Spooky
05-20-2001, 08:09 AM
Now I know that you have probably already discussed the NMD project in here. You also probably know that Bush is trying to push NMD around atm. I have to admit that Bush and Powell do have a point (arguably) about the world changing and the need to review the treaty designed to dismantle nuclear arsenals.
Now, one of the problems the project faces, partcularly in Europe is that the countries being asked to provide facility are for the radar equipment, such as Menwrith Hill in England, are not actually going to be protected by the system itself. Thus these countries become targets of the so called 'rogue states' because they are providing early warning to the US, while simultaneously they are expected to look after their own defense. A kind of 'you scratch my back and then we fuck off attitude' from the pushers of NMD.
Well anyway, I think this could be an important issue in the coming monthes. Why? Well, this factor about some of the nations providing early warning for the US while providing their own defense after becoming strategic targets goes against the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty.
In its preamble the tretay states that:
'They [the signees] are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty'
Article 3 states that:
'they [the signees] will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.'
Now I think this could be a rather awkward sticking point for the project. The project itself, while in accordance with article 3 in terms of 'individual capacity' is simultaneously in contradiction with the preamble in terms of maintaing stability, because it unneccesarily make targets of those countries which it sets radar equpiment up in.
Also Article 4 states that:
'The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened'
NMD potentially threatens the secuirty of the other members tacitly. Then if we move on to Article 5 it states thats.
'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of
the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in
concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'
So lets say NMD is implemented. This increases the risk and stability of those countries in NATO that offer early warning radar system capacity to the US. With the increase in potential stability and agression the US finds itself in a situation where the early warning system (designed to protect and hopefully prevent war) is targeted. The US then finds itself in a situation where it is obligated by Article 5 to partake in armed conflict.
I ask the question, do any of you amercians really want to be pulled into a war, in say Europe, that is caused by the installation of early warning systems in other NATO countries? Can you reconcile the knowledge that the implementation of said warning systems will help proliferate and escalate instabilty in your allies homelands?
As far as I can see the potential of the NMD means that NATO is no longer a defense pact, as it tacitly becomes an pact of agression.
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.
Now, one of the problems the project faces, partcularly in Europe is that the countries being asked to provide facility are for the radar equipment, such as Menwrith Hill in England, are not actually going to be protected by the system itself. Thus these countries become targets of the so called 'rogue states' because they are providing early warning to the US, while simultaneously they are expected to look after their own defense. A kind of 'you scratch my back and then we fuck off attitude' from the pushers of NMD.
Well anyway, I think this could be an important issue in the coming monthes. Why? Well, this factor about some of the nations providing early warning for the US while providing their own defense after becoming strategic targets goes against the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty.
In its preamble the tretay states that:
'They [the signees] are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty'
Article 3 states that:
'they [the signees] will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.'
Now I think this could be a rather awkward sticking point for the project. The project itself, while in accordance with article 3 in terms of 'individual capacity' is simultaneously in contradiction with the preamble in terms of maintaing stability, because it unneccesarily make targets of those countries which it sets radar equpiment up in.
Also Article 4 states that:
'The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened'
NMD potentially threatens the secuirty of the other members tacitly. Then if we move on to Article 5 it states thats.
'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of
the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in
concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'
So lets say NMD is implemented. This increases the risk and stability of those countries in NATO that offer early warning radar system capacity to the US. With the increase in potential stability and agression the US finds itself in a situation where the early warning system (designed to protect and hopefully prevent war) is targeted. The US then finds itself in a situation where it is obligated by Article 5 to partake in armed conflict.
I ask the question, do any of you amercians really want to be pulled into a war, in say Europe, that is caused by the installation of early warning systems in other NATO countries? Can you reconcile the knowledge that the implementation of said warning systems will help proliferate and escalate instabilty in your allies homelands?
As far as I can see the potential of the NMD means that NATO is no longer a defense pact, as it tacitly becomes an pact of agression.
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.