posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:33 AM
I like to think that Obama will bring a new age of hope to America, and that there will be the inevitable 'knock on effect' here in the UK.
However, while trawling the net I came across yet another conspiracy theory, based around the expansion of Heathrow airport, which I hadn’t heard of
before, and one that I hadn’t considered.
I'll add it here. (I did add it on another thread, so forgive me for repeating myself)
Tell me your views.
"The issue of Heathrow has enflamed widespread discussion and protest in Britain, and after the issue forced a vote in the House of Commons recently,
which sadly was marginally defeated, the subject is not going away any time soon.
The protests are based around all too common sense arguments on behalf of those, like me, against the expansion. Climate control and air pollution,
the destruction of both the countryside and the homes of those who are unlucky enough to be living on the runways planned route.
Yet few have considered a darker purpose behind this plan. Something that poses even more questions, each, darker than the surface arguments regarding
the topics noted above.
If time proves these bleak suggestions true, then the rejection and protest voiced at this moment in UK history is even more important.
The government claims that the expansion is based around increasing air traffic to address the growing need for both cross Atlantic travel and also
travel worldwide. Despite the logic, contradictory to this claim, that given the present economic recession, air travel is probably far from the minds
of the everyday people of not only this country, but everywhere.
So, why increase the capacity of an airport if not for commercial use?
At present, there are 12 US air bases operating on the UK mainland (QPSW June 2004) not including the 22 or more facilities available for US use in
Britain) It is widely acknowledged that the UK has long formed a strategic ‘stepping stone’ for military traffic from the US to other parts of the
world, in particular the Middle East. This was first put to major use during WW2 for access to the European Theatre of Operations (ETO). This is more
important given the reluctance of other European countries to wholly support this role.
The suggestion is that if a large scale military action or a number of these were ever instigated by the US, Britain would need to have the air
traffic provision to cope with the large scale transport of both military hardware and personnel. Something that the established bases in the UK
would, at present, be unable to cope with. The suggestion indicates that large scale transport of both military hardware and personnel would be a
provision on or even above the instance experienced inWW2. Sea transport, like that used during WW2 is not a viable option in today’s flashpoint,
instant response military culture, so it is logical to rule out ocean transport in favour of large scale air transport of everything needed to wage a
military campaign, and also to maintain that campaign and ensure reliable supply networks.
So, the use of commercial airports to transport military personnel, leaving hardware to take normal military routes, makes perfect sense in the
situation of a large scale conflict.
Let’s face it. A population are unlikely to be driven to protest over men and women using planes. (beyond the predictable outcomes of such a use)
But this would predictably change if arms supplies, tanks and missiles start trundling through so-called civilian channels.
So, is the expansion of Heathrow, really an expansion of the UK to accommodate large scale military transport, if that were ever required?
Or, more ominously, when it is needed?