On Friday, October, 15th, I read it in the political section of the SZ on page 7 and now I also find it in the internet at FAZ.NET and Tagesspiegel:
Germany approves the NATO antimissile defence.
After having opposed the US plans for a long time, Berlin now supports the project – and risks a confrontation with Paris
So much on the headings in the SZ.
I think this is another one of those mammoth projects our “civil society” does not want to know anything about. And I am sure it is not particularly important for our future.
Even if NATO general secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen thinks the project is rather economically priced at 500 million Euros. To be sure, this sum only covers the network costs. The price for the rest is something everybody keeps quiet about. All you read is that it will be a several-billion-Euros project.
The USA were the first to demand this NATO defence shield. It is supposed to protect the NATO states against the inter-continental missiles launched by the axis of evil.
It all makes little sense to me. On the one hand, it is a relapse into cold war. Except that now the danger no longer originates with the eastern super powers (like the Soviet Union and China). Instead, there are some very few small states and emerging nations like the Iran and North Korea who threaten us.
And is it really the intercontinental missiles that are the serious danger? We live in times of open borders. The miniaturizing process of nuclear weapons has made huge progress. Biological weapons can be distributed far more efficiently. The modern means of transportation for mass destruction weapons might easily be drones. They simply fly underneath the screen.
Neither will potential suicide assassins with a nuclear or nano bomb in their suitcase or trunk be hindered by a screen of intercontinental missiles.
History also taught us a lot. For instance, what incredible effort did France make when it created the Maginot Line between WW1 and WW2? Just in order to protect themselves from the aggressive German neighbour. And what good did this protective barrier do? It failed to prevent the German occupation during WW2, simply because the attacker chose to make a small detour and come via Belgium.
No, this project is definitely not one the “civil society” wished for. If there were a plebiscite, it would probably have no chance of survival.
Neither does “the army” need this kind of screen. Military strength is not demonstrated by a “pacifist” defence barrier. Consequently, the project smells like one which first and foremost serves economical interests.
And it seems like the USA are closer to our hearts than our arch-enemy and now number one friend France. France still maintains a sceptical attitude towards the project. But until recently, so did our government.
And the people living in Germany and Europe are, once again, made to play the “fools”.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...