UK to "host" missles

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by dui-lai, Oct 17, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    So TBLiar has done a deal behind locked doors with the US :roll:

    Why am I not surprised about this, he constantly tries to keep Parliament out of any decision making.

    As each day progresses, this country is begining to resemble a dictatorship :evil:
  2. Does he have the power to do that without Parliamentary approval?

    The article isn't very specific, seems something may have been discussed but no final decision made. Of course the BBC reporting on a story from "the Independent" must be true.
    NEWS people have access to all the TOP SECRET Gen.
  3. Let us hope that it is a bit of fantasy journalism, otherwise the ramifications of taking decisions of this importance without Palimentary approval 8O .....I'll let you decide.
  4. the money spent on this system which hasent been proved to work could probably have been used to destablishe any regime which might want to think about firing nukes at the States .we should have nothing to do with it
  5. The Yanks have started deploying untested missiles in Alaska, but it'll be a long time before they're at the stage of putting them elsewhere. They need Fylingdales as part of the supporting radar chain anyway. No change there. it's already part of the early-warning system.

    If and when they deploy more missiles, it's more likely they'll go to eastern Europe - Poland's willing to host them for economic reasons - because of the risk of the kind of political backlash we're seeing now.
  6. I dont see what the objection is to a missile system that will provide a measure of security. The PAT3 has been shown to work. I dont think anything manmade can be 100%. But something is better than nothing.
  7. Fire extinguishers have been shown to work but are no substitute for fire prevention. Its not a magic umbrella that allows the prosecution of any old policy regardless of consequences.
  8. Commando the proliferation of ballistic missiles should be a concern for everyone. If you have some defense against a threat your not as susceptible to blackmail. Currently with no ABM defense should you get hit by a nuke your ownly option is to retaliate. With ABM you at least have a decent shot to protect your civilians and gives you time to consider a response.
  9. I agree but it's nowhere near the head of the list as a concern, IMO anyway.
  10. PAT3 is pretty good - the Israeli Arrow even better. But the problem with ABM defence is that the advantage is with the attacker. All the attacker has to do is deploy decoys, shred the booster so that there are multiple inbounds, put multiple warheads on the inbounds etc etc. The defender has a very limited time to decide which are real and which are decoys and could be overwhelmed very quickly. 99.9% success rate against 1000 incoming tracks still means 1 gets through. If that 1 has a 100 kiloton warhead on it............

    It has been likened to trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. It is still a major scientific and engineering challenge, and I think the money would be better spent elsewhere, and of course it will not protect the US against fanatics in hijacked airliners flying into buildings
  11. Agreed. AQ are astute. They will attack us where we are weakest.
  12. True, but the system is intended to counter a limited number of warheads. Iran and North Korea have a very limited capabiity and this is what we want to defend against.
  13. In that case I would suggest a premptive visit by Mr JDAM on the launch sites or even an SF operation would be cheaper and more effective
  14. Curtis le May will be spinning in his grave. :D

    Tom, I'm not getting at you by the way. Technical solutions have their place but this isn't one of them.