Originally posted by solidshot
any one else reckon it's time Blair learned the word no

no.

Maybe we should have said no to the us on many things; war on terror, f-35, israel etc.
However this program will defend the us and if we let them place one in britain it will also provide far better protection for britain than we have at the moment i.e none. so i think this is one of the few things with the us we definatly shouldnt say no to.

justin.

but what protection will this provide for the uk? if this system has to be based so far away from the us to hit any missiles in time then it would need to be based in either scandanavia or russia to protect the uk from the same threat and that is assuming the americans would allow us to use this system to protect ourselves?

its based in the uk to allow for the us to intercept the missile further from themselves so they have time for a follow up shot i would guess. if we have one on mainland britain then we wouldnt have time for a follow up shot and the intercept missiles might not be as effective so close to the terminal phase of the missile but any protection is more protection than we currently have.

justin

It’s meant to offer protection form Iranian IRBM’s which can now currently reach even GB, and future ICBM’s. The US has a lot of bases, facilities and troops in Europe which are at risk. Any unannounced missile launched by Iran toward Europe is not going to be a test so we wouldn’t wait to find out where it lands (if we have this capability when it’s mature enough) so IMO it could protect the whole of Europe (given the range of the GBI). Plus, it pisses off the Russian’s, and that’s always a plus.

[edit on 21-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Maybe off topic... google:

RODS FROM GODS a US SPACE COMMAND program run by COMMANDER LORD!

Getting a little arrogant ow aren't we? lol

Rods from GODS?
Commander LORD?

Jeebus.

I agree with the main thread starter.

The best nuclear defence for Britain is not to get involved in American probelms.

We sided with America during the cold war, Afghanistan and Iraq and now we have "payed back" America for its help during WW2.

No more. Lets not get involved in there personal business and thats the best way to defend ourselves from being hit with nukes.

Blair needs to say no. But in my opinion Blair is nothing more then a scared dog of the American government who will beg and grovel at the feet of the Americans becuase he is spineless.

Next time we go to vote im voting for anybody that is not linked to Tony Blair most likely David Cameron. Blair needs to go becuase he is putting this country in immense danger.

i have no problem helping america when they genuanly (sp) need help, what does annoy me is that during recent times what have we got back? for instance iirc was it a case during the falklands war when the americans were asked for some basic help we were turned down "because it would make their banana imports more expensive"

Originally posted by solidshot
i have no problem helping america when they genuanly (sp) need help, what does annoy me is that during recent times what have we got back? for instance iirc was it a case during the falklands war when the americans were asked for some basic help we were turned down "because it would make their banana imports more expensive"

no we turned down help in the falklands for 3 reasons:-

1) the former USSR was watching britain closely during the cold war, so we had to prove we could hold our own should the USSR decide to attack britain and not only that, we had to do it convincingly! if we got help from america it would have made britain look weak.

2) america wasn't allowed to get involved anyway, the falklands belongs to the united kingdom, it was our job to get it back after the argentines invaded (nobody elses), if america got involved a few eyebrows and questions would have been raised by other nations to WHY they got involved.

3) national pride.

back to this thread, as said previously i'm all for the 'son of star wars' being set up in britain (if it goes ahead), theres been talk about this since the 80's but nothing as come about it yet, except a few failed tests (the last i heard)!!

but my flossophy is this, if the americans want to spend £$billions on the project and need british land for interceptor units, then let them do so IMO...not only will it protect britain, we will also get paid for letting them set these bases up in britain.









[edit on 21-8-2006 by st3ve_o]

I wonder if you are referring to the upgraded installations at RAF Benbecula, Boulmer, Buchan, Fylingdales, Neatishead, Portreath, Saxa Vord, Scampton and Staxton Wold which in fact are part of the Air Surveillance And Control System - (ASACS) Force Command.

The majority of sites above, have had their ‘golfballs’ replaced with the State Phased Array Radar (SSPAR) and constantly send their updated information to the Integrated Command and Control System (ICCS).

Not mentioned but still an integral part of the ASACS(UK), are the No 1 Air Control Centre - Kirton in Lindsey and the Remote Radar Heads (RRH) of Aird on the island of Uig and RAF Brizlee Wood in Northumberland.

RAF Boulmer is also the full time NATO Control and Reporting Centre.

Incidentally, Staxton Wold has been operating since 1939 and is the oldest radar installation in the world.

I honestly don't see the harm in allowing us to build these systems in Britain. All of our British friends (whom most of us Americans actually care about) would get at least some chance of protecting themselves from a ballistic missile launch, and I'm sure the rest of NATO might be within the protective radius also. Then I figure building and operating such systems would require more personnel, thus benefiting the local economies of the areas with such defensive systems. So I'd say it's a win-win situation for both the US and the UK.