APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by West Midlands
CND (8 January 2003)
WMCND recognises that the world is deeply unstable
and that there is potential for serious conflict with devastating
consequences. It further believes that the introduction of the
proposed US missile defence system will aggravate rather than
lessen the dangers facing us. In particular, the use of Fylingdales
and Menwith Hill will decrease the security of the UK.
WMCND regrets that the announcement that the
US had requested the use of UK facilities came just as Parliament
was retiring for the Christmas recess. It also regrets that the
Missile Defence "public discussion paper" is not a discussion
paper but a treatise supporting missile defence. No consideration
is given to other ways of addressing the threats which face us.
It is curious that the public discussion has no framework and
no timescale.
WMCND opposes the introduction of the US missile
defence programme for the following reasons:
1. However the US may perceive it, others
believe it to be an offensive, not a defensive measure, as (assuming
the technology works) it would give the US the unique ability
to launch a nuclear attack without fear of retaliation. The balance
of "Mutually Assured Destruction" which existed during
the Cold War carried numerous dangers, but those of a single unimpeded
superpower are even greater.
2. While it is true that China was already
modernising its nuclear arsenals, the implementation of missile
defence has given this process added impetus. An increase in China's
armaments is almost certain to lead to an increase in those of
India and then of Pakistan.
3. The programme has already led to the
scrapping of one arms control treaty (the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty). We sincerely hope that this will not be the signal for
others to renege on their commitments under arms control treaties,
though we fear we are on the brink of exactly that.
4. The most effective way to prevent proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is
to strengthen international non-proliferation and disarmament
agreements and work towards the total elimination from all
countries of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.
5. The enormous amounts of money being poured
into missile defence should be used to address the problems of
injustice, poverty and disease which threaten the security of
hundreds of millions of people throughout the world and which
are often the causes of conflict.
6. We do not accept the assertion (Ministry
of Defence, a public discussion paper, paragraph 82) that Fylingdales
is not a plausible target. Surely the whole concept of missile
defence is based on the belief that an enemy has "a sophisticated
system of command and control"? An attack on the UK would
be even more likely if rockets were to be stationed here, discussions
about which were reported in The Guardian (19.12.02).
7. The major beneficiaries of a missile
defence programme would be arms manufacturers, particularly in
the US.
8. It is highly unlikely that a potential
aggressor would attack the US with a ballistic missile. Why would
a state use such a difficult means of attack when there is a host
of simpler alternatives, including suitcase bombs and poison attacks?
The world saw on September 11, 2001, that a huge amount of tragic
damage can occur without missiles.
9. The US Air Force Space Command document
"Vision 2020" gives chilling descriptions of how the
US views its role in Outer Space. We believe that the missile
defence programme is the beginnings of domination of space by
the US.
General Joseph Ashy, former Commander in Chief,
US Space Command: "Some people don't want to hear this
. . . but—absolutely—we're going to fight in space,
we're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into
space".
10. We do not understand how there can be
a "comprehensive strategy" which includes missile defence
as well as non-proliferation and diplomacy. As stated above (paragraph
2) we believe that missile defence will lead to further proliferation
and is in direct contradiction to non-proliferation and diplomacy.
The UK Government should refuse to allow US
use of UK facilities for missile defence purposes and instead
pursue universal disarmament of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons and ballistic missiles.
| 
