Monday, April 14, 2003
9:22 pm
Missile Defence: Costs and Benefits to the UK - 14th April 2003, 21.20
A dated but relevant article from The Engineer on missile defence. The author, Andrew Lee, argues that national missile defence will be unable to provide protection for the United Kingdom. Yet, the act of upgrading Fylingdales will integrate the United Kingdom further into the missile defence system of the United States and increase the likelihood of an attack designed to degrade the early warning radar system. Fylingdales is designed to detect missile launches from the Near East and raises the profile of the United Kingdom in this unstable region.
National Missile Defence does not form part of the strategy of the 'war on terror'. The system is designed to destroy missiles from hostile states and, as a consequence, this unproven technology potentially destabilises the current hierarchy of power based upon nuclear weapons. It undermines the claim to great power status on the part of France and the United Kingdom. (China, India, and Russia, due to their vast size, remain viable claimants).
NMD is also vulnerable to countermeasures, especially as the system has never been fully tested and requires as yet unproven technologies. The question therefore arises: what advantages does the United Kingdom possess for proceeding with the upgrading of Fylingdales?
Any thought that UK involvement in the missile defence programme will leave the nation nestling under a US-built protective umbrella belongs in the realm of science fiction, according to most commentators. By agreeing to the upgrade of Fylingdales the UK will be buying a share of any future benefits from the limited NMD planned by the Bush administration. Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College, London, said these are likely to come in the form of intelligence, and possibly some protection for UK forces overseas. 'The possibility of the UK mainland being protected is just not a realistic one,' said Clarke. 'We would be buying a share of the information the system provides, and maybe some benefits for our troops operating in particular theatres.'
Clarke said the concept of an over-arching shield above the UK, or for that matter the US, is a legacy of the ambitions of Ronald Reagan that has lodged in the collective consciousness. 'Given enough time and resources, all the bits of such a system could probably be made to work. But could they be scaled up 100 or more times to the level that would be needed? It's just not realistic.'
The upgrade may allow us to retain a superior intelligence capacity compared to our continental rivals and maintains or deepens the close relationship between the defence industries of the United Kindom and the United States. This is the trade-off: better intelligence and defence technology in return for an increased possibility of attack as part of the defence network of the United States.
A dated but relevant article from The Engineer on missile defence. The author, Andrew Lee, argues that national missile defence will be unable to provide protection for the United Kingdom. Yet, the act of upgrading Fylingdales will integrate the United Kingdom further into the missile defence system of the United States and increase the likelihood of an attack designed to degrade the early warning radar system. Fylingdales is designed to detect missile launches from the Near East and raises the profile of the United Kingdom in this unstable region.
National Missile Defence does not form part of the strategy of the 'war on terror'. The system is designed to destroy missiles from hostile states and, as a consequence, this unproven technology potentially destabilises the current hierarchy of power based upon nuclear weapons. It undermines the claim to great power status on the part of France and the United Kingdom. (China, India, and Russia, due to their vast size, remain viable claimants).
NMD is also vulnerable to countermeasures, especially as the system has never been fully tested and requires as yet unproven technologies. The question therefore arises: what advantages does the United Kingdom possess for proceeding with the upgrading of Fylingdales?
Any thought that UK involvement in the missile defence programme will leave the nation nestling under a US-built protective umbrella belongs in the realm of science fiction, according to most commentators. By agreeing to the upgrade of Fylingdales the UK will be buying a share of any future benefits from the limited NMD planned by the Bush administration. Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College, London, said these are likely to come in the form of intelligence, and possibly some protection for UK forces overseas. 'The possibility of the UK mainland being protected is just not a realistic one,' said Clarke. 'We would be buying a share of the information the system provides, and maybe some benefits for our troops operating in particular theatres.'
Clarke said the concept of an over-arching shield above the UK, or for that matter the US, is a legacy of the ambitions of Ronald Reagan that has lodged in the collective consciousness. 'Given enough time and resources, all the bits of such a system could probably be made to work. But could they be scaled up 100 or more times to the level that would be needed? It's just not realistic.'
The upgrade may allow us to retain a superior intelligence capacity compared to our continental rivals and maintains or deepens the close relationship between the defence industries of the United Kindom and the United States. This is the trade-off: better intelligence and defence technology in return for an increased possibility of attack as part of the defence network of the United States.
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)
-
▼
April
(66)
- Diminished - 30th April 2003, 23.50 Sixty years a...
- The Plotter Thickens Matthew D'Ancona writes on C...
- Britain in Iraq - 27th April 2003, 18.20 Given th...
- Putting the puzzle together - 27th April 2003, 17....
- Let us have our say - 27th April 2003, 15.42 Paul...
- What happened in the Convention - 27th April 2003,...
- Paris-US rift - 24th April 2003, 23.00 To reitera...
- What future for the Common Foreign and Security Po...
- News from the Convention - 24th April 2003, 22.17 ...
- George the Dragon Tomorrow being St. George's day...
- A Succinct Precis of Franco-German Contradictions ...
- Wordsmithing - 21st April 2003, 20.32 Perhaps the...
- Biased Biased BBC? The Biased BBC blog has been g...
- The issue of Iraqi sanctions - 20th April 2003, 18...
- Zimwatch: Send for the Troops Alasdair Palmer wri...
- Staying on, and on According to the Telegraph: ...
- So Easy - 20th April 2003, 13.55 It is always a p...
- After Empire Theodore Dalrymple writes a depressi...
- Cheering Crowds One of the most facile of the pro...
- The world's most powerful Trots While talking abo...
- Why National Sovereignty trumps Human Rights Harr...
- Mandarins against the Special Relationship Prospe...
- Divisions on European Defence - 20th April 2003, 2...
- Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British R...
- Is it all just Wilsonian? John Ikenberry's articl...
- Clear as mud Well I think I know why generally le...
- Zimwatch: It can get worse, now the world's starti...
- EU asked for it So we have the formal acceptance ...
- The Fallen - 15th April 2003, 22.46 Some deaths i...
- Unriven There's too many sunny optimists out ther...
- Gabbing We have a new contributor. Dr Sean Gabb,...
- Irrational? 15th April 2003. Has anybody else ha...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Iraq: A spur to European integration - 14th April ...
- Missile Defence: Costs and Benefits to the UK - 14...
- Hungary votes yes - 13th April 2003, 22.22 On a l...
- Those cheering crowds, ctd The picture below come...
- Does the British Government support looting? This...
- The St Petersburg Trio - 12th April 2003, 16.48 C...
- ... or you're with the terrorists So Britain is n...
- Even Governments Lie The lack of weapons of mass ...
- What our rulers think One of those Things I Mean ...
- Damn - 10th April 2003, 22.07 One of the possible...
- The "Reckoning" - 10th April 2003, 21.35 Jack Str...
- Can we go home now? Now that Baghdad is under Ame...
- UNresolved? - 8th April 2003, 22.40 Tonight, Blai...
- Defining Quagmire So what's this worry about quag...
- Further developments in European Defence - 7th Mar...
- The Hungarian Referendum - 7th April 2003, 20.13 ...
- Zimwatch: Spot the difference In South Africa the...
- Understanding Blair (Revisited) - 6th April 2003, ...
- New Forum For those of you who want to have a gen...
- The penny drops: Links update - 6th April 2003, 15...
- Reclaim the Bases - 6th April 2003, 0.26 When doe...
- Was Private Eye the first blog? Discuss This is a...
- Blackwell's Charge - 5th April 2003, 23.27 Lord B...
- Anyone out there who can explain this Maybe my br...
- Losing friends over the war? Here's a way to make...
- Euforia - 4th April 2003, 23.25 Just as a follow ...
- The penny drops - 4th April 2003, 22.55 If you re...
- Zimwatch: Almost official Not much to report apa...
- Now I'm pro-war Welcome to all the Political Scie...
- Trapped by their publics - 1st April 2003, 22.40 ...
- Zimwatch: A deadline passes So the deadline has ...
- More of the same As if to show what's in store fo...
-
▼
April
(66)
0 comments:
Post a Comment