Article from Bulletin in English

Antiballistic base YES or No?

I have been asked to write these lines by the editorial staff of the Bulletin after several debates within our organization. During those debates, sometimes even dramatic, we took the effort to find arguments for and against, especially for what the majority of us subconsciously considers as the step in the right direction. As the future of our state is now being decided, I am convinced that it is necessary to try to objectively define all influences which will or may influence this decision.

This article is not written in the usual manner, emotional and personal commentaries are missing, and for the sake of clarity it is written succinctly to make certain that the influence of arguments is strengthened, trying not to leave any of them. Military and professional arguments are not contained, first they are not available to us, and second these matters are not understandable to most people and are intended rather for experts.

The basic unfavorable facts

  • Based on the statement by our Defense Secretary, the Russians have built an antiballistic protection of Moscow, the American antiballistic system is being built, Europe has nothing.

  • The number of states having ballistic missiles is growing

  • The number of states having atomic weapons and the weapons of mass destruction is growing

  • The differences in the level of education and standard of living in individual countries and regions are growing

  • The number of emigrants is growing and the developed countries are restricting the immigration movement of people

  • The number of localities in the world is growing where people themselves are not able to solve their problems and where the economic assistance is not bringing the necessary system changes

  • The increasing pace of the development of technologies and communications will make it possible in a short time to possess weapons of mass destruction even for groups of people

  • The more and more imposed protection of human rights of individuals, often at the expense of the rights of the society, and the incredible tolerance towards crime together with ineffective punishments, are deepening these problems

  • The endangering of the mankind by the pandemic diseases spreading from underdeveloped regions is growing

  • The expected changes in the climate will cause more problems, deepening the existing

  • After reading these lines it is probably necessary to ask a few questions and to search for answers e.g.

  • How will be the world and the people divided in the future

  • What „instruments“ and weapons will the growing number of people in the world have available for satisfying as well as defending their needs

  • Will it be possible in the future to effectively as well as globally prevent the biological and genetic research from being misused

  • Is the economic and technological as well as military superiority a sufficient quarantine that there will be no attack

  • Is it necessary to control and influence the development in the critical regions even against the will of the local people and how

  • Who and when will have the right to intervene in the world to avoid potential crises and catastrophes

  • Where does the boundary of rights, freedom and the endangering of the people, nations and states lie

  • Are we alone able to defend our freedom in today’s world

  • However, more follows from the above-mentioned facts and problems, and that is the fact that if we are to solve the problems in other parts of the world, first we have to solve our own elementary problems in our country, and one’s own effective protection is just one of the basic stones of the system – and an effective antiballistic protection will be part of these basic stones in the future.

    Arguments used in the CR against the building of an antiballistic base

  • The first military strikes are directed against the hardware protecting the region from a military attack

  • Objection: Protection hardware of great importance must also be comprehensively protected, thus increasing the safety of the territory.
  • Russia as a neighboring superpower do not agree to the base, declaring that it will take counter-measures.

  • Objection: The base has a defensive character, therefore it does not endanger the safety of Russia, considering its scope it actually increases this safety. Potential counter-measures on the part of Russia may be contractually compensated in cooperation with the USA, EU and NATO.
  • The remains of the shot-down missiles will fall down to our territory.
    Objection: The remains of the shot-down missiles, if those missiles are not caught prematurely, may fall considering the speed and the operation height across Europe

  • People living close to the base will be endangered by terrorist attacks
    Objection: nonsense, an extensive zone around the base will be carefully protected

  • The base will not be regulated by the laws of the CR and its activities will not be fully under the control of the state.

  • Objection: The effectiveness of the controlling and legislative systems of the USA and NATO is at a much higher level than ours, additionally the state does not currently have full control over a whole number of areas, including the armed forces as a consequence of our membership within the EU and NATO.

    Arguments for the building of the base

  • The costs for the building of the antiballistic system exceed the capability of our state, as well as that of the EU

  • A high effectiveness of a modern antiballistic system

  • Increase in the protection of the territory and stability of the state

  • Increase in the importance of the state on an international scale and within the EU and NATO

  • Increase in the effectiveness of the state security units

  • Income for the state as well as the local budgets

  • Increase in employment within the service sector

  • A considerable improvement in the infrastructure in the region

  • Objection:
  • Close to the base there will be restrictions as to the movement of persons, air traffic and certain business activities

  • Representatives from the base‘s management will be able to intervene in the activities of the neighboring autonomies

  • Conclusion

    If this article has aroused a feeling of hopelessness over the fate of the mankind in some readers, I did not aim at this. And I wish those in whom the article has aroused more activity a perfect logic in contemplating with regard to the well-known saying that „every intelligent person is able to make the right decision about the discussed matter if they have all the necessary information for this“.
    I wish the others would think about the mentioned problems, because sooner or later they themselves will have to solve some of them.
    And because it would not be fair at all not to clearly state my own opinion, I say - taking into consideration all known positives as well as negatives concerning this base - YES.

    In Prague, on Nov. 15, 2006
    vice president of SP USA

    | Autor: J.F. Holub | Vydáno dne 06. 11. 2007 | 6643 přečtení | Počet komentářů: 2011 | Přidat komentář | Informační e-mailVytisknout článek
    25.11.2016: Vloženy nové Občasníky č.12 a č.13
    do sekce "Bulletiny".

    20.10.2016: Vloženy nové Občasníky č.10 a č.11
    do sekce "Bulletiny".

    16.04.2016: Vloženy nové Občasníky č.2 až č.8 2016
    do sekce "Bulletiny".

    26.12.2015: Vložen Občasník č.1 2016
    do sekce "Bulletiny".

    26.12.2015: Vloženy nové Občasníky č.15 až č.18
    do sekce "Bulletiny".
    Počítalo přístupů

    od února 2007

    Kalendář akcí
    <<  Duben  >>
      1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    27 28 29 30    

    kubajs[zavináč]seznam[tečka]cz a phpRS
    nejlépe je vlastnit 786432 pixelů