Thread: UK: Who wants to be america's wall.

"New Arms Race Feared

Updated: 11:09, Friday February 23, 2007

Britain is in talks with the US over the possibility of having part of the controversial "Son Of Star Wars" missile defence system situated in the country, Downing Street has confirmed.
Critics of the system - which tracks and destroys missiles launched against the US - say it will trigger a new arms race.
A Number 10 spokesman said talks were at the earliest stages and no decision had yet been taken.
He said at the moment Britain wants to be kept in consideration as the US develops its plans for the system.
The Economist said the Prime Minister was convinced that hosting the missile interceptors would make the country safer against weapons of mass destruction.


Poland and the Czech Republic have also expressed an interest in providing locations for elements of the system.
These could include silos to house missiles designed to shoot hostile weapons out of the sky.
Among the critics of the system is Russia which warns it could spark an arms race.
The No 10 spokesman said talks had not yet reached the stage of considering precisely which elements might be sited in the UK.
He did not confirm reports suggesting that Tony Blair had raised the issue directly with President Bush.
Downing Street also played down The Economist's suggestion that Mr Blair had been "discreetly waging a campaign since last autumn to secure the missile-interceptor site for Britain"."

Sky News: New Arms Race Feared


Personally for the UK i think this is a really really bad idea. For the US clearly a missle defense system is a fantastic idea that will probably increase their national security a great deal, but do we really want to play bodyguard to the US? do we really want to be taking the bullet before it gets to the US.


Blair says having there american missle defense systems will make the country safer from WMD's. I ask how, I can see how missle defense systems in poland will allow for WMD's to be shot before they reach the US or the UK. But surely these systems will be placed here because they need a certain amount of time to track the missles which probably means any WMD taken down will be taken down over the skies of the UK. I don't partiularly want to see what happens when nuclear material is scattered down from the sky.


I have to admidt that i don't have much knowledge of these systems but my assumption comes from the belief that if the missile defense system was capable of taking down missles quickly before it reaced anywhere near the area the system was based they would build these bases in the US and not the UK, Poland etc.


So if my assumption is correct and the protection for the UK would be neglible i then have to carry on and say that these systems would probably make us less safe from WMD's by making us an even greater target.


So whats people's thoughts on this, now obviously the americans are probably going to be all for it, but will it make the UK safer?? sell it to me guys... whats the benefit for the UK? Obviously this sale could be as easy as explaning how the missile system works

Originally Posted by Roach

So whats people's thoughts on this, now obviously the americans are probably going to be all for it, but will it make the UK safer?? sell it to me guys... whats the benefit for the UK? Obviously this sale could be as easy as explaning how the missile system works

While hosting these missiles would make us safer in terms of military opposition, I would certainly feel even safer if we had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Lately, it's been our close association with the most internationally hated US administration in decades that has posed the biggest threat to our troops overseas.

Originally Posted by Juche

While hosting these missiles would make us safer in terms of military opposition, I would certainly feel even safer if we had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Lately, it's been our close association with the most internationally hated US administration in decades that has posed the biggest threat to our troops overseas.

I'd definatley agree with the 2nd point. Im not sure about the 1st, how much safer will these systems make the UK, cause im not sure they will be able to protect the UK from WMD's effectively

I say the US should build only orbiting sats for national defense surveillance and it should orbit sufficient firepower to defend both it's national territory and it's surveillance network.

And then when some mainstream islamic republic launches a nuclear attack on Britain we should sit back and laugh our asses off

If any nation built a shield that could truly stop 99% of all incoming nuclear weapons, that nation would now have an offensive weapon. They could not be checked by a nuclear arms race as a first strike would be a last strike.

That said, it's 2007. The US and Europe are not isolated. Economies are intertwined and a large scale war involving long range nuclear weapons has no place.

This shield will do nothing for terrorism, which is likely to be the war for our generation.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

I say the US should build only orbiting sats for national defense surveillance and it should orbit sufficient firepower to defend both it's national territory and it's surveillance network.

And then when some mainstream islamic republic launches a nuclear attack on Britain we should sit back and laugh our asses off

Either do as we say or f off and die?

Canada refused to sign on based on the fact that the documents given to our government were vague, didn't outline what kind of say Canada would have as to where and when missles would be deployed and most of the tests so far have failed. We received much the same response from Americans as what you said Freedom which I find really insulting. Show us something that makes sense, is attainable and with full transparency so that we know exactly what we're getting into and maybe we'll consider it. Don't assume that we'll blindly agree to something simple because it's what the US wants.

Originally Posted by oronhaus

If any nation built a shield that could truly stop 99% of all incoming nuclear weapons, that nation would now have an offensive weapon. They could not be checked by a nuclear arms race as a first strike would be a last strike.

That's an excellent argument for the US to be the first (and only) kid on the block to have one.

Originally Posted by neone

Either do as we say or f off and die?

If they want our assistance, yes. Is there something wrong in that? Do we owe you people something? I don't think so. It's pretty obvious the presently non-Russian speaking portions of Europe owe the US an enormous debt they'll never find the gratitude to acknowlege.

And, frankly, Americans are damn tired of it.

The system I proposed doesn't require the assistance or permission of any of the ingrate nations, so when we do build it we should certainly tell them they're on their own.

Originally Posted by Juche

While hosting these missiles would make us safer in terms of military opposition, I would certainly feel even safer if we had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Lately, it's been our close association with the most internationally hated US administration in decades that has posed the biggest threat to our troops overseas.

No, dropping our troops in the middle of an extremely hostile region of the world would be the reason that their in so much danger. Just curious, was it international hatred of the current administration that caused 19 jack ass muslims to kamikaze comercial airliners it the World Trade Center?

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

I say the US should build only orbiting sats for national defense surveillance and it should orbit sufficient firepower to defend both it's national territory and it's surveillance network.

And then when some mainstream islamic republic launches a nuclear attack on Britain we should sit back and laugh our asses off

Lmao, Fine im not bothered. See If we're not friends with you no random little islamic republics will want to nuke us .