US Missile Defence In UK

jambutty · 23-02-2007, 13:06

Our illustrious leader is in talks with Bush (and apparently has been doing so since last August) about allowing a ballistic missile defence system to be based in the UK. However the talks are not as some people might imagine, the Americans negotiating with the UK to allow the system to be placed on UK soil but the other way around. We, meaning Dictator Blair, is lobbying the US to have this ‘defensive missile system here and so is Poland. He is asking Bush if he would like to put his anti-missile missiles on our soil. Talk about forelock tugging!

Just a small re-cap about ICBM’s – when one is launched it heads spacewards into the outer atmosphere and maybe even beyond these days, tootles along towards its target and then heads downwards and splats its target. So any intercepting would be done up there in the outer atmosphere or near space.

The idea of this missile defensive system is that if someone chucks an ICMB westwards, meaning towards the USA, it could be intercepted and destroyed long before it reaches USA soil. It has been claimed that a destroyed ICBM would break up and the falling debris would burn up before reaching earth. By their very nature an ICBM has nuclear material onboard and it is just as lethal in one lump as it is in powder. Even if all parts of the ICBM are vaporised during re-entry you cannot vaporise radiation. So maybe we wouldn’t get bits falling on our heads, we would have the atmosphere irradiated instead. Not much of a choice is it?

So the further away from a target that you can have a defensive system the greater chance you have of intercepting an ICBM before it does its business which would be great for the USA but not so great for their outer defences, meaning the UK or Poland. We would get any fallout.

The US has a defensive system in place in Alaska and California to protect them from attacks coming from their west (China – Russia and the far east) and not unnaturally they want to protect their east coast too but they want to do it some 3,000 miles away from the US, meaning on our soil. That gives them more time to make an interception. That’s a bit like during the Falklands conflict, a number of Frigates were stationed several miles away from the carrier group to protect them and the Frigates were deemed to be expendable in the event of an attack.

If anyone is daft enough to launch an ICBM attack against the states they would also strive to knock out any defences first. So by having these defensive missiles on our land we become an immediate target even if a pre-emptive strike does not materialise. We employed those tactics during the Iraq war. We hit their defensive radar and missile capabilities and destroyed them before launching a strike against Baghdad.

So in a nutshell Blair wants the UK and any other EU country to become a human shield for the USA.

I think that the Yanks should stay in their own backyard and not involve us in their world squabbles and keep their defensive missiles at home.

SPUGGIE J · 23-02-2007, 13:40

Only one question which is;

"who will foot the bill for these sites on British soil?"

I cant get over the fact Pressy Blair wants the British Isles blown out of the water so quickly. Does he have American citizenship by any chance so that when we sink into the briney he is safe stateside the selfish sod.

Wynonie Harris · 23-02-2007, 13:42

Thanks for that, Jambutty, I must admit it's absolutely stunning the way the Dear Leader is prepared to put us all at risk to satisfy his obsession with kow-towing to Bush. This, combined with his refusal to accept any of the blame for the disaster in Iraq makes me think that he is losing his marbles. The lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum!

jimmyjim · 23-02-2007, 13:50

its like we have gone back to the 80s...... greenham common, fairford...... the nuclear threat...... I have always believed, and having spent 12 years in the air force and having worked closely with our "american freinds", that the real threat to the world and the start of a nuclear holocost would come from the USA.......

SPUGGIE J · 23-02-2007, 13:50

All this currying of favour with Washington has me worried. Is good old GB to become the 51st state of America? The sly way it is done says that there is a big "rental" fee coming for this or something of the same value. It will not be for the good of J. Public thats for sure.

jimmyjim · 23-02-2007, 13:57

The "rental of military sites" makes me laugh.... did you see in last months military press releases.... we the UK had just paid the last 1.2 million dollars off what we owed the americans for "helping" us out in the 2nd world war !!!!!!!!
something not quite right..... if we are not carefull we will end up as the biggest aircraft carrier in the US navy

garinda · 23-02-2007, 14:00

No, no, no.

SPUGGIE J · 23-02-2007, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyjim

The "rental of military sites" makes me laugh.... did you see in last months military press releases.... we the UK had just paid the last 1.2 million dollars off what we owed the americans for "helping" us out in the 2nd world war !!!!!!!!
something not quite right..... if we are not carefull we will end up as the biggest aircraft carrier in the US navy

The payoff was the last instalment of a loan negotiated after WWII because GB was bankrupt 5 Billion Dollers woth or 53 billion in todays money. Came close to not getting it due to congressional grievences and a stuck up civil servent who went in with a moral grounds pitch. Maybe TB is trying the same sort of pitch but along the lines of "you loan us cash and you can use us as a missile base"

jambutty · 23-02-2007, 14:16

With Blair’s negotiation skills the chances are that we will foot most of the bill SPUGGIE J.

If I were a psychiatrist and I’m not, and I would be thinking in terms of “delusions of grandeur” Wynonie Harris.

For more years than I can remember I have always considered that the biggest threat to world peace has never been the old USSR but the USA and I have no reason to change my view today. So I’m in agreement with you jimmyjim. Like you I’ve had a taste of working with the Yanks during my 13 years in the Royal Navy and apart from their accommodation and perks, which were far superior to ours they couldn’t hold a candle to us.

Yes I did hear about the final payment that we made to the yanks for helping us out in WWII. They helped all right but they charged us for clapped out war ships and every ounce of flour or gunpowder, we paid for. They may have lost ships for transporting the stuff over here but we never got a refund. We had to pay again for the next lot. In fact the only country in the world that came out of WWII better off than they went into it was the USA.

jimmyjim · 23-02-2007, 14:26

very very true Jam. now the whole senario has changed round with us now being dragged in with the spams in their global fight on terror.......
now mark my words..... the Iran situation will get out of hand.....

chav1 · 23-02-2007, 14:55

this does not surprise me at all , we fight their wars for them so why not be a human sheild for them as well

Mancie · 23-02-2007, 16:09

No one seems to keen on the idea so far...but rather than the UK being a shield for America, surely these installations would be used for the defence of the UK if we ever came under missle attack? I don't think its the same situation as the cruise missle bases in the 80's.. cruise missles are attack weapons.

Billcat · 23-02-2007, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

By their very nature an ICBM has nuclear material onboard and it is just as lethal in one lump as it is in powder. Even if all parts of the ICBM are vaporised during re-entry you cannot vaporise radiation. So maybe we wouldn’t get bits falling on our heads, we would have the atmosphere irradiated instead. Not much of a choice is it?

Beats having the nuke explode, when you would get a lot more fallout!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

So in a nutshell Blair wants the UK and any other EU country to become a human shield for the USA.

I think that the Yanks should stay in their own backyard and not involve us in their world squabbles and keep their defensive missiles at home.

Unless the UK has suddenly pulled out of NATO and other treaties, any ICBM attack may well include you folks. Sad, but true.

Frankly, I believe that the best way to prevent catastrophic nuclear war is to continue to draw down the number of nuclear warheads and tp prevent further nuclear proliferation. Ridding ourselves (the USA primarily, with help from Blair and company) of the current "cowboy diplomacy" attitude would also be a good idea.

jambutty · 23-02-2007, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

No one seems to keen on the idea so far...but rather than the UK being a shield for America, surely these installations would be used for the defence of the UK if we ever came under missle attack? I don't think its the same situation as the cruise missle bases in the 80's.. cruise missles are attack weapons.

The defence of the UK is a moot point but the question is would the defensive anti missile missiles be used to defend the UK? After all if it was Russia who attacked the UK I doubt if there would be time to launch them. Is four minutes long enough for Bush to be told and then authorise the defensive launch? By the time that he made his mind up we would be dust, radioactive dust at that.

This proposed defensive system is for the benefit of the US soley. And Blair in his sycophantic mode is rolling over waiting for his belly to be tickled.

jambutty · 23-02-2007, 16:49

Quote:

Beats having the nuke explode, when you would get a lot more fallout!

Whether we are poisoned slowly or instantly by radiation isn’t the issue Billcat. Being poisoned at all is.

Quote:

Unless the UK has suddenly pulled out of NATO and other treaties, any ICBM attack may well include you folks. Sad, but true.

The only way that we would become the recipients of a nuclear attack is whilst we still have American missiles on our soil or in our subs. Not that we could retaliate without US sayso and the rest of the world knows this.

If some idiot chucked half a dozen nukes at the UK (and that is all it would take to make these islands uninhabitable) and no one else do you think that Bush would say, “OK guys hit back.”? Not a chance we, like the frigates guarding the carriers in a task force, would be sacrificed.

Quote:

Frankly, I believe that the best way to prevent catastrophic nuclear war is to continue to draw down the number of nuclear warheads and tp prevent further nuclear proliferation. Ridding ourselves (the USA primarily, with help from Blair and company) of the current "cowboy diplomacy" attitude would also be a good idea.

Our best chance of survival is to not have any nukes defensive or otherwise and leave it to the big boys with MAD. You cannot un-invent something once it has been invented. Nukes are here to stay whether we like it or not and MAD is the only scenario. We all go together or we all stay together.