Activities of Sampo TERHO related to 2013/2170(INI)
Reports (1)
REPORT on an anti-missile shield for Europe and its political and strategic implications PDF (141 KB) DOC (64 KB)
Amendments (9)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas AMD is not only a leading symbol of the USA’s commitment to the EU and to its Eastern European Member States but also of allied solidarity, even if the system is not specifically intended to shield the particular country in which it is basedthe effectiveness of the decision taken in November 2010 in the NATO Lisbon summit to establish a joint missile defence system to protect against long-range ballistic missile attack with weapons of mass destruction, would require a broader cooperation between EU and its neighbours as well as a better assessment of the future threats posed to NATO territory by such weapons;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that nuclear proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a grave danger to the survival of humankind. Even a nuclear strike confined to a to specific area using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons would be constitute a global catastrophe, resulting in a major system shock at global level. The cost of such an event, both human and financial, would be extremely high;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the latest phase in the deployment ofat the project is still in its early stages, but in its later phase NATO’'s anti-missile shield (AMS), whichystem aimsing to annihilate ballistic missiles before they reach their targetsupon re-entry into the final stage of their trajectory upon re- entry into the atmosphereatmosphere, before they reach their targets, will face greater restrictions than was previously anticipated. It will provide protection to key NATO assets, but contrary to previous plans, it will not, in its current format this stage, provide sufficient coverage for the whole European population from the limited number of short and medium range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in existence. This unforeseen development has raised support for a European AMS which would supplement to NATO’'s system;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, Europe has no choice but to take on greater responsibility for its own security but due to the financial crisis and budget cuts, not enough resources are being used to maintain sufficient defence capabilities, thereby leading to the reduction of the EU’s military capdedicated to defence capabilities which renders political support for missile defence dependant on US financing the system; in this respect, it should be reminded that the US House of Representatives called on Europeans to pick up part of the cost for estabilities and industrial capacityshing the Alliance missile defence system;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Argues that the legitimate grounds for an anti-missile shield originate in the threat of a nuclear attackattack conducted by weapons of mass destruction and potentially orchestrated by actors who do not subscribe to traditional understandings of rationality. In real terms, certain ‘rogue’ states or state-like actors could be prepared to attack, even in cases where doing so would ultimately result in their inevitable self-destruction;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that convincing evidence exists that a number of ‘rogue’ states are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons; notes, furthermore, some of these states have stated their preparedness to use these weapons should their interests be jeopardised; recalls, in this connection, the vast arsenal of nuclear weapons already in the possession of highly unstable states;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that it is extremely difficult to evaluate the current and future risks of such developments, and that even if some of these countries have the capacity to develop a nuclear bombweapons of mass destruction, this does not necessarily mean that they are capable of developing ICBMDs in the near future;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that a potential nuclear, chemical, or biological attack and the manifold unpredictable effects likely to result therefrom constitute an existential threat; highlights, however, that regardless of the gravity of such a risk, it is but one risk among many others; argues, therefore, that the proportional reduction of the existential risk should serve as a baseline for the evaluation of the feasibility of the ABMS;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Proposes that should the AMS turn out to be a feasible and cost-effective means of reducing the risk of a nuclear attack, the European Union should consider its development and construction, preferably at EuropeanConsiders that, on the basis of an evaluation of the financial burden the NATO European allies would be called upon to assume and the probability and immediacy of a missile attack, it might be judicious for the development as well as the construction of an anti-missile defence system to be undertaken at EU level;