They said the defence plan, part of the US global military strategy, "principally targets containing Russia and China."

"The US global strategy in Europe is to contain Russia's revival and in Asia to contain China's growth, and is to preserve US hegemony in the world," said Luo Yuan, director of the Second Office of the Department of Strategy Studies of the Academy of Military Science. The academy is under the People's Liberation Army.

Luo described National Missile Defence plans for 2005 as "high risk."

The missile shield also would "severely damage" the value of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, under which the US and Soviet Union agreed that neither would build a comprehensive defence against the other's long-range nuclear arsenal, Luo said.

National Missile Defence, or NMD, would require re-negotiation of the ABM Treaty it signed with the former Soviet Union.

Song Xuefeng, an academy research fellow, said that if NMD goes forward, non-proliferation efforts in the Asia-Pacific region will be shattered.

Song said missile defence goes against the logic of nuclear deterrence, which assumes that nuclear powers will not attack each other if they know the other side will hit back with devastating force.

However, with NMD, the United States could launch a first strike against Russia or China and protect itself against retaliation.

Song said the use of any anti-missile system with strategic defence potential will cause missile technology to proliferate around the world.

"Seeking one-sided or unilateral interests and absolute superiority with military means will surely disrupt regional stability and undermine all parties' interests," Song said.

Calling NMD a "hangover" from the Cold War, Luo said the political costs of its deployment will be "tremendous for the United States."

He warned that pushing ahead with the plan will give rise to most serious negative consequence on the security of not only Russia, China and other countries, but also the United States itself and the globe as a whole.

One problem, Luo said, is that it takes more time to develop defensive weaponry than offensive arms.

"Imagine how many new offensive weapons will be developed during the run-up to the formal deployment of NMD from 2005 to 2008," he said. "Will the US thereby be any safer?"

Given the significant role of the United States, with the world's biggest nuclear arsenal, its NMD would impede international nuclear disarmament processes, Luo said.

"The rest of the world is wondering if the United States could break the treaty it signed, shouldn't other countries do the same?" Luo said. "In other words, the United States will set an example for others to dump other arms-reduction agreements if it presses forward with NMD."

US officials have been trying to convince other countries that its proposed shield is designed to protect the nation from the missile of "states of concern," such as Iran, Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"Such excuses do not hold water," said Luo, "especially, now that the situation on the Korean Peninsula has eased as Democratic People's Republic of Korea has agreed to freeze its missile tests."

Luo added that DPRK missiles lag far behind US missiles in quantity and quality and would not generate a serious threat to the US-Japan alliance with a risk of US retaliation.

History should teach the United States a lesson, too, Song said.

"Just by looking back at the results of Korean and Viet Nam wars, they should understand weapons alone could not solve the complicated issues in the Asia-Pacific region or elsewhere."

(People's Daily)