  It's funny how some children, especially sons, seem to either follow in dad's footsteps, or on the other hand, to do anything but as a matter of self defining existence - it becomes a matter of life and death. Well, Australia joined The Son of Star Wars yesterday. After a brief strategic canvassing earlier in the year, then nothing, a meeting over a "Free" Trade deal between the USA and Australia, and then a month later, this .
Interesting... Capcoincidence had a great idea. How about all those with the money to burn join in and set up this puppy, and then hand it over to UN control so that any ballistic missile will be stopped. Unfortunately, as he concedes, this is a hopelessly romantic suggestion, something with way too much sanity and consideration of future consequences.
I probably don't need to go into why (well I hope I don't, otherwise you're reading the wrong site;) Try Znet or Disinformation for an education if this is the case... or simply open your eyes and ask a few questions about what the hell is going on and why in geo-politics. Other ideas are also possible, but not probable unfortunately. But what does te Son Of Star Wars mean for Australia, its regions and the worlds geo-political stability?
Of course the proponents say it will make things safer, however I contend it will only make things worse. This of course, is ignoring why the problem started in the first place dear USA and Russia, but then again maybe its just human nature. The real danger for the future in my opinion includes the following: 1. Colossal waste of resources - a fraction of which could solve many of the underlying causes rather than inadequately treating the symptoms; 2. The 'solution' isn't even technically possible yet - and still seems a long way from being viable; 3.
It simply encourages the proliferation of smaller tactical nukes - something the USA is currently pursuing apace. It is also something that suits small operators like terrorists perfectly; 4. There never has been a nuclear ballistic missile strike. Even if the program works, most governments aren't going to go there in the first place to justify the need, but it does reinforce their strategic imperative to go tactical and possibly rely on splinter terrorist groups or styled groups - something we have no real defence for except to address the causes; 5. It is only going to serve to piss off a lot of countries, alienate domestic populations and scare the hell out of everyone. If you can stop ballistic missiles - everyone buts yours (the largest stockpile in the world - how the hell is anyone else going to stop yours?
No one else has the resources to burn. This increased fear and feeling of being dominated is likely to increase points three and four; 6. There are possibly many others, but for now, perhaps these basic strategic considerations would be enough to make sense to any rational forward thinking individual. A counter point is that this missile solution is being built to guard against North Korea and possibly China.
Fair point. Relations are bad, and they have the technology. They also have a track record, particularly the North Korean's, of not playing sensible, and are more likely than anyone to push the go button. But on the other hand, these are exactly the countries the USA is going to make the most nervous, fearful and twitchy. Why go in to a rabid lions den and poke fire at him? Are you stupid? Well you do need to do something about the situation.
How about diplomacy, arms reductions, and treaties? Compromise on a little face and save the human race. Doesn't sound too silly to me. And besides, the USA could do this to a phenomenal degree and still have more weaponry, economic power and political clout than any other region of the world.
This is likely especially the case if they save the money on the defence budget, create untold political good-will and loyalty through providing viable and noble leadership (read survival for humanity) and be in an even better bargaining position economically with their "free Trade" deals... Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic. Maybe I'm naive. But I have thought about this topic a bit, especially writing a 40 000 word report for the Australian Defence Forces' futures planning project Oracle 2030 back in the late nineties - on how to use long range communication strategies to foster long term regional security and robust stability.
So perhaps my perception has more than a shred of pragmatic truth to it. Perhaps the neo-cons are bunch of irrational scaremongering blood thirsty fools who are too institutionalised and self mythologising not only for their own good, but that of humanity as a whole as well.
Wish I had a clear path of action for people to take to move their governments towards these more sane propositions of geo-political strategy, but I haven't the time at present, except to say, read Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and join his bandwagon and remove Bush, the Miserable Failure . 
