Friday, January 17, 2003
11:19 pm
Beyond the Pole - 17th January 2003, 23.18
Geoff Hoon, Minister of Defence, appeared before the House of Commons Select Committee for Defence on the 15th January 2003, with two senior civil servants from the MOD, in order to answer questions on the upgrading of the radar facilities at Fylingdales.
Hoon indicated that Britain faced a potential enemy that would be able to fire missiles across the polar region and threaten these islands: North Korea and the dreaded Taepo-dong II missile, which has a range of four thousand miles and could be deployed towards the end of this decade. A civil servant pointed out that, "It has that range that you are talking about and they could test one of those within weeks, although we believe that the capability to deploy them will take possibly to the end of the decade."
Here is a map from www.fas.org that indicates the threat of North Korea to Finland is slim with the Taepo-dong II; to us, it is nil, unless the system was sold to hostile countries located closer to us - a possibility further down the line. (There is a possibility that the missile could be tested by Iran).
It would not be the first time that the government has conjured up a potential threat in order to justify a decision that is based, in large part, on its wish to maintain the present close relationship with the US. The cynics on the Committee were far more eager to see a Memorandum of Understanding signed that would provide technology transfer from the US to GB with the requisite contracts for British companies.
This does not underestimate the threat of missile proliferation and as long as Britain maintains its activist stance in the 'war on terror', we should look to our security. A greater concern for me was Hoon's admission that if national missile defence for the United Kingdom was established, it would have to depend upon interceptors based in continental Europe. Given the attitude of European states to the relationship of the US and the UK, such a deployment could give a veto to states that, quite frankly, do not hold our interests at heart. It would be in Britain's interests for the US to concentrate on sea-based interceptors that we could buy and deploy in the Atlantic, the North Sea and the Med.
Geoff Hoon, Minister of Defence, appeared before the House of Commons Select Committee for Defence on the 15th January 2003, with two senior civil servants from the MOD, in order to answer questions on the upgrading of the radar facilities at Fylingdales.
Hoon indicated that Britain faced a potential enemy that would be able to fire missiles across the polar region and threaten these islands: North Korea and the dreaded Taepo-dong II missile, which has a range of four thousand miles and could be deployed towards the end of this decade. A civil servant pointed out that, "It has that range that you are talking about and they could test one of those within weeks, although we believe that the capability to deploy them will take possibly to the end of the decade."
Here is a map from www.fas.org that indicates the threat of North Korea to Finland is slim with the Taepo-dong II; to us, it is nil, unless the system was sold to hostile countries located closer to us - a possibility further down the line. (There is a possibility that the missile could be tested by Iran).
It would not be the first time that the government has conjured up a potential threat in order to justify a decision that is based, in large part, on its wish to maintain the present close relationship with the US. The cynics on the Committee were far more eager to see a Memorandum of Understanding signed that would provide technology transfer from the US to GB with the requisite contracts for British companies.
This does not underestimate the threat of missile proliferation and as long as Britain maintains its activist stance in the 'war on terror', we should look to our security. A greater concern for me was Hoon's admission that if national missile defence for the United Kingdom was established, it would have to depend upon interceptors based in continental Europe. Given the attitude of European states to the relationship of the US and the UK, such a deployment could give a veto to states that, quite frankly, do not hold our interests at heart. It would be in Britain's interests for the US to concentrate on sea-based interceptors that we could buy and deploy in the Atlantic, the North Sea and the Med.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
January
(87)
- Wouldn't that be something? - 30th January 2003, 2...
- New Labour, New Europe - 30th January 2003, 23.06 ...
- Blair's Appeasement - 29th January 2003, 23.15 Bl...
- Winstone's Czech Mate Interesting article in the ...
- The most special of relationships Geoffrey Wheatc...
- France and Britain are to blame - 28th January 200...
- Linkages - 28th January 2003, 20.55 Behind the sc...
- Benefits of Iraq So, we're sending troops to Iraq...
- Two Fronts According to the BBC fighting has erup...
- Defence Merger - 27th January 2003, 23.14 British...
- 1,192 Possible Terrorists to be caught - 26th Janu...
- Start, Act, Ignore (the Independent) - 26th Januar...
- Back of the Net - 26th January 2003, 17.34 A ha! ...
- Exit Strategy - 26th January 2003, 15.54 Sometime...
- Zimwatch: An Idiot writes - 24th January 2003, 00....
- The Heir of Gladstone and Thatcher - 24th January ...
- 'Winable' According to the Foreign Policy Center ...
- More joys of Europe Five Moroccans found with exp...
- Are the Frogs hopping mad? The French seem to be ...
- If you believe that Shock, horror. Saddam has ch...
- The Argument Changes Again. 24th January 2003. A...
- Is Anti-Americanism in Britain increasing in stren...
- Why are they laughing at me? - 23rd January 2003, ...
- That word, opposition I don't like using the word...
- Hitting the Buffers - 22nd January 2003, 23.21 Th...
- Zim watch: Games people play Electric Review has ...
- Crikey The game really must be up for the Euro. ...
- Iraq, what do we do after we go in? Alexander Coc...
- Philip Gould is burying his head in his hands - 21...
- Philosopher Kings As judges are using internation...
- Objectively Evil I couldn't make this up: The Eu...
- Let Slip... - 20th January 2003, 23.28 Geoff Hoon...
- The Dual Executive is strengthened - 20th January ...
- Further Strength to the Referendum Camp - 20th Jan...
- For Rothermere and Liberty It's been a while sinc...
- Confused and Insecure - 19th January 2003, 21.20 ...
- Beyond the Pole - 17th January 2003, 23.18 Geoff ...
- What's it good for? A good bit of right wing NATO...
- Wrestling with Islam An interesting essay on the ...
- Just War An interesting article on Just War by Mu...
- Not one of our better campaigns - 16th January 200...
- The Battle for Europe is lost. The Battle for Brit...
- W, WWYD? The question "well what would you do?" h...
- Peace of what? A new group seems to be organising...
- Sacked for Blogging Iain Murray has been sacked f...
- 'Britain's role is to unite the world' It's some ...
- Jail for Jokes It's really quite chilling how ben...
- Securing Energy Supplies - 14th January 2003, 23.0...
- More public consultation In an article on the fam...
- Liberalism and the EU redux I'm not sure whether ...
- Identity Problem Do you like the idea of identity...
- Zimwatch: False Dawn? - 13th January 2003, 23.00 ...
- Heralding an Inner Core - 13th January 2003, 20.56...
- Murdoch sells out One of the problems about the A...
- By Jingo what a fuss There is a bit of a to do ar...
- Zimwatch: From Crisis to Catastrophe, From Fear to...
- Italy: Eurocon Referendum - 12th January 2003, 13....
- Brunei: British Gurkhas stay on - 12th January 200...
- Unreported in the UK Media - 12th January 2003, 13...
- Preachers of Hate - 11th January 2003, 21.00 Angu...
- Liberation is a Reactionary Word - 11th January 20...
- Zimwatch: Slow Steps to Genocide - 10th January 20...
- How to do it I remember the peace movement in Ame...
- A real threat While busy bleating about the drast...
- Vulnerability to the Economic Costs of an Aging Po...
- Christianity's Clause in the Eurocon - 9th January...
- American Views of the Palestinian Conference - 9th...
- Not so magic circle The Telegraph reports on plan...
- If you can't win the argument, smear I used to li...
- Cato's take on Prodi's Plan for the EU - 8th Janua...
- Tories keep Eurocon simmering- 7th January 2003, 2...
- NAFTA or EU? - 8th January 2003, 21.05 Talk of cl...
- Don't Blame Religion Javier Solana is profiled in...
- Would you trust your money with them? France and ...
- Zimwatch: Mad Bad Bob - 7th January 2003, 20.15 I...
- I am a Counsellor to an American Prince - 7th Janu...
- Our Foreign Policy in action - 6th January 2003, 2...
- Identification: Friendly Fire - 6th January 2002, ...
- Simply not our job At last there is an attempt to...
- Soft Power - 5th January 2003, 23.58 Walker's Wor...
- American Recessional - 5th January 2003, 23.35 Pa...
- The 30 year rule - 4th January 2003, 8.55 Many do...
- Still at the Heart of Europe - 4th January 2003, 1...
- How is the Swedish model faring? - 3rd January 200...
- Lost Letter This letter does not appear to be on ...
- Importing the problem Srdja Trifkovic writes abou...
- On the other side of the world Some of the more r...
-
▼
January
(87)
0 comments:
Post a Comment