US Missiles in UK?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The UK and US have held high level talks on the possibility of putting ballistic missile interceptors on British soil.

Its advocates believe that the deployment of anti-missile defences is an essential response to the spread of ever-longer range ballistic missiles to a variety of unstable regimes.

The system's critics charge that the whole idea is simply "a Maginot Line" in the sky; a reference to the cumbersome system of forts and fixed defences that were skirted by German troops at the start of World War II.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6390621.stm

I feel that this sytem will protect the US more than any European country and i'd prefer Britain to spend our own money on our own defence system. An amred forces should be able to ptotect the nation from every other country. Who knows if the US will always be an Ally to the UK?


i'm not pleased that the US has so many military bases in Europe. I bet Americans would protest if the Germans set up a base over there.

[EuroTroll]

Who knows if the US will always be an Ally to the UK?

I know that the USA will at least not attack you in the next century or two. You are very similar people, with similar attitudes, similar values and no foreseeable quarrels over natural resources.


i'm not pleased that the US has so many military bases in Europe. I bet Americans would protest if the Germans set up a base over there.

This is the sort of "holier than thou" bull**** that the Western world can only afford when we dominate the world and are unchallenged.

No offence. ;)

[Roamy]

yes brown I agree - we should close all our bases and build our defense systems elsewhere. I would imagine the problem with long range missiles is that you have to shoot them down on the way up. However with the EU you guys are big boy now and should take care of your own sh!t. America needs to quit spending money on thankless nations. If we cut out all our spending outside our borders we will be able to build a more that adaquate defense system. Thanks to Iraq we now have a Phd in the art of fighting worthless wars and hopefully this education will take us through many decades. The next thing we need to do is pack up a bunch of people that should not be here and send them home. Our Immigration and Naturalization Service needs a complete overhaul which should start immediately. So Brown keep up the protesting and let me know if you need any help

[Captain VXR]

The UK and US have held high level talks on the possibility of putting ballistic missile interceptors on British soil.

Its advocates believe that the deployment of anti-missile defences is an essential response to the spread of ever-longer range ballistic missiles to a variety of unstable regimes.

The system's critics charge that the whole idea is simply "a Maginot Line" in the sky; a reference to the cumbersome system of forts and fixed defences that were skirted by German troops at the start of World War II.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6390621.stm

I feel that this sytem will protect the US more than any European country and i'd prefer Britain to spend our own money on our own defence system. An amred forces should be able to ptotect the nation from every other country. Who knows if the US will always be an Ally to the UK?


i'm not pleased that the US has so many military bases in Europe. I bet Americans would protest if the Germans set up a base over there.
No offence to Americans but I for one don't want the USA's effing missiles here -
1. The USA is large enough to have space for a fleet of missiles
2. The extremists would have another excuse to suicide bomb England
3. I don't want some other country having their weapons in my country

[BDunnell]

I have no problem with there being US bases in the UK and Europe. It doesn't smack of imperialism to me, as it does to some; they haven't noticeably increased the terrorist threat to the UK; and it carries on a long tradition while also still being strategically useful.

However, I am lost as to the logic of placing of a missile defence system in Britain, and feel that it could be counter-productive at the present time.

[Ian McC]

i'm not pleased that the US has so many military bases in Europe. I bet Americans would protest if the Germans set up a base over there.

They don't, certainly not as many as they used to. Why would the Germans want to set a base up over there, there is no reason to?

Just out of interest would this be of any use if someone decided to fire one at us?

[BDunnell]

They don't, certainly not as many as they used to. Why would the Germans want to set a base up over there, there is no reason to?

Just out of interest would this be of any use if someone decided to fire one at us?

The Germans do have a military presence in the USA. Their fast jet pilots are trained in part in New Mexico.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

My understanding of these missiles is that they are designed to intercept Warhead fired in our direction. They are not an attack missile. So they would protect us in the event of a war, but not if we were against the US.

[Hazell B]

I've got two very different problems with US bases here in the UK. There's so good points, too, of course.

Firstly we have zero control over their Air Force training in our air. They fly low (to the point where their ruddy passengers in the big helicopters have waved at me in my fields :( ) and often in large groups that deafen anyone on the ground. I've complained about their training here from April to July and been told the UK Air Force, etc have no ability to stop them and they can fly lower than our lads if they wish. Of course, they deny ever being in the area ...... despite complaints from many people.

The second is that if you're a fan of Mark Thomas you'll know some bases aren't marked on maps and don't officially exist. They have power and fuel supplies underground, marked with roadside markers that anyone can see. Mark Thomas has found some of these bases and filmed them, yet the US and UK governments deny they exist. He once filmed a woman in Army uniform, with a man in Air Force uniform in the background, standing by a gated, heavily forested area that isn't on any OS maps denying they even existed as human beings :laugh: Of course, the police appeared and took him away pretty quickly.

Thing is, if I can see the signs showing where their power and fuel go underground, then see them listed on Mark Thomas' literature, can't any passing terrorist?

[BDunnell]

Firstly we have zero control over their Air Force training in our air. They fly low (to the point where their ruddy passengers in the big helicopters have waved at me in my fields :( ) and often in large groups that deafen anyone on the ground. I've complained about their training here from April to July and been told the UK Air Force, etc have no ability to stop them and they can fly lower than our lads if they wish. Of course, they deny ever being in the area ...... despite complaints from many people.

It isn't quite right to say that we have 'zero control' over the US Air Force's activities in the UK. They still have to keep to the designated areas and observe altitude limits. In general, the safety record of the USAF's presence in the UK has been excellent. However, they are very bad at dealing with complaints, you're right.


The second is that if you're a fan of Mark Thomas you'll know some bases aren't marked on maps and don't officially exist. They have power and fuel supplies underground, marked with roadside markers that anyone can see. Mark Thomas has found some of these bases and filmed them, yet the US and UK governments deny they exist. He once filmed a woman in Army uniform, with a man in Air Force uniform in the background, standing by a gated, heavily forested area that isn't on any OS maps denying they even existed as human beings :laugh: Of course, the police appeared and took him away pretty quickly.

Thing is, if I can see the signs showing where their power and fuel go underground, then see them listed on Mark Thomas' literature, can't any passing terrorist?

While I didn't see the Mark Thomas item in question (I am something of a fan of his, by the way), this isn't necessarily as sinister as he appears to have made out. In many European countries, I believe it's not common practice to mark all military bases on maps. This doesn't make the behaviour of US military personnel when questioned about it any more laughable, though. That's what security paranoia does to you.

[Gannex]

Firstly we have zero control over their Air Force training in our air. They fly low (to the point where their ruddy passengers in the big helicopters have waved at me in my fields :( ) and often in large groups that deafen anyone on the ground. I've complained about their training here from April to July and been told the UK Air Force, etc have no ability to stop them and they can fly lower than our lads if they wish.
They can't "fly lower than our lads", Hazell. Both theirs and ours can fly right down to the ground in designated areas, and both air forces are controlled in those areas by the CAA, and according to the same rules.

That's why we have close to total control over the USAF. Now, it's true that within their base areas they are controlled by US military controllers, but that is solely within those areas. Once let loose on the Lake District or close to your fields in East Yorkshire, the Americans are subject to the same general low-flying rules as everybody else. The problem is that those rules, especially over sparsely populated areas and the coast, are pretty lax. It's the rules I'd complain about if I were you, Hazell, not the Americans.

[Drew]

Will UK missiles be put in the USA?

Or is it just a one way deal?

[Gannex]

As far as the anti-missile missiles are concerned, I'm all for them being deployed in the UK if we can get the Americans to foot a large chunk of the bill. How can that be bad for Britain? We get an intercept capability at bargain prices, and all we have to do for the discount is let the Americans have some rights to information and cooperation? Sounds pretty good to me, just so long as the agreement between us and them does not concede total control. We, for example, must retain launch rights. That should be non-negotiable. Everything else can be up for grabs. I'm all for persuading the Americans to continue paying for our national defense.

And fousto, before you complain about paying our bills, remember this: Russian ballistic missiles can reach your precious country in less than two hours. Wouldn't it be nice to have some friendly British people who, if so inclined, could intercept those incoming before they even crossed the Greenwich meridian? Thought you might like that. Open the wallet please, because we need your help.

[Roamy]

Nope, I am pissed now. screw you guys fend for yourselves. When I shoot the missile down it will land right in your ****ing bedroom and if it doesn't explode you can keep it as a suvenior and share it with Brown and Hazel.

[BDunnell]

As far as the anti-missile missiles are concerned, I'm all for them being deployed in the UK if we can get the Americans to foot a large chunk of the bill. How can that be bad for Britain? We get an intercept capability at bargain prices, and all we have to do for the discount is let the Americans have some rights to information and cooperation? Sounds pretty good to me, just so long as the agreement between us and them does not concede total control. We, for example, must retain launch rights. That should be non-negotiable. Everything else can be up for grabs. I'm all for persuading the Americans to continue paying for our national defense.

On reflection, I agree with that - so long as we go on spelling defence with a 'c', and not an 's'. ;)

[BDunnell]

They can't "fly lower than our lads", Hazell. Both theirs and ours can fly right down to the ground in designated areas, and both air forces are controlled in those areas by the CAA, and according to the same rules.

That's why we have close to total control over the USAF. Now, it's true that within their base areas they are controlled by US military controllers, but that is solely within those areas. Once let loose on the Lake District or close to your fields in East Yorkshire, the Americans are subject to the same general low-flying rules as everybody else. The problem is that those rules, especially over sparsely populated areas and the coast, are pretty lax. It's the rules I'd complain about if I were you, Hazell, not the Americans.

While that is true, as I said, the Americans are much worse at dealing with complaints than the RAF. They, in my experience, tend to deny rather than investigate.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The good thing about the ASAF flying in the UK is that RAF piloted Eurofighters can outmaneuver USAF F-16's in mock dog fights :D Even when outnumbered 2-1. :cheese:

People think that this missile system will put the UK on the front line. As it is the 1st line of defence for the US we would be the first target for any hostile country.

We rely to much on the US. I don't like the fact we need permission from the US before we can use the Trident Missiles. Hopefully the replacement system will be completely independant (however if it was then George Bush might view us as a hostile country :rolleyes :)

[sezix]

Simple; if the American's finally stop friendly fire which they have always done with their allies and step up a level of professionalism then I'd say yes. Britain has already got itself in unneeded problems with the middle east just for being an Allie for the U.S.

[Roamy]

yes Sezix I think it is better for you to side with Iran rather than the US.
The US will not attack you so you should probably cozy up to the one that will. You should immediately assassinate Blair and denounce the US and send all our people home and close all bases and aid. Iran will be happy to establish bases matter of fact you can probably sell them ours as we leave. Then get a long term agreement for cheap oil and you are off to the races. Get er Done mate!!

[W8&C]

yes Sezix I think it is better for you to side with Iran rather than the US.
The US will not attack you so you should probably cozy up to the one that will. You should immediately assassinate Blair and denounce the US and send all our people home and close all bases and aid. Iran will be happy to establish bases matter of fact you can probably sell them ours as we leave. Then get a long term agreement for cheap oil and you are off to the races. Get er Done mate!!
Don´t think its really meaningful to have a nice-weather-partnership with an either-you-with-us-or-against-us-ally like above, who starts the usual I-never-ever-play-with-you-again-whining when his selfish goals aren´t supported by my country. What would be going to happen once there are some ever possible severe differencies how to handle an issue concerning both nations? Relying on allies with such an attitude you could find yourself as well being blackmailed by your „friends“ weaponry all of a sudden!

[Rudy Tamasz]

Some protection against the aggressive and oil-drunk Bear never hurts.

[sezix]

yes Sezix I think it is better for you to side with Iran rather than the US.
The US will not attack you so you should probably cozy up to the one that will. You should immediately assassinate Blair and denounce the US and send all our people home and close all bases and aid. Iran will be happy to establish bases matter of fact you can probably sell them ours as we leave. Then get a long term agreement for cheap oil and you are off to the races. Get er Done mate!!

Its simple. IMHO Great Britain should just be neutral. Helping America in the middle east does not help the ever growing extremism in this country.
IMHO the best thing would be to be neutral, like most of Europe. Not side with anyone. Blair did it once now he has to do it all the time and whatever Bush asks he can never not say no.
All I said was America needs to step up a level of professionalism, and not have friendly fire which they have always done....But the main thing is its just the way things are done. Their rule is to fire if in doubt, Britain's is to not fire if in doubt. I think the latter is better when you are there to try and bring the country back around and not make a civil war worse there.
I just felt a bit insulted when this U.S. army guy said on ITV news that Britain needs to pull its socks up and stop whining like they did in WWII and have their asses carried by Americans when they happened to ask about the friendly fire.
At least Blair is stepping down very soon...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

yes Sezix I think it is better for you to side with Iran rather than the US.
The US will not attack you so you should probably cozy up to the one that will. You should immediately assassinate Blair and denounce the US and send all our people home and close all bases and aid. Iran will be happy to establish bases matter of fact you can probably sell them ours as we leave. Then get a long term agreement for cheap oil and you are off to the races. Get er Done mate!!

No-body has mentioned becoming allies to Iran :\

Just becuase we are not with America doesn't mean we are against America. The US is lucky that they are Allies with the Commonwealth and Spain, otherwise if they had attacked Iraq without any other country backing, they would be in extreme deep-shizzle with the UN.

Back to the 'son of star wars' missiles, if America wants their military based in the UK, then they can try invading us first.

[sezix]

Back to the 'son of star wars' missiles, if America wants their military based in the UK, then they can try invading us first.

lol!

....I think we'd be more of a target with missles to guard the U.S.

[Hazell B]

They can't "fly lower than our lads", Hazell. Both theirs and ours can fly right down to the ground in designated areas, and both air forces are controlled in those areas by the CAA, and according to the same rules.



Feel free to come and stand in my yard this summer. They ignore the rules completely and fly so damned low the small trees (12 footers) have been damaged by the air from the vast helicopters. Seriously. Rules, as proved again and again in various war zones, mean nothing to the US Air Force ;)

They've also paid out on several occasions to the families of seriously injured or dead horse riders, cyclists and so on. Nothing will be in public records I don't suppose, but I know one who got over £3m from them in Lincs after two of their helicopters weren't there ( :rolleyes: ) to frighten her horse and leave her with a broken back. The frightening part was that they contacted her before she even knew who'd caused it :eek:

[Gannex]

Feel free to come and stand in my yard this summer. They ignore the rules completely and fly so damned low the small trees (12 footers) have been damaged by the air from the vast helicopters. Seriously. Rules, as proved again and again in various war zones, mean nothing to the US Air Force ;)

They've also paid out on several occasions to the families of seriously injured or dead horse riders, cyclists and so on. Nothing will be in public records I don't suppose, but I know one who got over £3m from them in Lincs after two of their helicopters weren't there ( :rolleyes: ) to frighten her horse and leave her with a broken back. The frightening part was that they contacted her before she even knew who'd caused it :eek:
Fair enough. You've been there, I haven't, so I defer to your knowledge of the local activity and its effects. It sounds horrendous.

They're supposed to always be five hundred feet from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure (except during take-off and landing). The fact is that a Chinook coming over at 500 feet is quite likely to scare a horse half to death, so the rules are not always adequate even if followed to the letter. But I take your point that it may well be that the pilots you've had experience of are not even following the rules, lax as they are.

[Captain VXR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-gFThUM3sA
Is that what happens just with chinooks?

[Gannex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-gFThUM3sA
Is that what happens just with chinooks?
That video made me furious. The pilots ought to be stripped of their rank. At a time when military aviators are fighting to preserve their reputation, here are these fools acting like schoolboys at their taxpayers' expense, and posting their antics on the internet. At least they weren't Americans or British, that much one can tell. If they were, I'd be quite ashamed.

Having said that, the video does show how dangerous and difficult low-altitude high-speed flight is. Precise control of altitude is difficult enough in straight and level flight, but as soon as you bank the aircraft for a turn, it tends to lose altitude unless you apply precisely the right amount of back stick to counteract the natural downward tendency. Anyone like to take a stab at why that is? (No pilots are allowed to answer this, but aerodynamicists, vehicle engineers or physicists should be able to get it with a little thought.)

[BDunnell]

That video made me furious. The pilots ought to be stripped of their rank. At a time when military aviators are fighting to preserve their reputation, here are these fools acting like schoolboys at their taxpayers' expense, and posting their antics on the internet. At least they weren't Americans or British, that much one can tell. If they were, I'd be quite ashamed.

For anyone who's wondering, they're French.

[Roamy]

hey easy on them "Frogs" can't fly very high

[Hazell B]

Fair enough. You've been there, I haven't, so I defer to your knowledge of the local activity and its effects. It sounds horrendous.

They're supposed to always be five hundred feet from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure .....

I'm lucky, they only seem to appear here every year for 3 or 4 months and with it being flat land I can always hear the helicopters coming. The low jets are another matter - they produce a sudden bang and they've gone before you see them :mark: A friend in Lincs has a riding school and she's got them randomly all year round. They've even landed helicopters in her fields (not that she's ever caught them, just found the mess they leave behind) and the RAF phone line that tells riders when planes are due doesn't cover US flights. In fact, she currently has about a dozen horses belonging to yet another rider who was seriously injured by a US flight frightening her horse. Again that woman was paid seven figures by them for damages that they deny happened :rolleyes: To be fair to the US, that case went to court I believe.

They only frighten the horses when out of their fields (for instance while they're being ridden, usually on the roads) oddly. New horses get used to them quite quickly, then just don't bat an eyelid when they fly over. However, out in a strange place they're terrified and it's dangerous as hell.

The RAF told me 150 feet is allowed over our specific land, but that it's the absolute outer edge of any low flying areas. I have no idea which classes of plane or helicopter that covers, as they also told me the 500 foot thing.