| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Dupe entry: 'Nato warms to plan for BMD shield |
| 2006-07-07 |
| Plans for a Europe-wide missile defence system to protect the continent from possible threats from Iran and North Korea are winning backing from Nato headquarters, while Pyongyang's recent missile tests have reignited debate in the US about a missile defence system. Now all they have to do is find someone willing to develop and operate it for them. And for a price we should do it. A very steep price. Think Denmark. Think Gold. Think Danegeld. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary-general, wants member states to consider seriously a recently issued 10,000-page report that concluded that such a system would be feasible for Europe and added that the dangers posed by Pyongyang and Tehran were increasing. "We need to have an active debate within the alliance on missile defence to ensure that we have a common view and a common way forward," said his spokesman. We've got a common view. Apologize and pay. This week, the 26 Nato ambassadors met to condemn North Korea's missile tests. They are soon likely to discuss the conclusions of the report, commissioned by a Nato summit in 2002. In the US, meanwhile, proponents of missile defence argue that the North Korean missile threat justifies further investment in the ground-based missile defence system. The Pentagon activated the system - which includes missile interceptors in California and Alaska - as North Korea made preparations to launch the Taepodong-2, the long-range missile that exploded within minutes of its launch on Tuesday. Washington is in talks with some Nato member states, such as Poland, the Czech Republic and the UK, about help they can provide with the US's $10bn-a-year (£5.4bn) missile defence system. Who needs more discussion? Only ones missing are Denmark and maybe the Baltics. Several European governments hope they can get protection in return for agreeing to base anti-missile interceptors, vital for the working of the system, on their territories. I don't think so. Money talks Basing walks.Make it all sea based so that Yankee Go Home protests are harder and we can just sail away when they start. But Nato officials believe that a Europe-wide system could complement the US's own military defence, and worry that the unity of the alliance could be fatally undermined if some but not all of the members were protected. Unity of the Alliance? on what? Luncheon venues? Nato has already begun work on an anti-missile system to protect deployed troops, which is scheduled to be ready by 2010 and which the alliance says could become its "largest co-operative project ever". The North Korean missile tests are also likely to give momentum to Japanese co-operation with the US to create a theatre missile defence system in East Asia. Japan originally signed up to work with the US on missile defence after North Korea fired an intermediate range ICBM over Japan in 1998. While the head of the Missile Defence Agency had said he was "very confident" that the US could shoot down a North Korean missile, other officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, have been more cautious, stressing that the system is still in development. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #7 OP and AP I thought my history teacher told me the muzzies had already conquered Europe after the fall of Rome. Do you forsee another fall, re-conquista or should this be considered a dormancy turned metastatic? I think a wise military secretary was thinking of senescense when he termed it diplomatically as just "old europe". |
| Posted by: Kristine Kid 2006-07-07 23:21 |
| #6 AP - because we have to have some place to send all of our left-wing idiots. Europe is closer than Mars, and the shipping's lower. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-07-07 20:33 |
| #5 The Europeans are spoiled children who desperately need us to NOT help them under any circumstances. If theyÂ’re so damn advanced they can build their own missile shield. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-07-07 17:54 |
| #4 Good idea, OP, but why would we want to reconquer Europe? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-07-07 13:59 |
| #3 Suggestion: The United States gets territorial and political control of a few islands - maybe Malta, or Crete, or Rhodes, maybe something else in the Med, Gotland or one of the Danish islands in the Baltic, and Guernsey or Jersey in the Atlantic. We build and operate an ABMD system from there, and Nato is protected. We won't be "forced to go home" because we ARE "home". It'll also give us good launching positions for reconquering Europe after the muzzies make their move and begin taking over. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-07-07 13:46 |
| #2 That "unity of the alliance" crapola means the Krauts don't want to pay. France isn't a military member, so they get squat anyway. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-07-07 13:32 |
| #1 The EUniks can have their missile shield, but they are already seriously infiltrated from within, so what are they protecting? With them, a good defense is never an offensive action. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-07-07 11:41 |