PM 'agrees to host US missiles'

[DaBeeeenster]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3750294.stm

American interceptor missiles are to be stationed on British soil after Tony Blair agreed a secret deal with the United States, it has been reported.

The Independent on Sunday says Downing Street has agreed in principle to a Pentagon request to base missiles at RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire.

The weapons would allow the US to destroy incoming missiles and form part of the Son of Star Wars defence system.

But a Ministry of Defence spokesman said no decision had yet been made.

What are people's thoughts on this?

[RVF500]

Acording to that article these are purely defensive weapons. Do they have an offensive capability? If not then is there an issue with having a defensive system on our soil?

The Govt effectively remove our air defense systems as part of the military budget cuts so if we faced a 9/11 scenario, for example, we would be powerless to mount an effective defense. Other than to scramble air defense aircraft which would unlikely reach the target area in time. Given of course we had intelligence as to the imminent danger.

Anti missile missiles can also be used as anti aircraft. We used sea dart against aircraft in the Falklands.

[BUFF]

Anti missile missiles can also be used as anti aircraft. We used sea dart against aircraft in the Falklands.

That would be because that was what Sea Dart was designed for - as a medium range SAM

[RVF500]

I know sea dart is a SAM. Sea dart is an anti missile missile, designed to take down incoming missiles. Sea wolf was the navy's anti aircraft missile. Which is the distinction I was trying to make regarding the placing of this type of weapon system. It is not neccesarily a pidgeonholed system. Beside's this link is about the political/moral reasons behind the proposal if I'm not mistaking dabeeensters line here. Not a discussion on the finer points of hardware.

The other point that may be worth making is that if the US are wanting to place them here then we get a defense system that we don't have to pay for.

[Zedmeister]

Right I am going to try to remain calm here....

Reading this and the other story (600 troops to be moved north - will cover this in another debate) just makes me sick. Seems to me that el-presidento blair is now at the beck and call of the babbling bush and his bunch of misfits... Why we should have or need to house something like this is beyond me.

[RVF500]

Well Zed, the need may have been forced upon us by one Mr Bin Laden and his merry band of cutthroats. Sadly we live in a world where though there are no world wars there is a constant state of war in the world. Ok, nothing ground breaking there. But history has shown us that we don't have to have a foriegn powers bombers over our cities to face an air threat. Terrorists have shown they have a will and the means to attack in many and sophisticated ways. We can bury our heads in the sand and say we don't want this crap on our soil. Fine, no problem there. Personally I don't fancy being the most self righteous corpse in the graveyard. I tend to regard such things as an increasingly neccesary evil.

I agree, British troops should not be put under direct US control. The doctrines are totally opposed and the Yanks won't be able to stand being upstaged by real professional soldiers.

[nichomach]

Sea Wolf was designed as a point defence weapons system with the capability to engage and destroy sea-skimming missiles such as Exocet. It has an anti-aircraft capability as well. It has a maximum range of 10km. http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1989.html
Sea dart is a medium range anti-aircraft missile with a range of up to 80km. It is not true to say that one is anti-aircraft and the other anti-missile. http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1990.html
The distinction between the two systems is more one of range than target. It's very relevant to the current discussion, since these missiles were designed from the outset to defend against two distinct types of threat with broadly similar characteristics; powered level flight aircraft and powered level flight missiles. As such, they have a dual use from the outset. NMD will only address a ballistic threat, and even then only one directed against the US. It wouldn't be capable of shooting down a hijacked aircraft in the first place, any more than you'd use a torpedo to kill a tank. The MOD have stated that they've received no formal request to site interceptor missiles here; fine. Should they receive such a request, I think that we should weigh our national interest carefully. Would such missiles make the UK more or less safe? They'd provide no additional defence for us; NMD was designed around defence of the continental US, and the system would be incapable of reacting to defend against a ballistic threat to the UK. The system defends exclusively against ballistic threats, so no defence against hijacked aircraft, suicide bombers or any other of the relatively lo-tech delivery systems available to terrorists. Conversely, would the presence of such missiles place us more at risk? In the event of terrorist attack, probably not. They already don't like us and NMD involvement won't make us more of a target than we already are. So the terrorist angle is a red herring from both sides. In the event of a use of ballistic missiles, then any interceptors sited in the UK would HAVE to be taken out by the attacking power; the interceptors themselves would provide us no defence under those circumstances (they're only capable of defending the continental US), so from that point of view, we can say that their presence increases our risk for no perceptible gain except being in Georgie-porgie's good graces. Personally, I don't think they're worth that much.

[RVF500]

I stand corrected on the sea wolf/dart issue. I was going from memory of my own service at the time and not a current google session (assuming nicho doesn't have a head full of ballistic theory and instant recall of Janes defence pamphlets ).

The question therefore is why do we need at this juncture a defence against a modern well equipped national force? Unless the French and Germans are thinking of using military means to swing a referendum in favour of going fully into Europe. A bit unlikely I would have thought. In that case there appears to be no valid argument to having anti missile systems based in the UK. George could at least have offered us anti Aircraft capable systems to replace the one Tone threw away to pay for Derry Irvine decorating his pad (I think the costs would been about the same). We could at least have defended the decision based on a current threat. As opposed to other nations asking why we felt the need to increase defense against hi tech weapons systems such as they possess and not terror groups.

Gutted, I'm agreeing with Nicho.....this won't do.

[nichomach]

*faints with shock*

I have to admit, I had a general idea on the missile thing but did check w/ the MoD for the specifics

I have to admit that I'd be happier were we actually investing in some reasonable anti-air equipment (I'll kick[ anyone who suggests buying Patriot ), and I don't like losing air defence squadrons either.

[RVF500]

'Reasonable anti air' and 'patriot' don't belong in the same sentance together.