Why object to Son of Star Wars?

Xterminator

There seems to be a lot of opposition to the Missile 'defense Strategy which George Dubbya Bush wants to develop.

Why?

It is entirely defensive in scope. It is designed to allow the US to be able to shoot down missles fired at it, and its allies.

This would save countless lives, if Gadafi, or Hussain developed such a weapon. (and there is proof they have tried).

It is understandable (and justifiable) that america be paranoid about attack given recent events. The huge cost of such a system would be offset by the sheer of lives it would save, if put in place and used against an attack.

And because it is entirely defensive in scope, I fail to see the validity of other countries objections to it? I mean should the US allow themselve to be vunerable to missile attack to keep Russia and China happy that ifthey wanted to they could wipe out Ameria, albeit at a similar cost to themselves?

Surely if such weapons were obsolete then treatys to destroy them would be easier, and the fear of them being obtained by rogue states would be lessened.

X

Hobbes

The missile system is a joke and here is why.

1. It does not work.
Most current tests (one at which they claimed it was sucessful) the missiles used a GPS in the attacking missile to track it.

2. It's a long way away from becoming active.

3. It's already obsolete.
China are developing (or completed) a system which negates the use of the missle. Basically the warhead explodes into 100's of little warheads.

Typedef

Plus.
The development of Son of star wars is contrary to the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missle treaty and for such treaties to work they must be observed, not observed for as long as the Americans feel they have to vis-a-vis the Russians, there is no real need for the weapon also, the notion of MAD negates it's usefulness.

The use of North Korea as a scape goat for the building of such a system 'predates' 11/09/01 so any arguments that proport the necessity for it now are in effect an appendation to the defunct argument that North Korea in the grips of famine would launch a missile strike on the USA. Why would it do such a thing to steal the secret formula to the 'Big Mac'.

The enunication of such a missile system, which necessitates withdrawal from a treaty that is designed to reduce the development if Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles is a delibrately provocative move by the USA and all it really serves at the end of the day is contiunity of the American military complex and to believe else wise is to ignore evidence that North Korea poses no real threat.
The threat that it is supposed to pose is simply talked up by rabid American militarists who would rather have an enemy to point to and build weapons against and thus support their own bloated and ostensibly useless military complex, then actually finish the job of North-South Korean rapprochament.
Still if people want to simply forget that George Bush was talking about building the missile defence system irrespective of wether or not the then Secretary of State Madeline Albright was successful in further 'normalisation' and 'demilitarisation' of the Korean situation then that is fine, but at least have the moral contigunity to recognise the unnecessary militarism espoused by such a 'defensive' weapon.

"Who controls
the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past.".

Xterminator

Originally posted by Hobbes
The missile system is a joke and here is why.

1. It does not work.
Most current tests (one at which they claimed it was sucessful) the missiles used a GPS in the attacking missile to track it.

2. It's a long way away from becoming active.

3. It's already obsolete.
China are developing (or completed) a system which negates the use of the missle. Basically the warhead explodes into 100's of little warheads.

Fair enough, points 1 and 2.

I'd say 3 is debatable, and i' not a ballistic expert, but my understanding of a nuclear warhead is that if the ballistic missile carring it is exploded, the warhead does not explode and the radioactive material is spread out. I dont belive the nuclear warhead can be created to become 100's of little warheads if exploded,also chemical payloads may be scatterable, but if destroyed over enemy, ocean or neutral land should avoid delivery of payload to target.
While im not sure id like a chemical mssile detonated over Irish airspace, i receognise the right of a sovergn state to attempt to prevent it from reaching its airspace.

a delibrately provocative move by the USA and all it really serves at the end of the day is contiunity of the American military complex and to believe else wise is to ignore evidence that North Korea poses no real threat. (By Typedef)

I do not belive the creation of a defensive protection grid can be viewed as provocative.
Pulling out of the treaty is regrettable but the treaty itself was far from being the solution to the problem (ie we only keep so many 10's of thousands of intermedialte and long distance missiles, and you keep that many tens of thousands of the same, meanwhile we will destroy a fraction of our arsenals, (some outdated anyway) . It did not remove the threat of nuclear obliteration, thought it can be viewed as stablising it.

Why should a sovergin state not seek to protect itself againt a threat? So what if others object. It is not being agressive.

You use the arguement that korea is not likely to reach capability to launch in the forseeable future.
Yet other enemys of America (and NATO) are trying to aqquire these weapons. Libya and Iraq have spent a ot of money on weapon programmes, and have both tried to aqquire secrets in the past. It is forseeable that such a state might gain capability of threatening america or its allies. Certainly they seek such weapons. Also, The weapons and materials of the former soviet union are leaking onto the arms market too, and give cause for concern.

Can you imagine the world might be held to ransom by a madman with nuclear capabilities.

Do you suggest the world wait till this happens before developing a defense grid?

It is pragmatic to see if such a defense grid is possible, practical and implementable.

If your logic were followed, then nobody would ever have gone into space, as they wouldn't want to cause an arms race. The cost of going to the moon was huge, it was doubted whether the technology existed etc etc. Sound familiar?

X

Hobbes

explode was prehaps a wrong term. The one missile is sent and when it reaches a certain distance it splits up into loads of little missles all nukes. No imagine a 100-1000 of those incoming.

The US already have this kind of delivery system afaik.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Xterminator


I'd say 3 is debatable, and i' not a ballistic expert, but my understanding of a nuclear warhead is that if the ballistic missile carring it is exploded, the warhead does not explode and the radioactive material is spread out. I dont belive the nuclear warhead can be created to become 100's of little warheads if exploded,also chemical payloads may be scatterable, but if destroyed over enemy, ocean or neutral land should avoid delivery of payload to target.





X

I think the Son of Star wars is designed to kill missiles/warheads on the way down. This makes the "100's of little warheads" significant because by the time they are on the way down the MIRV's have already left the booster. This would make it quite tricky to hit all warheads from even 1 missile let alone a swarm.

The threats from smaller nations are more likely to come from a weapon being smuggled into the country. Missiles can't protect you from a device parked at your front door. MAD has kept the peace since the Cuban Missile Crisis. George Dubya Bush is a dangerous man and son of star wars can only be seen as a massively destabilizing force. Even if it is built and it is successful it will be short lived. Since the dawn of ballistic weaponry there has been a battle between Warhead and Armour. The warhead always wins. This is just a more expensive version of the same thing.

davros

Originally posted by Xterminator
There seems to be a lot of opposition to the Missile 'defense Strategy which George Dubbya Bush wants to develop.

Why?

It is entirely defensive in scope.

Assuming it works, it would allow the US to make a first strike against Russia or China without fear of an equivalent counter-attack. Thus it can be considered part of an offensive strategy.

Sand

The attack on the WTC wasnt stopped by MAD (Even if it was Assured Destruction for the Bin Laden and Co.). MAD is a cold war mindset which worked during the Cold war as you were dealing with people who were rational at least. Suicide bombings are not rational. It literally is MAD for the bomber and his victims. MAD doesnt stop them. (Yes I know SoS wouldnt have stopped the WTC either, my point is that MAD is based on rationality and theres a lot fewer rational people around than you might think).

So i fail to see why people are quoting old conflicts when its quite clear that threats arent static. Why then are defences criticised for attempting to anticipate *possible* threats and protect against them?

Lemming

Originally posted by Hobbes
explode was prehaps a wrong term. The one missile is sent and when it reaches a certain distance it splits up into loads of little missles all nukes. No imagine a 100-1000 of those incoming.

The US already have this kind of delivery system afaik.

Yup .. its been around for quite some time (circa 1970s I do believe?) , and its called MIRV (MultIple ReEntry Vehicle)

Alias Bob

It is entirely defensive in scope. It is designed to allow the US to be able to shoot down missiles fired at it, and its allies.

Have you ever thought as to what damage this system could do to strategic defence bases in other Countries, or entire Cities if deployed as a weapon of mass destruction?

Yours
Alias Bob
:cool:

MrPudding

Originally posted by Sand
The attack on the WTC wasnt stopped by MAD (Even if it was Assured Destruction for the Bin Laden and Co.). MAD is a cold war mindset which worked during the Cold war as you were dealing with people who were rational at least.

Of course you are absolutely right the whole concept of MAD only works if you are dealing with a people who don't actually think it is cool to die for your god/country or whatever. In our interesting world we have many kinds of people…. some see MAD as something to be feared and some see it a thing to be welcomed. Even though the cold war is over MAD is still viable when dealing with a rational government and a rational people. (My use of the word rational here relates to my personal belief that it is not rational to allow or welcome death for yourself or others for some kind of deity) Some of *our* enemies (and slightly uncomfortable new friends) are, believe it or not, still quite rational. I understand your point that MAD is not a deterrent for some countries or organizations; some other method of deterrent must be found in these cases. Given the fact that no matter how much money is spent on SOS and the destabilizing effect it’s implementation will have on the world, is it really worth it for something which, in all likelihood, will be useless almost as soon as it is deployed.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Alias Bob



Have you ever thought as to what damage this system could do to strategic defence bases in other Countries, or entire Cities if deployed as a weapon of mass destruction?

Yours
Alias Bob
:cool:

Hmmm I dont think shooting down there missiles could be considered as mass destruction

In fact america already have the mass destruction weapons, and argue they need them to deter a war or nuclear strike by another power.

Now if they could advance there defense grid to a point where the weapons of mass destruction were not a threat, then they really could decommision there own arsenal.

The technology of shooting down a missile could be advanced to the stage where a supercomputer could guide multiple missiles to multiple target similtainously.
The US would hardly advertise the strenghs and weaknesses of its own defense gid, making a foreign power uncertain of how successful a strike would be. It might be enought to prevent a war.

As for the multiple warheads this is fine with conventional, and even chemical warheads, but i belive the smaller the nuclear warhead, you get a diminished yield.

I dont think the defense system would prevent a bomb inna suitcase scenario, but it makes sense to protect yourself againt what you can.

Or do you subscribe to the line of thought ......... I'm not stopping smoking (even though it could kill me) because I might get hit by a bus tomorow.


X

Lemming

Originally posted by Xterminator
As for the multiple warheads this is fine with conventional, and even chemical warheads, but i belive the smaller the nuclear warhead, you get a diminished yield.

A nuke is still a nuke! I dont' care how small it is, I don't want to be anywhere near one when it goes off!

Fidelis

Originally posted by Xterminator
they really could decommision there own arsenal

Yeeeees. That'll happen :rolleyes:

i belive the smaller the nuclear warhead, you get a diminished yield

As said, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Low yeild or not, they do the job.

I'm not stopping smoking (even though it could kill me) because I might get hit by a bus tomorow

With rationale like that, why aren't you intravenusly taking Ecstacy and shooting up on weed killer?


The U.S broke the '72 ABM Treaty & for that they should be punished. How? I don't know, but getting away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist by the international community is ludicrous. You can bet that if Russia expanded their ABM defence programme outside of Moscow, they'd be beaten to a pulp in the name of "Global Anti-Terrorism" or some such.

I recognise that other countries have slight anti-ballistic missile capabilities, but they're only encouraging other countries to build more and more missiles. I think it was said before a while back; if the U.S. ABM system can effectively shoot down 90 of 100 missiles, then China will build their stocks up ten fold. Thus making the system redundant.

bonkey

Originally posted by Fidelis

The U.S broke the '72 ABM Treaty & for that they should be punished.

This is a common and incorrect misconception.

The 1972 ABM Treaty had get-out clauses for both parties, detailing how, and under what conditions, either party could withdraw from the treaty.

The US exercised their get-out clause, legitimately. They did not break the treaty, they opted out of it.

Criticism was levelled at them, because of the message that this opt-out could send, and because it is a questionable move with global implications.

However, the US did not break the treaty, and have acted entirely within their rights throughout this affair. The criticism which has been levelled at them is that this move may cause massive destabilisation between nuclear nations, as its full reprecussions (including Son of SW) become apparent, and that therefore it is an irresponsible move.

The US, however, believe that the current situation is based on decades-old dogma which may or may not still hold true, and that it is no longer the best option for the US. While I do not agree with Sands notion that the 9.11 events were an example of the failure of MAD, he is correct in surmising that MAD may no longer be the best option.

Remember, guys, that they are a nation. Yes, its nice when you keep the rest of the world in mind, but you never slit your own throat in doing so. If the Americans believed that the best move was for the US to formally acede from the ABM Treaty, then we can criticise the decision, but the action was legitimate.

Originally posted by Typedef
The development of Son of star wars is contrary to the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missle treaty and for such treaties to work they must be observed, not observed for as long as the Americans feel they have to vis-a-vis the Russians

This is ridiculous. The ABM treaty shoul dhave been observed by its signatories as long as it still served a useful purpose. The US maintain that the ABM treaty is no longer an effective safeguard for them, and therefore they have every right to look at better alternatives.

The treaty included a set of steps to ensure that the US and Russia did not try to supercede their nuclear capabilities of the time, so that they would not get into a larger arms race. Both sides retained the MAD capability, and the ABM treaty was a sensible move.

The US now feels that other nations, with smaller arsenals of WMDs, are in fact a greater threat. They feel that these nations will not be swayed by the MAD principle. In fact, because these nations do not have sufficient firepower for the MAD principle to apply to them, the US are correct in this assumption. It is these threats that the US is ostensibly seeking to neutralise, and they very quickly discovered that they could not do so within the confines of the ABM treaty.

In short - they acted legally, and within their own perceived best interest. There is no indication other than wild speculation that the US will use this as a lever to give them a tactical advantage in some way. I mean - lets face it - they have that over any military and nation in the world anyway.

jc

Typedef

It's a common misconception to ascribe brutish, unintelligent qualities to nameless, faceless enemies.
It's ridiculous to think that a country like North Korea, the country that was pre the bombing of the World Trade Centre used as the primary justification for the Son of Starwars defence system, would not be deterred by the concept of nuclear retaliation by the US.
I know it would be easy for people to simply get comfortable with the idea that North Korea, the principal reason for SOS exponenciation, would care so little for it's own welfare (presumably because it is a 'rouge nation') that it would launch a nuclear missile at the US, but it is simply illogical to suggest such a thing, it makes no sense and it demonises and dehumanises some massing enemy that in reality is probably alot like 'us'. They may not look at the world in terms of Maslow's hirearchy of needs, but in the main 'they' are driven by the same things.
The system's early stages of development and testing happened whilst the US was still proporting the ABM so in a sense the treaty was violated.

I personally think the Bush administration is making a scapegoat out of North Korea, using a handy excuse to satisfy the millions upon millions of dollars of military interests investment in the Republican campaign, by building the SOS.
The energy policy of the US is a prime example of how interests like big oil can influence the policy of an administration and I contend that the policy of scapegoating North Korea, to the detrament of the South Korean's policy of rapprochament, is simply a vehicle to further the interests of big defence contractors within the US.
The Bush family is closely associated with this section of American society, as must be evident by the fact that George Bush senior, the father of the current president and former President was director of the CIA for fifteen years.

Sure people can bury their heads in the Sand contiguously and pretend that interests do not affect politics all over the world, but it is simply not the case, and it simply is the case that the Bush administration cut off 'all' contact with North Korea for four months give or take following the accession of President Bush and in those interveining months used North Korea as a reason to build this missile defence system in contravention to the 1972 anti ballistic missile treaty, despite significant progress having been made by the democratic administration not five months earlier and significant and real efforts by the South Korean President at rapprochament with the North. Bush and his cronies from the weapons industry effectively stopped the reunification of the North and South.

True enough the South Koreans are attempting to push ahead without the support of the American administration, but in practice this leaves the current South Korean administration open to attack from the 'hardliners' in South Korea who urge a renewal of near cold war hostilities with North Korea.

Personally I don't care if the US builds it's SOS shield, I'm sure it has many weapons and has engaged in many activities that are totally inapporpiate and totally illegal, but what I do object to is making North Korea the peg to hang upon, reason to build this failed defence system, whilist in the end all it is really causing is further isolation of North Korea and is putting at risk the lives of North Korean people to famine, malnurishment and a generation of wholey deprived people. Now I realise that the Republicans in the US need an excuse to reallocate billions of US taxpayer's money into defence contracts to defence contractors (who just happened to give millions to the Bush campaign), but if you think that the system is based upon anything other than the principal of corporate defence interests collecting on their campaign contributions then you are a fool and are refusing to notice that significant campaign contributers get significant government contracts and that in this instance, defence contractors and their spinoff industries are the primary cause of the SOS system, not North Korea.

What is North Korea going to do, simply launch missiles at the US because it 'doesn't care that it will be bombed into oblivion by a US retalitory strike', get real, if one gives the most pithe amount of rational thought to such a situation the painful illogic of it becomes plain. I certainly and most people reading this would never do such a thing, so ask yourself the question, why would the North Koreans, because the Americans, the Bush administration and it's vested interests in defence contractors tell you? If I told you that an entire nation was about to commit ritual suicide would you believe me, if not then why would you believe the Americans when they tell you that the SOS is needed to 'defend' from the threat from North Korea? What threat, the threat that they might attack with nuclear ICBM's the worlds foremost nuclear superpower, the power with more nuclear weapons then anyone else except maybe Russia? Oh that threat, you know, the one that doesn't exist except in paranoid delusion or rather the threat that doesn't exist except in the necessity of the US defence contractors to keep themselves fat in US taxpayers money, oh that threat.

Plus the SOS system will provide no protection from someone driving a car or truck up to the whitehouse and detonating a thermonuclear device, so not only does the system fail more of it's tests than it passes, not only does it cost billions of dollars, dollars which should be spent getting American workers back into jobs, not only does it mean the US will have to withdraw from the 1972 ABM and not only does it mean that in doing so the US may well spark a new arms race (a thought that defence contractors all over the world must be rubbing their fat little hands together with glee thinking), but the US will heap yet more misery upon the already starving North Korean population, and set back North/South Korean rapprochament years and perhaps decades if the South Korean administration changes.

I was about to say I don't care if the US builds this defence system, but I do. The world suffered under the threat of nuclear war for years and all a withdrawal from the ABM and renewed weapons development on the US side will do is spur others to develop their weapons faster. Like I say the threat from North Korea does not exist, but it makes a great excuse to build these weapons now doesn't it?

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I know it would be easy for people to simply get comfortable with the idea that North Korea, the principal reason for SOS exponenciation, would care so little for it's own welfare (presumably because it is a 'rouge nation') that it would launch a nuclear missile at the US, but it is simply illogical to suggest such a thing

Are "rouge nations" the same as Red (communist) States? Sorry - couldnt resist it - its the second post I've seen you mis-spell rogue in recently

On a more serious note, I think the concerns about N. Korea are valid. Yes, the country is (as you previously pointed out) in masive financial and social trouble (famine?), but the simple fact is that they are continuing their development of nuclear weapons. At the moment, they do not have IC capability, but this is not to say that they will not.

I dont think the US is worried about an unprovoked nuclear strike. What they are worried about is that should they be forced into a conventional conflict with a rogue nation, they run the risk of receiving a nuclear response rather than submission when the other side loses the conventional war.

Now, of course, if the inital conflict never occurred, this scenario would never happen. This is the problem the US faces. They are worried that they may find themselves in a position where they must either kowtow to something unacceptable from a nuclear nation (such as state-sponsored terrorism targetted at the US, as happens today - not necessarily from N.Korea) or run the risk of nuclear attack at the end (or subsequent to) a conventional action.

Look at Afghanistan. It is not unreasonable to suggest that *if* the Taliban had ICBM technology in hardened silos that they would have used it after the initial US strikes - not in provocation, but in retaliation.

Now, at the moment, there are no real threats to the US who have ICBMs in hardened silos, but given that SoSW is (I think) a projected 10-15 years away, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the timing is correct - by the time SoSQ is complete it is reasonable to assume that such technology will be in the hands of others.

Now, both Typedef and I opposed the initial US incursion, but most of the world considered it an acceptable action. Were this to be an action against an ICBM-capable nation, then the US would find itself possibly unable to undertake the actions it felt necessary.

Right or wrong in our opinion, the current international thinking shows support for the US stance in Afghanistan (whatever about extended military action) and for such a scenario alone, the US cannot risk putting itself in a position where it can be terrorised by the agents of a nation where the US is unable to respond.

I personally think the Bush administration is making a scapegoat out of North Korea, using a handy excuse to satisfy the millions upon millions of dollars of military interests investment in the Republican campaign, by building the SOS.

I would agree that this was undoubtedly part of the reasoning. However, it does look like the technology may be at the stage to make such a system feasible today, where it was absolutely impossible in the Ronnie Raygun era.

Bush and his cronies from the weapons industry effectively stopped the reunification of the North and South.

You will get no disagreement from me that the Bush administration have taken a much harder line with foreign nations of an "undesirable" political nature.

but what I do object to is making North Korea the peg to hang upon

I would agree here. I think that was more a deliberate move to make two political statements in one. I dont think NK was the reason behind SoSW, but pegging it on them in the official statements sent a message that Dubya wanted sending. I dont agree with the US line on N.Korea, but that is a seperate issue.

Ultimately, as Typedef points out, SoSW will not work against car bombs and the like. However, this is not a reason to scrap it. At the very least, it would form a keystone role in a nuclear-protection strategy, which could also utilise technologies to prevent nuclear materials getting into the nation, or to detect them once there.

AS Rumsfeld (I think) reasonably pointed out at some stage, it is better to have a system that eliminates a considerable percentage of the threats, then to have no system and to face all the threats.

jc

Fidelis

Originally posted by bonkey
This is a common and incorrect misconception

Thanks for clearing up my statement. Regardless of their legitimate withdrawl from the treaty, I believe it was a very damaging move and makes me more afraid of the U.S. than the 'evil commies' ever did

Sand

I know it would be easy for people to simply get comfortable with the idea that North Korea, the principal reason for SOS exponenciation, would care so little for it's own welfare (presumably because it is a 'rouge nation') that it would launch a nuclear missile at the US, but it is simply illogical to suggest such a thing, it makes no sense and it demonises and dehumanises some massing enemy that in reality is probably alot like 'us'.

"Theyre" under the jackboots of communists. "They" (The North Koren people) dont get much of a say in anything. The communist leaders are communists, how rational can they be?

Bush and his cronies from the weapons industry effectively stopped the reunification of the North and South.

Hopelessly optimistic assessment of the possibilities for North and South Korea. What do the Communist leadership of the North get out of surrendering power to democrats, shortly before their lynching by mobs of North Koreans? Why the hell would the South, its economic development based on capitalism and globalisation want to surrender that to some watered down communism (if not outright communism?). The only thing that was on the cards realistically was an end to the state of war which is pretty much a formality currently.

all it is really causing is further isolation of North Korea and is putting at risk the lives of North Korean people to famine, malnurishment and a generation of wholey deprived people.

Think youll find Communism is the main culprit. See what i mean about communists being irrational?

I certainly and most people reading this would never do such a thing, so ask yourself the question, why would the North Koreans, because the Americans, the Bush administration and it's vested interests in defence contractors tell you?

Id imagine if after 50 years of enacting our policies we'd ended up with a country like North Korea wed have to reassess our policies. Assuming we were rational of course.

If I told you that an entire nation was about to commit ritual suicide would you believe me

Youre still operating under the mistaken belief that people in a communist state have representation of their views in the decision making process.

Plus the SOS system will provide no protection from someone driving a car or truck up to the whitehouse and detonating a thermonuclear device,

And a Main Battle Tank cant transport and deploy infantry in bad terrain but they still build them for some reason - ah yeah I remeber- Cos they each got their job to do. And SoS has never claimed to stop the threat you mention. It does provide a *feasible* defence against other missle bound threats. A child prodigy shouldnt need to be told this.

The world suffered under the threat of nuclear war for years and all a withdrawal from the ABM and renewed weapons development on the US side will do is spur others to develop their weapons faster.

Hope they enjoy wasting their money.


Some people seem to have a problem with defensive systems which attempt to counter future possible threats. Better that such a system is developed now rather than rushed in a few months (weeks?) should the need appear suddenly.

Shinji

Ultimately, as Typedef points out, SoSW will not work against car bombs and the like. However, this is not a reason to scrap it. At the very least, it would form a keystone role in a nuclear-protection strategy, which could also utilise technologies to prevent nuclear materials getting into the nation, or to detect them once there.

I note that nobody has mentioned the fact that SoSW relies on detection bases in Europe - which various European nations have signed up to provide - but that the "missile shield" doesn't actually extend over Europe.

Which is nice. Nothing like making yourself into a target-rich territory with no protection just in order to lick Uncle Sam's ass that little bit cleaner.

Fidelis

That's a good point, Shinji.

BBC link from 16 February mentions this. There are some other good links on that page too.

Quite disconcerting to know that Blair is willing to include the country as an intergral part of the program, as said, without any inclusion in the overall defence sheild. Dubya must have some compromising pictures, either that or Blair is as stupid as he looks.