NEWS: Tony Blair 'agrees to host US missiles'

Thanks for the comments FredT I pretty sure the SAS would have no problem on secureing the sites if needed lol. It just made me think that they could be saying its not very effective agianst attacks just to lure you in to a false sense of security. And also say oh it carn't carry these war heads and so on. But from the ones I've seen you can change a normal run of the mill missile into a guided lazer bomb in just a few seconds.

So thats what I aiming at can we put our missiles on you land please dont worry to much about it but if we need to we can use them against you if needed.

Originally posted by SE7EN

So thats what I aiming at can we put our missiles on you land please dont worry to much about it but if we need to we can use them against you if needed.

I just cannot imagine that a time will ever come when the US and UK will be on opposing sides of a war. Seems to me that the US, UK and Australia are more or less one and the same. With similar cultures, languages, political views and systems, as well as similar interests... any two of those three fighting would be more like a civil war than anything else. The world is a much smaller place these days, and the modern conflicts have become far more black and white.

Independant.co.uk

"If re-elected, President Bush has pledged to spend around $10bn (�5.5bn) a year on realising Ronald Reagan's dream of erecting a missile shield to protect the West from long-range attack."

If I am right thats over four years of what he has left if he get re-elected that makes what (�22bn) dam lot of money to be spending anywayhow can a 100 missiles and a upgrade onn the base be that much. If that total is wrong I haven't slept so forgive me.



[edit on 18/10/2004 by SE7EN]