US missile defence in the UK?

2007-02-23 14:53:53

#1

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

Should the UK allow US missile defence outposts in the UK? There would be numerous benefits for the UK and the US, probably more for the UK, since the system could be used by the British to defend themselves from ballistic missile attack. Blair is very keen on the idea and has been offering Britains assistance, though there has been no vote on the issue in Parliament and there is a lot of opposition to the idea within the UK.

FT article on the issue

Personally, I'm against the missile defence program and believe that Americas abandoning of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty is a bit messed up and has the potential to cause all sorts of problems (Russia are pissed off for a start). But since it's going ahead anyway, I reckon Britain should take advantage of getting missile defence technology for free.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-23 14:54:52)

2007-02-23 14:56:29

#2

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6812|UK

If anyone starts launching ballistic missiles at each other its pretty much by by human life, retaliation will just happen and then everyone is fucked.

2007-02-23 14:56:44

#3

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6643|Seattle

Funny how no one else on this planet has to follow any types of rules but us...

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-02-23 15:00:57

#4

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6812|UK

Im going to shove one thing in your face. Its called they Kyoto Agreement. Now stop talking crap.

On topic. If our Generals agree i have no problem with it, however i should NOT be a political decision.

2007-02-23 15:01:03

#5

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

King_County_Downy wrote:
Funny how no one else on this planet has to follow any types of rules but us...

That's not true.

The US never do follow the rules anyway. They don't acknowledge the international courts in the Hague, they constantly break treaties such as the anti-ballistic missile treaty and so on and so forth.

Everyone else has to follow the rules too. It's just the US break them more often than most, so it comes up more often. Israel break the rules a lot too.

2007-02-23 15:02:41

#6

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

Vilham wrote:
If our Generals agree i have no problem with it, however i should NOT be a political decision.

It certainly should. It could have wide reaching political consequences. Why should generals be involved in anything more than an advisory capacity.

2007-02-23 15:06:39

#7

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6646|132 and Bush

Should the UK let the US? It makes it appear as if we are trying to impose it on you when in fact it is the UK asking for it.

UK officials say Tony Blair has pressed Washington to place at least some of those interceptors on British soil. The UK prime minister is said to share US concerns about the threat posed by missiles from states of concern.

Blair rules out action against Iran, and then the next day the we hear the UK is asking for our missile defense.

In any since missile defense has a long way to go.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-23 15:08:45

#8

CC-Marley: Member; +407|6874

Vilham wrote:
Im going to shove one thing in your face. Its called they Kyoto Agreement. Now stop talking crap.

On topic. If our Generals agree i have no problem with it, however i should NOT be a political decision.

Do you really want to bring up the Kyoto Protocol? Have you read it? Really read it?

2007-02-23 15:11:39

#9

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6812|UK

Bertster7 wrote:
Vilham wrote:
If our Generals agree i have no problem with it, however i should NOT be a political decision.
It certainly should. It could have wide reaching political consequences. Why should generals be involved in anything more than an advisory capacity.

The reason it shouldn't be Blairs choice is because he will shortly be fucking off, i would rather he didnt screw things up even more by making bad decisions.

2007-02-23 15:13:26

#10

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6646|132 and Bush

CC-Marley wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Im going to shove one thing in your face. Its called they Kyoto Agreement. Now stop talking crap.

On topic. If our Generals agree i have no problem with it, however i should NOT be a political decision.
Do you really want to bring up the Kyoto Protocol? Have you read it? Really read it?

It always amazed me as to why the number two emitter of co2 was exempt.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-23 15:15:46

#11

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +795|6730|United States of America

I voted "no" since the UK will somehow find a way to use it against us. For example, calling it an intrusion into their country or something along those lines at a later date.

2007-02-23 15:19:10

#12

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

Vilham wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Vilham wrote:
If our Generals agree i have no problem with it, however i should NOT be a political decision.
It certainly should. It could have wide reaching political consequences. Why should generals be involved in anything more than an advisory capacity.
The reason it shouldn't be Blairs choice is because he will shortly be fucking off, i would rather he didnt screw things up even more by making bad decisions.

I didn't say it should be Blairs choice. There should be a vote on it.

2007-02-23 15:19:48

#13

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6643|Seattle

Bertster7 wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
Funny how no one else on this planet has to follow any types of rules but us...
That's not true.

The US never do follow the rules anyway. They don't acknowledge the international courts in the Hague, they constantly break treaties such as the anti-ballistic missile treaty and so on and so forth.

Everyone else has to follow the rules too. It's just the US break them more often than most, so it comes up more often. Israel break the rules a lot too.

So the insurgents and terrorists follow rules now? Iran and North Korea are playing by the book? India? Pakistan? Who plays by the rules? I'm curious.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-02-23 15:21:04

#14

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6413|Columbus, Ohio

King_County_Downy wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
Funny how no one else on this planet has to follow any types of rules but us...
That's not true.

The US never do follow the rules anyway. They don't acknowledge the international courts in the Hague, they constantly break treaties such as the anti-ballistic missile treaty and so on and so forth.

Everyone else has to follow the rules too. It's just the US break them more often than most, so it comes up more often. Israel break the rules a lot too.
So the insurgents and terrorists follow rules now? Iran and North Korea are playing by the book? India? Pakistan? Who plays by the rules? I'm curious.

Antarctica?

2007-02-23 15:22:09

#15

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

CC-Marley wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Im going to shove one thing in your face. Its called they Kyoto Agreement. Now stop talking crap.

On topic. If our Generals agree i have no problem with it, however i should NOT be a political decision.
Do you really want to bring up the Kyoto Protocol? Have you read it? Really read it?

I've read it. It's bollocks, but the whole point of it is to be a symbol of international cooperation on climate change, which is important. The exemptions of China and India were just an incentive to get them onboard, unfortunately it gave the US and AUS a good reason not to sign.

It was symbolic, not practical.

2007-02-23 15:27:16

#16

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

King_County_Downy wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
Funny how no one else on this planet has to follow any types of rules but us...
That's not true.

The US never do follow the rules anyway. They don't acknowledge the international courts in the Hague, they constantly break treaties such as the anti-ballistic missile treaty and so on and so forth.

Everyone else has to follow the rules too. It's just the US break them more often than most, so it comes up more often. Israel break the rules a lot too.
So the insurgents and terrorists follow rules now? Iran and North Korea are playing by the book? India? Pakistan? Who plays by the rules? I'm curious.

Nope, all of them have broken the rules lately. But to no greater extent than the US or Israel.

None of them are exactly shining examples of a good way to run a country. Pointing out that a few other people break the rules hardly gives the US Carte Blanche to break whatever rules they like.

Simple analogy: If you were being tried for murder, pointing out that other people have murdered people too is not a great line of defence.

2007-02-23 15:30:40

#17

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6643|Seattle

So lets just talk about the US and Isreal then... ok So it doesn't matter that everyone else is breaking rules. We're the only ones who count? Palestinians were following the rules when they launched rockets into Israel? Israel should've done nothing? Don't we let inspectors into our nuclear sites?

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-02-23 15:32:20

#18

stryyker: bad touch; +1,682|6765|California

Only missiles I've seen an enemy use in the last 20 years is RPGs and Airplanes.

2007-02-23 15:33:57

#19

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6413|Columbus, Ohio

stryyker wrote:
Only missiles I've seen an enemy use in the last 20 years is RPGs and Airplanes.

Scuds, Katyusha...

2007-02-23 15:36:33

#20

Home: Section.80; +447|6893|Seattle, Washington, USA

American built and paid for missile defense, sure.

American controlled missile defense in Britain, absolutely not.

2007-02-23 15:36:54

#21

Sgt.Kyle: Kyle; +48|6529|P-way, NJ

I love when they say US but most of us dont know what the hell they talk about.

2007-02-23 15:41:56

#22

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

King_County_Downy wrote:
So lets just talk about the US and Isreal then... ok So it doesn't matter that everyone else is breaking rules. We're the only ones who count?

So no one has been bringing up Iran and N. Korea when they break the rules? I must have imagined all those other threads and all the sanctions against Iran and N. Korea.

The Americans on this forum are typically the first to condemn Irans nuclear program and to call for the total destruction of Iran. Why should America and Israels non compliance with international law be treated any differently? It's a nasty case of double standards.

2007-02-23 15:43:18

#23

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6627|SE London

Homeschtar wrote:
American built and paid for missile defense, sure.

American controlled missile defense in Britain, absolutely not.

They need missile defence outposts somewhere in Europe for the system to be effective.

Britain is the most obvious choice.

They would not necessarily be American built, I believe BAE are interested in the contract.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-23 15:44:37)

2007-02-23 15:43:27

#24

stryyker: bad touch; +1,682|6765|California

usmarine2007 wrote:
stryyker wrote:
Only missiles I've seen an enemy use in the last 20 years is RPGs and Airplanes.
Scuds, Katyusha...

Yea I had thought about those too late.

Why UK though? Wouldn't Israel be the place of most concert at the moment?

2007-02-23 15:43:50

#25

stkhoplite: Banned; +564|6525|Sheffield-England

hell yeah i'd feel alot more protected

Yes	62%	62% - 50
No	37%	37% - 30
Total: 80

BF2S Forums US missile defence in the UK?

Poll

King_County_Downy wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Vilham wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

stryyker wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

Homeschtar wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Board footer