding these weapons but to destroy
enemy satellites. They hope to get a bigger piece of the
budgetary pie. George W. Bush's selection of Rumsfeld
indicates that the new administration wants to cut the pie
very much to the Space Command's liking. The only part of
the plan getting scrutiny, now as in the 1960s, is missile
defense. Space-war boosters count on National Missile
Defense to ensure full-spectrum dominance, to spin off the
technology that space wars will require and to get us to pay
for it all. Rumsfeld's passions for missile defense and for
space weapons are two sides of the same coin.

Once the Pentagon tosses that coin, there will be no way to
stop an arms race in space, the costs of which, in money and
eventually in human lives, is incalculable. Now is the time
for a public debate on this subject.

Peacetime is the time to pay attention to the new war
technology. After the next war, it may be too late.
Ira Chernus is a religious-studies professor at the University of
Colorado at Boulder and a History News Service writer
Copyright 2001 Miami Herald
=============== + ================= Please sign the "STOP STAR WARS"
petition hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com:
================ + ================ Support Antiwar.com
http://Antiwar.com; and 'Spirit FM' Catholic Christian radio (90.5-FM,
Tampa, Fla. USA) http://www.spiritfm905.com; and Global Network Against
Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Many thanks from Kevin; age 46; online Christian peace
activist and stay-home father-of-4, in Florida (Tampa Bay

Delivered-To: •••@••.•••
From: "Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space" 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:23:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal

Hello. I am Cheong Wooksik, the representative of Civil
Network for a Peaceful Korea(www.peacekorea.org) that is
peace movement NGO in South Korea.

Inauguration of President Bush and alliance between China
and North Korea

written by Cheong Wooksik
translated by You Sanghee(Volunteer of CNPK)

North Korea's reclusive leader Kim Jong-il's surprise visit
to China, in the very first month of 2001, has provoked keen
interest of the international community. The fact that the
visit took place only days before the inauguration of
President Bush allows for a possibility of the two leaders,
Mr. Kim and his old ally Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin,
looking into a comprehensive structure of dynamics on the
Korean peninsula as well as in the Northeast Asian region.

On the surface, Mr. Kim's visit to China strongly hints at
his intentions toward China-style opening and reform. In
fact, North Korea is currently faced with almost no choice
at all, to revive its 20-year recession economy, than to
open up and introduce reforms through improving ties with
the outside world. In addition, the communist regime finds
enough merits in the new Chinese system, where socialist
political regime coexists with capitalist economy, resulting
in a huge economic success.

However, there is something more to the visit than what it
seems. The two leaders are expected to devise a joint
strategy toward the US, which still regards China as its
"strategic rival" and North Korea as "a rogue state". At the
present point, it is rather difficult to imagine what kind
of strategy they will be making.

For North Korea, normalizing relations with the South, the
US, and Japan is essential for its economic reforms and
opening. Indeed, the US has both legal and institutional
keys to lifting off of sanctions against the "rogue state",
as well as to advancing into the international market. As
for Japan, it is the only country that can provide financial
assistance, which North Korea desperately needs for economic
revival - whether it be in the form of compensation for the
colonial brutality, or of economic development fund.

North Korea is now facing a serious dilemma between economic
needs and security reality. The Bush administration appears
to be moving towards a hardline stance against Pyongyang,
and there is also a sign of growing militarism in Japan.
These two countries, it seems, will forge a stronger
military alliance in the future.

What is certain for North Korea is that it will not give up
on the mid-range missile development programme, the most
controversial issue so far with the US and Japan, unless
security threats from the US and Japan are completely eased.

In fact, Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and National Missile
Defense (NMD), which symbolize strong military ambitions of
the US and Japan, are enough to make North Korea feel
threatened. Worse yet, the Bush administration is expected
to urge Pyongyang to give up its development and export of
missiles without adequate compensation, exposing North Korea
to severe security threats, regardless of its giving up of
the missile programs.

As William Perry, former US Defense Secretary and writer of
guidelines toward North Korea under the Clinton
administration, admitted, North Korea's missiles are more of
a means to deter the US and Japan, rather than to provoke
war. In other words, for North Korea, giving up on missile
development without full guarantee of security would be
losing all means of war deterrence.

However, it does not mean that boosting missile development
would save North Korea from its current dilemma. If TMD,
scheduled to be located starting 2003, deactivates North
Korea's missiles, the US would be able to attack the
communist regime under the cause of stopping the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As for Japan,
it may join hands with the US in attacking North Korea if
Pyongyang resumes development of missiles or nuclear

In retrospect, a considerable part of normalization of
relations between the US and North Korea should have taken
place after the signing of the Agreed Framework in 1994.
However, the US has not kept its part of the bargain, and
this is basically why North Korea finds it difficult to feel
secure about the "positive prospect", where it stops missile
development in return for full political security and
normalized relations with the US and Japan.

North Korea is not alone in its dilemma - China is in
similar situation, with the inauguration of the Bush
administration. For China, NMD may debilitate its nuclear
deterrence against the US. If the US proceeds to deploy 100
interjector missiles by 2006 as planned, all of 15 or so
nuclear war heads in China will be debilitated, each of
which by 3-4 interjector missiles.

In this regard, China can never downplay the impact of TMD.
With Japan's militarism growing in the 90s, and with its own
airforce and marine capability weakness compared with
Japan's military power, deployment of TMD seriously
threatens the strategic advantage that China has maintained
so far. Worse yet, if Taiwan is included in the US
East-Asian missile defense network, further in the US
security umbrella, China's dream of unification with Taiwan
may forever be shattered.

Taking into account the current dilemma both North Korea and
China are in, main purpose of the meeting between Mr. Kim
and Premier Jiang would be to seek a joint strategy against
the US hegemony in the region. However, since the US is both
a potential threat and source of assistance for the two
countries, it is all the more difficult to predict how they
would respond to the superpower in the future.

What is rather certain here is that the two leaders must
have shared concerns over, and seek joint strategy against
NMD and TMD, which are sure to be deployed under the new
Bush administration. In addition, they could have exchanged
ideas on solutions to Pyongyang's mid and long-range missile
development, which is an alleged cause, as well as a target
of the proposed NMD.

What is interesting is that the two leaders met again on
January 20, two day after the senate confirmation hearing of
Colin Powell, appointed as Secretary of State. In the
hearing, Powell disclosed his East Asian strategy, in which
he emphasized an overall review of the existing North Korean
policy, strengthened alliance among the US, South Korea, and
Japan, forward stationed military forces, and deployment of
missile defence.

East Asian policy of the Bush administration indeed sounds
like a story right off of the Cold War era. Then how will
Mr. Kim and Premier Jiang respond to this new circumstances?
Will they partly restore a socialist system? Or will they
pursue a "peace" strategy so as to "warm up" the "cold"
stance of the Bush administration?

From a short-term perspective, such dilemma surrounding
China and North Korea will be firstly resolved by how the US
and North Korea settle the so-called "Star Wars project"
(deployment of NMD/TMD) and missile development programs.

President George W. Bush, following the steps of Reagan,
Bush, and Clinton, has repeatedly expressed his commitment
to the "Star Wars project". Such strong intentions of the
new president fans global concerns that the international
community will be mired in yet another Cold War, and that
the hard-won thawing mood on the Korean peninsula will be

The North Korean regime is likely to interpret the
deployment of NMD as lack of willingness, on the US part, to
resolve nuclear and missile issues through dialogue. The US,
for its part, is likely to focus more on strengthening its
deterrence and attack capability, through NMD and TMD, than
on negotiations with Pyongyang.

Republicans believe that 1994 Geneva Accord and 1999 Berlin
Agreement, regarded as the most outstanding accomplishments
of former President Clinton, had been nothing more than
compensation for vice. In this regard, the Bush
administration will be rather reluctant to provide
compensation to North Korea in return for giving up the
missile development programs. This will naturally lead to
another long deadlock over Pyongyang's nuclear and missile
issues, raising a possibility of yet another war on the

For China, it will have less reasons to dissuade North Korea
from developing missiles if the US continues to develop and
deploy NMD and TMD. It would then be obvious to China that
the US is in fact targeting China on the pretext of
deterring North Korea. Russia, for its part, would be in no
different position than China.

Many experts predict that the US would not give up its "Star
Wars project" even if Pyongyang renounces its missile
programs. They believe the ultimate reason behind the
development of NMD/TMD is not deterring North Korea, but

However, if North Korea gives up its mid/long range missile
ambitions, the US would have less convincing rationales for
developing NMD/TMD, because the superpower has always argued
that its project is aimed at deterring the rogue states,
including North Korea.

In this case, the US would have to find itself another
convincing rationale for NMD development - which will not be
so easy. "Threats from Iran or Iraq" is not convincing
enough, since their missile capability does not even equal
North Korea. However, the US cannot directly mention China
or Russia, because it would be admitting its past
deceptions, therefore imposing on itself a huge political
burden. The US media may not leave the administration in
peace in those circumstances.

In this regard, it is convincing enough to argue that the
Bush administration would not resolve the North Korean
missile issues through negotiations - indeed, for the US, 
resolving the North Korean issue would mean losing a good
rationale for NMD/TMD development.

Due to deep-rooted mistrust and conflicting strategical
interests, it would be difficult for the US, China, and
North Korea to resolve the issues by themselves. In current
circumstances, a good idea would be a mediation of Sout
Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

President Kim Dae-jung, though not from all, has earned a
considerable support from many leaders across the world. He
probably is the least hostile person at present point. In
addition, as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, President
Kim obtained the least authority needed to mediate between
North Korea and the US, whose conflict will indeed determine
the much delicate security circumstances surrounding the
Korean peninsula.

In this regard, it is important to note that President Kim
said, in an interview with <International Herald Tribune> on
January 6, that he intended to ask the North to stop the
production of long range missiles. He declined to comment
directly on the development of NMD and TMD.

President Kim's remark is important, because he seems to
have recognized the possibility of the hard-won security on
the Korean peninsula being wrecked by the political
instability caused by NMD and TMD. South Korean President
also seems willing to mediate North Korea and the US in
resolving the hottest issue- Pyongyang's missile

Although exact date is not set, leaders of the countries
involved will be making state visits to and fro one another
during the next 3 months: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's
visit to Seoul and Russia, President Kim Dae-jung's visit to
Washington, Russia President Putin's visit to Seoul, etc.
The series of state visits, main agenda of which will be
security on the Korean peninsula and NMD/TMD development,
will make a favorable environment for President Kim to act
as a mediator between the US and North Korea.

In this regard, North Korean National Defense Commissioner
Kim Jong-il's visit to Seoul would be an important milestone
in determining stability on the Korean peninsula. Whether
the two Korean leaders will decide to coordinate their
policies in the face of new security threats remains to be