US allowed RAF base for Star Wars

Curlew Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 05:54:51 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

US request for RAF Menwith Hill's monitoring station




Britain has agreed to a US request for RAF Menwith Hill's monitoring station to be used as part of its 'son of Star Wars' missile defence system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6916262.stm





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
US allowed RAF base for Star Wars | 33 comments (33 topical)

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#1)

by JM on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 06:13:33 PM GMT

I'm pretty supportive of this.


Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#2)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 06:48:50 PM GMT

not so sure


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#4)

by JM on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 06:57:09 PM GMT

I just think that, if we've got a system that could potentially defend us from nuclear weapons, why not build it?

I simply don't buy the 'new arms race' arguement. Other countries don't have a capacity to outspend the west on that sort of thing and wont even try.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#12)

by BF on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:55:37 AM GMT

Unfortunately the system has not worked in the last five years of US testing.

But Fylingdales, as an early warning base, would be the obvious initial target to knock out if a state did want to launch a missile attack on the US.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#14)

by repub on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:12:23 AM GMT

In Europe the system will require early warning bases in Fylingdales and one in the Czech Republic, with interceptor missiles in Poland.

The latest poll from the Czech Republic says 65% are opposed and 28% in favour.


The latest poll from Poland says 57% are opposed with 25% in favour.

There hasn't been one on it in Britain lately, though CND is organising this conference on 1st September with Jon Trickett MP speaking.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#3)

by MM on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 06:56:44 PM GMT

I doubt we will hear a whimper about this, it's remarkable how quiet people have gone.  If this had happened under Blair many Labour MP's would have been on the rampage.  Now they are just content to have their tummy's tickled.  I'm all for loyalty to the PM/Cabinet but surely a few backbenchers in the Parliamentary party should start asking some questions on the direction of policy Brown is taking.  For example, why is a border police force ok now, but was deemed unworkable in 2005 and 3 months ago?


But we wo'nt hear anything because we are 6/7 points ahead in the polls.


Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#5)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 07:56:58 PM GMT

I broadly support this RAF base decision.

But I agree, it is incredibly frustrating how if Blair had done this there would have been outcry. But now that Brown does it, we hear nothing.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#6)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 08:34:23 PM GMT

paticularly on Brown's 'moral compass' agenda. many are simply accepting that skunk must be 103 times stronger than Cannabis. While I am critical on Blair for many of his illiberal policies (paticularly in the legal-process e.g. longer detention, ID cards, SCOPA etc. etc.), he introduced supercasinoes, declassified Cannabis, and the licensing laws, gay rights. it seems (apart from gay rights) that brown is using his 'son of a minister' arguement for many issues, and while people may disagree with the casinoes and 24-hour drinking, we have to give people that freedom.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#7)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 09:00:27 PM GMT

Absolutely jkitleft.

The 'son of a minister' argument certainly doesn't wash with me. And with regards to gay rights, as has been pointed out, Brown barely bothered to turn out for the gay rights votes over the past 10 years - so we don't even know whether he is supportive of them or not.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#8)

by MM on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 09:02:10 PM GMT

I thought this was a pretty interesting analysis on the Times website, suggesting behind all the soundbites today's statement on terrorism was pretty authoritarian.  (Some will argue no bad thing, but I expect Brown will get great prase in the Indy and Guardian.  Yet he is advocating longer detention and ID cards).

Comment: A distinctly authoritarian statement
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2139697.ece?openComment=true#comments-form

Interview with Dame Ruth Runciman who argues that cannabis should remain downgraded:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=470719&in_page_id=17 70


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#18)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:45:40 AM GMT

I'm very sceptical of some aspects of the bill, paticularly the 56-day detention clause. The change needed, is not more draconian laws, but I think one law that is needed, is to allow phone-tapping evidence in courts.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#9)

by MM on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 09:06:04 PM GMT

I should make clear I'm supportive of the RAF decision, I was just making the point if the decision was made under Blair their would have been a huge outcry.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#10)

by Loz on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:08:40 AM GMT

Why shouldn't we be a part of this system?


The russians dictatorship (and lets not mince our words - that's pretty much what it is), is a threat to our security, the wacky north korean leadership is a threat, and so is the islamo facist leadership in Iran.


I'd like to see more Euro cooperation with America on this one. The Germans to be fair have been fairly positive about this - which is a welcome development.


Sadly many of these backbenchers are a massive dissapointment to me - we have people actively supporting people like Hugo Chavez.


That is not and should not be what our party is about.


And neither should be automatically opposing every controversial bit of transatlantic cooperation.


We need to think about our own security.


If that gives us -  a free and democratic nation added security and one up on some of our foes then all the better.


In the long run - when we have a free and democratic world - I'll happily join in whatever protests the CND launch - in fact, I'll hold the banner at the front.



Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#11)

by MM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:40:32 AM GMT

I'm not sure we need to enter into Russia bashing, we have enough of that in the press.  (If I hear one more highly paid BBC journalist use the phrase 'new Cold War', I shall scream). 

Was Russia a dictatorship when Blair was courting Putin in the late 90's and they were enjoying the opera in the Moscow?  I'm sure once the current crisis is dealt with, Britain and Russia can get back to having decent relations and continue to improve their close economic ties.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#13)

by BF on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:00:25 AM GMT

"People like Hugo Chavez" - someone who regularly wins large majorities in free and fair elections - with increasing turnouts!

Oh and someone who uses his country's natural resources to redistribute wealth and provide free healthcare and education to millions for the first time.

You probably think Alice O'Keeffe's article in the New Statesman was a reasonably attempt at journalism.

But on US Missile Defence, lets not pretend Menwith Hill is under UK command - its under US command. And the US should admit Missile Defence is focused on Russia - otherwise they might use the radar base Putin offered, which is in a much better geographic location than Brdy in the Czech Republic.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#17)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:42:44 AM GMT

Nick Cohen has made the interesting point, that the left entertains the notion that Socialist dictatorships aren't as bad as Fascist dictatorships. Cuba, Venezuela, and China are praised by many on the left. While I have u-turned on one aspect of Venezuela, shutting down the opposition station, which I now can understand/defend, seeing as they called for a coupd'etat, he now wants critical foreigners out of the country. We can't just defend Cuba because they have a brilliant healthcare system, which seems to be an arguement many use to defend Cuba. Meanwhile, Communist China opresses 20% of this planet, as well as Tibet, Taiwan, Macao, and Hong Kong. The 'Left', is not always, morally superior.

I personally don't  support the missile sites.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#25)

by Loz on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:16:36 PM GMT

Again please get your facts right.

We are DEMOCRATS - we believe in democracy.

Did you know that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON was ever even ARRESTED in connection with those accusations?

Do you support that?

What happened is that chavez abused the rule of law to shut down a network - the largest and oldest in the country.

Chavez himself participated in an illegal coup for which he served prison time.

Further to this - did you know the state has been turning its eye to groups of peasants that it supports financially that have been going around STEALING land from wealthy landowners - in which several people have been killed?

Did you know that hugo chavez has in fact BROKEN the laws of his own constitution which FORBIDS politicization of the military? They know must take an oath 'socialism or death'.

Did you know that state workers are now forced to undergo classes in socialism - which is really state indoctrination.

Or how about the fact he recently called for foreigners that criticise him to be EXPELLED from the country.

The fact he is negotiating arms deals with the IRANIANS and Europe's last dictatorship Belarus.

WHERE is the criticism of that? People should not be so stupid and desperate that they'd support socialism regardless of how evil a leader may be.

Do answer these points these idiot far leftists ignore when they cosy up to a nasty demagogue that gives all of us a bad name.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#27)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:16:43 AM GMT

was this for me or BF?


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#28)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:28:18 AM GMT

I take back my comments about supporting or defending the removal of the TV station, but an anti-Chavez coup d'etat  is no better than a pro-Chavez coup d'etat.

So my position, is now more along the lines of, for instance, if Channel 4 was calling for a coup d'etat against Brown, and Brown were to remove it, I could definitely understand it, not defend it, but understand it.

But while we criticise many of the obvious targets (not that there any better than the countries I'm about to list), many do not feel the wrath of criticism we should be giving them. I was pleased to find the Independent devoting it's front page towards the awful Burmese regime. I have to praise Bush for actually criticising this regime, which other leaders have given a lacklustre peformance in. UK won't give sanctions without the EU placing sanctions. A lucrative defence and oil contract lures France into doing nothing about Burma. But we do have some sanctions. On a bannana factory. a bannana factory. I would contraversially (and against all my principles), allow China to buy weapons from European countries, to try and stop them selling weapons to Burma.

This is just one country, in which i ask the Left to pay more attention to.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#19)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:42:11 PM GMT

Chavez - also that man who eliminated any media which dared to oppose him and runs Venezuela like a dictatorship?


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#20)

by repub on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:17:19 PM GMT

Sorry your attempts to attach Chavez should at least pretend to have some factual basis. This is just wild.

Most estimates I have seen are that around 85-90% of the current media outlets in Venezuela can be termed 'anti-Chavez'. They are free to continue publication.

You refer to a situation which could be described in Britain as ITV devoting their entire channel to calling anti-government demonstrations, urging people to storm Downing st, and then Gordon Brown telling them they can only broadcast via cable and satellite rather than terrestrial.

Hardly the authoritarian crackdown you want to use against him!


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#23)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:19:19 PM GMT

Look, I'm not going to agree with you on this and I think most people in this country would view Chavez as a rogue who isn't worth giving the time of day to.

For some reason I've found that certain elements of the Labour party seem to have some obsession with Chavez and feel the need to defend him whenever anyone says the slightest thing against him.

All I'm going to say is that people would not be criticising him so severely if there wasn't an element of truth in what they're saying. There's no smoke without fire, right? Anyway, I severely dislike Chavez, I don't regard him as the least bit democratic and I don't regard him as someone the Labour party should have any connections or loyalty to.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#22)

by BenS on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:30:02 PM GMT

I think you need a bit of a reality check - the fact you disagree with Putin (and you may be right to) doesn't make him a dictator - his term comes to an end next year. You talk of the threat of North Korea, but they are dismantling their nuclear programme and don't have intercontinental missiles etc. etc.

What NMD is certainly doing is whipping up tensions - in the current climate it's not suprising that Russia feels they must respond to missiles put near to their borders. This is how escalation happens - not all the blame has to be on one side, but creating such situations should definitley be avoided unless necessary.

CND are hosting a conference on Missile Defence at SOAS on Saturday 1st September and will include debate on the British, European and global dimensions of the system, with speakers from the UK, US, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

If you're interested in coming along (it's free and open to all), you can get more details from  http://www.cnduk.org/images/nmdsept07.pdf - call CND on 0207 700 2393 to order free leaflets to distribute round your CLP.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#24)

by Loz on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:08:56 PM GMT

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Putin for me is just a puppet - the Russian system is basically a 'dicatorship' - that is the structure and I would urge you to do some research about how the opposition is treated and free speech in general in Russia today. Democracy today offers a choice only between vetted candidates. 

Putin is really just an idiot - a convenient dummy for the kremlin.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#15)

by Radford Mann on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:26:31 AM GMT

This is a really bad decision that could potentially lead to a new arms race diverting resources away from the really important issues.


As Lucy might say, 'Good grief, Gordon Brown.'


Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#16)

by Curlew on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:07:21 AM GMT

It's less Star Wars, more energy wars.  Yes, it probably is against Russia who are tying up deals with the ex soviet states for much of the available oil and gas.  China is making deals with Iran and the US/UK have f**ked up the attempt to grab the Iraq oil.  Makes you wonder what the original cold war was about - breaking up the soviet union for a chance to deal with the individual satellites directly?


Quite frankly, unless the US make some attempt to reduce their per capita consumption, I'm in no mood to support them.




Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#21)

by grimupnorth on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:52:22 PM GMT

curlew, absolutely agree. and why  no  voices  of opposition apart  from CND?


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#26)

by Lorin on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:24:42 AM GMT

We shouldn't have the Star Wars in Britain.


The US shouldn't place missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland, if it were against Iran they would have placed it in Azarbeijan as Putin proposed.


Putin shouldn't have threatened to place the missiles on europe, he should have placed the missiles in Cuba or Venezuela, then the US would have backed off.


I don't support Putin or his Crimes in Chechnya, unfortunatly most russians do.

He has given them a good economy and basicly cleaned up the mess Yeltsin made.

If there are democratic elections in russia Ivanov the Defence Minister will probably win.


On Chavez: I don't support his removal of the TV station even though it took part in the coup against him.

In Nicaragua during Contras opposition papers were calling for the fall of Ortega's government.

I also don't support his deals with Iran, thats not how a left winger should behave.

However, when you look at all the other countries that have Oil say: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia, I would rather by it from him, that is untill we use only renewables and nuclear power and only electric cars and public transport :)


Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#29)

by Loz on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:51:07 PM GMT

I don't think I was directing at you, although I would my comments about the RCTV case.


The evidence they actively supported a coup is pretty flimsy.


For instance - the head of the RCTV network was pictured meeting with the coup leader after the coup.


My answer to that would be to refer you to my ever handy 'coups for dummies' guide book.


'So you've just carried out a coup. What now:


1. Get your face on TV - the most popular and established TV network should prvide the stage for your first public appearance'.


Basically speaking - it makes sense.


The other criticism I hear of is


'They refused to show the pro chavez protests that bought him back to power'


My point would be - Which law says they had to show that?


It might be extremely bias and extremely unprofessional - but no, it's not illegal.


Also the government had previously ordered them off the air anyway (along with every other private broadcaster) .


Please do consider these other points:


 - No legal authority has every even arrested anybody on these charges which ammount to treason, so to justify not renewing their license on that ground is a COMPLETE abuse of legal authority.


If Blair had tried the same thing - to shut down papers these same people in our party would not defend him - indeed they'd attack him.


 - I ask all of you - do you think it is acceptable for the leader of a country to have control over who is on the air as much as Chavez clearly does? Is that good for democracy?


- Where are the criticism for chavez forcing private tv stations off of the air for for broadcasting a strike organised by the countries largest trade union.


Labour is the party of the unions - so why the hell would we ever tolerate such an assault on their right to protest?


Further to this Chavez also tried to sabotage the protests - FORCING tv stations to air his speeches and those of other government ministers - drowning out the massive union protests. Also remember this was BEFORE the coup - any accusations the union was involved in the coup is baseless and legally non existant.





Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#30)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:39:56 PM GMT

I just remembered that when I was refering to a debate about Blair, I apparently believed in freedom of the press, but apparently this didn't apply to my comment earlier about 'I can understand/defend' what Chavez did.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#31)

by Loz on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:48:29 PM GMT

If you defend what chavez did - then no, clearly you do not believe in freedom of the press or the rule of law in democratic society.

I wasn't even directing it at you (just the way that comments mapped out), but really to those amongst us who do defend this man and his regime.

So please don't take offense  - and if you will, respond to the many other points I made.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#32)

by jkitleft on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:35:48 PM GMT

it depends what 'calling for a coup d'etat' means. and I've come to the conclusion that, even if they had called for revolution, it's not good to get rid of the TV station, and 'called for revolution' probably means, invited an anti-Chavez protester on to a talk show.


[ Parent ]

Re: US allowed RAF base for Star Wars (#33)

by Loz on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:20:40 PM GMT

Sure, exactly.

You know, even if they HAD actively participated in this coup, surely in a democratic nation - those that commit the crime of treason (because that is what it is) should be dealt with by legal authorities rather than presidential power?


[ Parent ]

US allowed RAF base for Star Wars | 33 comments (33 topical)