ConservativeHome has been arguing for our party to support missile defence for some time (and Mark Pritchard MP discussed the issue on YourPlatform last May). It is encouraging, therefore, to see the issue finally on the national agenda.
In yesterday's Times, Michael Evans, the newspaper's Defence Editor, wrote that "the simple idea of killing an incoming ballistic missile with another missile up in space merely by aiming it right and hitting it with even a glancing blow was technologically achievable." The Telegraph agrees. Yesterday it noted the evolution of Ronald Reagan's programme from a catch-all defence system to one with more limited but still vital aims:
"The defence shield is a development of the 1980s Star Wars programme that planned to destroy any multiple rocket attack from the Soviet Union. Rather than shooting down dozens of rockets, this system would take out only one or two missiles in space with 16,000mph interceptors."
Mr Evans acknowledges the political difficulties of UK politicians embracing missile defence but concludes that it must be done:
"Putting American interceptors on British territory would be political dynamite and is bound to give renewed life to the anti-nuclear lobby which has such strong and bitter memories of the days when this country hosted US cruise missiles at Greenham Common in the Cold War. However, what is the alternative? Britain cannot afford to go it alone in developing an anti-missile system, but if Iran and other countries in the Middle East become nuclear weapons powers, there will have to be an insurance policy, and the only material one on offer at present is Son of Star Wars."
On Friday Liam Fox issued this statement:
“If there is a request to base part of the US National Missile Defence system in the UK, we would need to see the exact nature of that request before taking a decision. In today’s climate where we have rogue states developing new long range missiles it’s vital that we don’t rule anything out. Despite asking a number of questions in Parliament, we have had no information from the Government about any discussions with the US administration or detail. If the Government really does want to maintain what they regard as a bipartisan approach to defence in this country, they need to be more honest with the opposition.”
It is 100% right that Her Majesty's Opposition asks the tough questions but we must not seek to divide Labour's leadership from its increasingly anti-American backbenchers if that could risk losing UK support for missile defence. The Tory leadership must do as David Cameron did on the Trident decision and seek bipartisan support for our only possible defence against a rogue missile attack.
What's in it for us? We could agree to it *if* the American government were to do away with tariffs on all foreign imports, close Guntanamo Bay, commit themselves to fair extradition treaties and abide by international law. If that fails, they can go hang!
Under NuLabour the "special relationship" has been a one-way street.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 25, 2007 at 19:10
Justin, if the EU were to do away with tariffs on all foreign imports, commit themselves to fair extradition treaties and abide by international law then you might have a case to argue that it is a "one way street".
The only thing our Euro masters don't have yet is a decent prison camp, but one would imagine that it's only a matter of time.
We need to support this plan and face down the rabid anti-Americanism which seems to be so much in vogue recently - and not just on the Labour backbenches. I'm all in favour of trying to win hearts and minds on this issue but at the end of the day I would still defy Guardian-sponsored opinion polls and opt for a missile shield to defend the UK.
The Belgians are not going to save us from nuclear holocaust but the US will.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 19:18
I've had enough of the Americans and their warmongering ways.
We need to pull our troops out as quickly as possible. The Americans got us into this mess and they have wrecked Iraq, which was none of our business in the first place.
Let's get out quickly and let the Americans take allthe flak. They deserve it.
Posted by: John Irvine | February 25, 2007 at 19:25
Justin Hinchcliffe's stoopid question of the day: "What's in it for us?"
Simple answer of the day: Our NATO ally providing us with protection from missile attack from a rogue state.
It's not rocket science. Well actually it is!
Posted by: Editor | February 25, 2007 at 19:31
John: Iraq - and the world - is a better place without Saddam. It *was* our business and also the business of every country which values liberty and freedom.
Many countries shirked their responsibilities to stand up against dictatorship and the role call of shame is not entirely a surprising one.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 19:33
Good line about rocket science there Tim!
The irony is that the Strategic Defense Initiative would have been operative by now if Reagan had followed through on his wish for it to be built. The "son of Star Wars" system must not be allowed to fall at the first hurdle in the same way and the President deserves praise for pursuing it with vigour. Will an extreme leftist Democratic Party leadership allow him to proceed however...?
Posted by: Donal Blaney | February 25, 2007 at 19:47
Yes I agree with your editorial Tim. However I would also agree with those who believe we need to seek to extract the maximum advantage commercial or military from the US wherever we can.
Posted by: malcolm | February 25, 2007 at 19:49
What has Europe got to do went this debate?
What "nuclear holocaust", do you know something we don't?
Being an ally of America, Ed, does not mean having to go along with every hair-brained scheme that they come up with. The original Star Wars was a pack of lies to frighten the Russians. It was - and still IS - totally impractical and could not be implemented (read all the testimonies of those involved!). And how can you ask other to refrain from personal abuse when you yourself indulge in it?
What freedoms and liberties do they have in Iraq today?
THE COLD WAR IS OVER - STOP TRYING TO FIGHT BATTLES THAT WERE FOUGHT AND WON TWO DECADES AGO!
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 25, 2007 at 19:51
So once we've got this missile defence system, we can get rid of Trident, right?
Hell, why don't we build it ourselves?
Posted by: greg | February 25, 2007 at 19:53
The Americans are injecting huge contracts into their Defence Research again. They are brilliant - Britain does very little Defence Research and desperately needs US contracts for these projects or it will fall way behind.
I remember years ago being involved with a company which Sir Peter Levene had bought and was producing parabolic refelectors for SDI under Reagan.
The contracts are super for research and investment. These clowns like Justin Hichliffe are so dim they don;t even know the Internet came from US Defence Research as did whole slew of innovation
Getting access to US technology and research funds is essential for the future employment prospects of British graduates. Europe is way behind in these fields.
Posted by: TomTom | February 25, 2007 at 19:57
Justin asks, "What freedoms and liberties do they have in Iraq today?"
Well, they have the freedom to elect and dismiss their government. It may not be much, but it's something...
Posted by: Arthurian Legend | February 25, 2007 at 19:57
Justin Hinchcliffe: "It was - and still IS - totally impractical and could not be implemented (read all the testimonies of those involved!)."
That is not the view of The Times' Defence Editor.
Posted by: Editor | February 25, 2007 at 20:00
The Iraqi government is made up of US-supporting puppets. Call that democracy?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 25, 2007 at 20:00
What's so special about the Times' Defence Editor?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 25, 2007 at 20:01
Justin, there are two reasons why we can't equip our armed forces with the best weapons.
1) The MOD have a Buy-EU policy because of the integration towards a EU army.
2) The Americans won't sell us their newest kit and give us access to software code (eg for fighter aircraft control systems) because of the EU intelligence-sharing and overly friendly diplomatic relationship with China.
Actually I suppose that makes for three reasons - GBrown won't pay for anything military either.
The Cold War as you see it might be over because you can't see further than Russia. However with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc etc all testing nuclear-capable long range missiles then there is a new dynamic to consider.
It is your views which are anchored in the 80's, not ours.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 20:05
This really shows the confidence the pro-European Tony Blair has in the supposed European Army. Once again he shows how Britain's interests are in direct conflict with the European consensus and yet he is soon to sign a new make-shift European constitution giving away more autonomy.
Would you place British security in the hands of the French?
Posted by: David Anthony | February 25, 2007 at 20:11
David, that is exactly where you are right and Justin is wrong. It is impossible to divorce these questions about our defence from the predations of EU jurisdiction (or 'Competence' as I believe it is termed).
This is a debate doomed to failure. We need the shield. The US will offer to cover us but not let us get hold of operational control because we share everything we know with the EU and the French will then give the code to the Chinese. Not having day-to-day operational control won't bother those of us who actually want to live, but hand-wringing Independent Republic Of Tooting types will prefer a 'moral stand' whilst risking the safety of the country.
The US will then take the sensible option and just give up on us.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 20:27
"These clowns like Justin Hichliffe are so dim they don;t even know the Internet came from US Defence Research as did whole slew of innovation"
What makes you think you have any idea about what I do and don't know. I'm well aware of DARPA's involvement in the internet. The spurious arguments people come up with really do get tiresome. The fact that good stuff comes from military reserch doesn't mean we should back any and every military research proposal.
"I remember years ago being involved with a company which Sir Peter Levene had bought and was producing parabolic refelectors for SDI under Reagan."
That's nice for you. Not sure of the relevance though, unless you are saying that militray research means money and jobs, well duh!
The scientists involved in the original Star Wars program all tell the same story. It was a lot of smoke and mirrors to confound the ruskkies. The technology still doesn't exist and is probably totaly impractical. I'm not saying we should ignore the problem of potential rogue states but an unfeasable and impractical system is not the way to go.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 25, 2007 at 20:38
Not sure of the relevance though
The relevance, I think, was that he was working on a project intended to prevent people waking up unexpectedly dead.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 20:46
The only frightening thing about improving our offence/defence capability is putting these weapons into the hands of another Tony Blair, who for instance found it necessary to bomb a modern European city, Belgrade, for an incredible 71 days!
Posted by: Sally Ridout Baker | February 25, 2007 at 21:08
It seems to me that the world has changed and we now have dodgy minor countries with missiles and soon nuclear weapons. It was always the case that it was going to be almost impossible to dis-invent weapons of mass destruction. As for rockets, there are now even amateur clubs around the world that operate quite spohisticated rockets so the chances of stopping nations is also impossible. This is sad of course, but we must be realists and Govts have a primary duty to protect their citizens. I think this issue differs from previous issues about the US basing nuclear devices on our soil. This is a defensive technology and I think we should explore this option with a view to participating.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | February 25, 2007 at 21:12
It doesn't look like becoming an issue - the Americans are more interested in Poland and the Czech Republic on this I thought?
I don't see why there should be objections to the Americans spending money to defend us. They can't use it to threaten us, can't use it aggressively, I don't understand what the objection would be? Or am I misunderstanding this? Would we be expected to pay for a system to be based here?
In which case, there is a serious funding issue, as we hardly need higher taxes and enough departments (MoD?) seem short of cash as it is.
If that isn't the case, why should we be against it for any reason other than the most ludicrous anti-Americanism?
Posted by: IRJMilne | February 25, 2007 at 21:19
IRJMilne: I think that even if we were to make a fair contribution then it is money worth spending to stay protected from these new rogue states that MattW talks of.
The whole overall taxation issue is a different cup of tuna but I think it is enough to observe that the country is spending more per head than ever before and yet Lab want to mothball half of our Navy. We need to ask where the money is actually going and what we are getting for it.
The bulk of objections to this scheme do indeed boil down to anti-Americanism.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 21:29
I think the issue is that the thing will be sited here to protect the United States. The fact that it might also protect the country where it is sited is an added "bonus".
As what will presumably be the United States primary defensive system any country intending to attack the US (with missiles) would presumably attack the UK first. Thereby a fairly clearcut case of making the UK a target. So to be worthwhile the system would have to be pretty foolproof.
Posted by: greg | February 25, 2007 at 21:37
Also, if the US needs sites in Europe to protect it, doesn't it follow that for the system to protect us we would need sites in, i don't know, Turkey?
Something's not quite right. If by siting it in Europe is necessary to protect the US, then how can it protect us? And if it's not necessary why doesn't the US site it in America?
Posted by: greg | February 25, 2007 at 21:41
Greg, why would an enemy "presumably attack the UK first"? Maybe they would if we were less defended and thus an easier target, but it is in the interests of the US to make the system "foolproof". After all, they are relying on exactly the same system.
The system would be sited in the US, the UK and any other allied countries which sign up. Any country with the system should be safe from attack individually too. Spreading it to as many friendly countries around the world as possible would mean that the whole planet could be covered and safe.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 21:49
I don't think you are describing the system as envisaged. Your "system would be sited in the US, the UK and any other allied countries which sign up", doesn't fit in with statements that Czech and Poland are the preferred options and the UK might not be needed.
And the suggestion is that we will be covered anyway.
Posted by: greg | February 25, 2007 at 22:11
"The relevance, I think, was that he was working on a project intended to prevent people waking up unexpectedly dead"
Then the point was irrelevant since the project was a dead duck from the get go.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 25, 2007 at 22:20
Of course a system like this does not stop functioning at international borders. Systems in Czech and Poland would give a good protection to Western Europe against anything incoming from the East in the direction of us or the USA.
A system located in the UK would only be useful to stop missiles inbound to the USA, Ireland and ourselves. And France maybe, but hopefully the Czech system would have saved them before they needed to surrender.
We would indeed be covered without the system installed on our territory - the question is: is that fair? Shouldn't we play our part in securing the free world?
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 22:20
Justin, what do you define as a "dead duck" project? One which achieves a few years success but fails long term? Concorde? Apollo? That gave us the WD40 I use to oil hinges in my house 50 years later.
One which doesn't succeed but embarks with good intentions? One which is started by idiots with no idea what they are beginning (Marxism springs to mind)?
My apologies, but unsure of your point.
Posted by: Geoff | February 25, 2007 at 22:30
I think they will make the technology work. Plenty of clever people around in US and UK.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | February 25, 2007 at 22:38
"Justin, what do you define as a "dead duck" project? One which achieves a few years success but fails long term? Concorde? Apollo? That gave us the WD40 I use to oil hinges in my house 50 years later."
Nope those would be sucesses
"One which doesn't succeed but embarks with good intentions? One which is started by idiots with no idea what they are beginning (Marxism springs to mind)?"
Neither of which describe Star Wars. A better description would be 'One which doesn't succeed and embarks with no hope of suceeding.'
In case you are still unclear about a 'dead duck' from dictionary.com 'One doomed to failure or to death'. Describes perfectly the original plans.
"I think they will make the technology work. Plenty of clever people around in US and UK."
There were plenty of clever people working on the original version and they didn't manage it.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 25, 2007 at 23:09
"There were plenty of clever people working on the original version and they didn't manage it."
"Stars Wars" was never supposed to work. Most, if not all projects were non runners.
The idea was to give Mikhail Gorbachev the required excuse to end the Cold War.
No one expects this missile system to work.
The idea is to make a profit. The same people will be supplying the other side, in one way or another.
Posted by: Sally Ridout Baker | February 25, 2007 at 23:27
In the future/now the nuclear threat will be from terrorists smuggling suitcase-nukes or similar into the country in trucks.
MAD takes care of the ballistic missile threat.
Now, if America wants to pay us huge sums of money and technology to site their white elephant here then fine, but it is not essential.
Posted by: Jon Gale | February 25, 2007 at 23:43
With today's news about the progress of Iran towards nuclear weapons capability it becomes even more urgent to put in place workable defences against nuclear missiles fired from rogue states. With the current gutless unwillingness of the international community to vigourously address nuclear proliferation to rogue dictatorships it is now only a matter of time before some very undesireable lunatics get their hands on nukes. We must be protected against by the best means possible and Son of Star Wars is that best means.
Posted by: Matt Davis | February 25, 2007 at 23:52
1) I thought MAD (and therefore Trident) was supposed to be our insurance policy. What happened to that?
2) If 'Son of Star Wars' really is the only chance of defence we have, then we're toast, because it's never worked, and isn't remotely close to ever working.
3) If we (and the Americans) really have the money going spare to do this, is this project the best way to spend those defence dollars and pounds? We are currently struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan because of a chronic lack of conventional forces. Maybe expanding our conventional capacity would be a better way to protect ourselves from rogue states? You can pile as many layers of concrete as you like onto the bunker, but if you want to win the war, at some point you have to go out and be able fight.
Just a thought...
Posted by: Adam | February 26, 2007 at 01:48
Fairly critical ommission: how much will it cost us? Clearly some are against it out of Anti-Americanism, and others equally determined to slavishly follow the American line regardless of any other factors.
Frankly, if the US wants to build a missile shield, it will do so - our decision will make no difference to this. If we get near-free coverage also, there appears to be no downside as far as I can see. In an ideal world we'd finance our own system and not be so completely (and slavishly) dependent, but clearly we don't have the economic strength for that.
Posted by: Andrew | February 26, 2007 at 16:01
Justin Hinchcliffe's stoopid question of the day: "What's in it for us?"
Simple answer of the day: Our NATO ally providing us with protection from missile attack from a rogue state.
It's not rocket science. Well actually it is!
But surely we are only likely to get attacked by this 'rogue state' if we continue to be america's unquestioning ally.
If we keep our beaks out of where they don't belong, we won't make enemies and hence will not need this shield.
Nor Trident for that matter......
Posted by: comstock | February 26, 2007 at 22:22
I wish it was the case that if we just mind our own business people will not attack us but its highly unlikely. So long as we are a leading economy it is likely there will be people tempted to attack us. As no-one is proposing we go backwards as a country then we have to prepare to defend ourselves. It seems to me this is a defensive technology and that it could work. Given that the primary duty of a Govt is to defend its citizens, any UK Govt has a duty to consider the technology. A fair point about cost though. The only rational reply might be - Is this the best way to spend the money to defend ourselves against the threat. That must be something any Govt could assess and quantify objectively,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | February 27, 2007 at 00:37
Matt, we don't get attacked because we are a 'leading economy' we get attacked because we can't help sticking our oars in. From Ireland to Iraq, we never seem to learn.
Posted by: comstock | February 27, 2007 at 02:16
Sorry Comstock, there are plenty of nations through history that tried to keep their heads down and got invaded anyway,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | February 27, 2007 at 02:36
and we shouldn't forget that even after all the billions that are shelled out on this God-forsaken project, it doesn't actually offer us that much protection, as it can't handle knocking out more than 2 missiles (that's what's supposed to make it workable this time).
Which has to beg the question whether the best defence against rogue states is to forgo a hefty beefing up of conventional forces in order to construct an unproven and unworkable missile shield that will, even if it does work, only protect us from two missiles?
Posted by: Adam | March 01, 2007 at 01:30
Has this story changed in the last few days?
Blair flagged it as a headline to rescue him from his latest woe's, and as I understand it he was immediately snubbed by the Americans who are looking at using a couple of Eastern European allies as bases.
I am personally not interested in an arrangement with the fag end of a Republican administration who won't even help their most loyal ally, never mind go cap in hand as a prospective conservative government. Lets sort out our own deterrent and stop relying on the Americans.
Posted by: Scotty | March 01, 2007 at 01:52