- guardian.co.uk, Wednesday June 13 2001 12.44 BST
Not exactly, though the old Strategic Defence Initiative, popularly known as star wars, also relied on satellites to detect incoming enemy missiles. The SDI scheme was to deploy counter-missiles in space. The new system, initially called National Missile Defence (NMD) more modestly relies on defensive missiles to be fired from the ground or from ships. The word "national" was dropped to dispel perceptions that the system would benefit only the US.
How is missile defence supposed to work? Once an enemy missile is detected by early-warning radar, the information is fed into a war room. A point of interception is calculated and a defensive missile is launched. The interceptor is made up of a booster rocket and a 'kill vehicle', programmed to distinguish between the incoming warhead and any debris or decoys. Using thrusters, it would separate from the booster and manoeuvre towards a high-speed collision. The process has been described as shooting a bullet with a bullet.
Will it work?
Leading scientists have mocked the project as untested and unproved. The only anti-missile system ever tested in combat was the Patriot, deployed in Israel and the Gulf during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It was fired 44 times at Iraqi Scud missiles, failing to destroy most of them. Tests for the new system so far have been unimpressive.
Where does Britain fit in?
The system will rely on early-warning radar installations in Massachusetts, California, Alaska, Greenland - and the UK. Specifically, the US satellite tracking base at Fylingdales in North Yorkshire.
What does Britain think of missile defence?
The government is guardedly keen, and the Conservatives are downright enthusiastic. Backbench MPs have strong reservations: the commons all-party foreign affairs committee has called on ministers to voice widespread public concern that NMD will fuel a new arms race.
What about other countries?
Most of Britain's European allies are flatly opposed to the scheme, which provoked protests during Mr Bush's first official visit to Europe in June. Spain came out in favour, but France and Germany expressed worries about the risks of missile proliferation. China dislikes the scheme intensely and has threatened to expand its own arsenal because it fears the US might provide Taiwan with a similar system. Russia thinks missile defence is inevitable and is trying to get the best deal possible.
Why is the US so keen to defy its critics?
The Bush administration has made national defence a top priority. Military planners argue that a potential threat exists, not from the America's old cold war rivals, but from so called rogue nations like North Korea, Iran and Iraq. They also say that missile defence could be used to counter any accidental launch of Russian missiles. The new US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, argues that no US president can responsibly leave the country unguarded against known threats, and that missile defence is therefore a "moral issue". There is also a lot of money for defence companies..
Where does missile defence leave current arms treaties?
Missile defence would mean the end of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, the cornerstone of nuclear arms control. But Mr Bush has said that the treaty is out of date and that it was time to "lay aside" the accord.
How much will missile defence cost?
According to a recent report from the US government general accounting office, even a limited system would cost between $18bn and $28bn. Some estimates run as high as $50bn.
When could it be in place?
Washington says that 2005 would be a realistic date for deployment.
Related articles
13.06.2001: Bush talks a different language
12.06.2001: The banks of the pond are drifting apart
30.05.2001: The debate nobody wants
Useful links
ABM treaty
Why NMD won't work (from Scientific American)
Centre for Defence and International Security Studies
International Institute for Strategic Studies on NMD
US department of defence
Federation of American Scientists NMD discussion
US Union of Concerned Scientists
