It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missile plan sneaked out, say MPs

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Missile plan sneaked out, say MPs


news.bbc.co.uk

Plans to use an RAF base for a US ballistic missile defence system were sneaked out by ministers and should be debated in Parliament, MPs have said
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Yet again the people of the UK have very little say in a pretty major issue that could affect our country, whilst the goverment has taken us into two wars to supposedly introduce democracy into those countries and regions they seem to have forgotten about democracy at home and give us no say in the matter.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
But the population are forgetting one thing..

We need it.

With Russia sparking a new cold war arms race, flying aircraft near our airspace, we NEED a ballistic missile defence system. For once, we should be greatful for the Americans willing to build such a device on our Island.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Except this missile system wont offer the UK or Europe much of a defence, it is mainly aimed at protecting the US, iirc it was previously stated that by the time we have managed to target any incoming missiles there would be hardly enough time to launch/intercept them before they could hit europe whilst the US would have time to launch and intercept?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot
Except this missile system wont offer the UK or Europe much of a defence, it is mainly aimed at protecting the US


It's not,

It's the same system that was used during the Cold War. Missles are being stored in the UK too, meaning, it will be fired from us.

Plus, it will be stored on a US base, so there is no delay in deployment.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


The interceptor missiles (i.e. the ones that actually shoot down ICBMs) won't be placed on UK soil - the Americans want to situate part of their early warning system at RAF Menwith Hill on the North Yorkshire Moors. The radar itself won't make us any safer from nuclear attack. To my knowledge the US has never had any plans to station interceptor missiles on UK soil as part of this new ABM system.

MPs most certainly should have the right to debate this, however. Since we've tied ourselves into the renewal of Trident we should use the period between now and the end of the life of the new Trident submarines to develop a truly independent, British-built and maintained nuclear deterrent just like the French have managed.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
To my knowledge the US has never had any plans to station interceptor missiles on UK soil as part of this new ABM system.


Under a defence agreement with the United States, the Americans have the right to launch a nuclear strike or any strike from the United Kingdom.

Missiles (I think even nuclear) are already stored within the United Kingdom, but of course, the location isn't in the public domain (for obvious reasons). But it's stored throughout numerous US bases.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


You're confusing nuclear missiles with interceptor missiles, I think.

Yes, during the Cold War there were plans in place to launch nuclear weapons from bases in Britain. Greenham Common springs to mind. I'm not sure whether there are any American nuclear weapons remaining on UK soil now, though. Not on the mainland UK, anyway (there might be on some of our overseas territories, e.g. Diego Garcia).

What we're talking about here are anti-balistic missile missiles. They work in a similar way to an anti-aircraft missile shooting down an aircraft (except instead of targeting aircraft, they target nuclear missiles and intercept them before they reach their target).

The Menwith Hill base is already used as a joint UK-US base to monitor missile launches, space rocket launches, communications interception and so forth... the US wants to integrate this into their desired anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system (which is what all the fuss between the US and Russia over the proposed bases in Poland and the Czech Republic is all about - the US wants to station other components of their ABM system in these two countries, but Russia doesn't want them to do that).

The part of the system that's to be based in the UK is only a radar... the missiles which shoot down nuclear ICBMs will be stationed elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
First off, the United States Military cannot do anything on British soil without the express permission of the British Government - it most certainly cannot carry out any form of attack it wants to from British bases, even as a part of a NATO commitment.

Secondly, the UK would not be home to interceptor missiles. The system would use Menwith Hill and Fylingdales, Menwith Hill as an information coordination centre and Fylingdales as an early warning radar

Thirdly - as has been shown recently - the British nuclear deterrent is completely independant from US control once those subs are at sea. The agreement is that the US services the missile component. The warheads are a completely different thing.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
First off, the United States Military cannot do anything on British soil without the express permission of the British Government


No, it can.

Agreement was signed under Thatcher I believe.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
NATO Commanders have consent to use US nuclear weapons from British soil without specific agreement of the British Government, but only in the most grave circumstances ... such as an attack against the USA or Britain being imminent or underway. They've had that permission since the 1950's & I expect still do today. But "run of the mill" operations, such as the US bombing Libya using F111's from British bases, they're different I think. I think those missions still need the consent of HMG.

Some people like to think that only the President of the USA can authorise the use of nuclear weapons. That's the way the movies portray it. But from the 1950's onwards such authority was "pre-delegated" & was to be exercised when a sudden catastrophic attack against NATO underway.

The National Security Archive is a great place to hunt around for all things nuclear.

British/US Nuclear Weapons Understandings

Launch On Warning

They've got an interesting briefing book out last week too, about the development of the US nuclear weapon targetting strategy

SIOP-62/63



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   


Liberal Democrat leadership contender Nick Clegg said he was pleased that the "duplicitous publication" of the decision had been highlighted, adding that he believed the plans would not improve security.

"It is time for Britain to wake up to the damaging geo-strategic effects of this missile defence scheme and pull out of our deal with America.

"It will never be possible to construct a global system of governance to deal with external threats if powerful nations simply act unilaterally whenever it suits them."


This is the part of the article that caught my eye the most. Hinting that the U.S. is growing even more unfavorable and an element that would need to be dealt with if global government is to be achieved.

I also thought it was interesting on how he refered to the missle defense system as a scheme. Like it wouldn't work, or like we'd build a play ground and make it look like a defense system.

Just my thoughts.




top topics



 
2

log in

join