Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Grumpy old man resents ID cards. Anyone else feel the same?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
If its so easy to clone. I'll be able to get hold of loads of dodgy ones and you can buy them off me.
Missiles at Fylingdales?
Neil Kingsnorth, Yorkshire CND
On 17th October the Independent on Sunday ran an article stating that "Tony Blair has secretly agreed to allow President Bush to site US missiles on British soil as part of the new US "son of Star Wars" programme". Whilst Yorkshire CND had heard rumours before of the possibility of Star Wars interceptor missiles being sited on UK soil, and rumours of them being at Fylingdales, we did not expect the announcement to come at that point. Yorkshire CND would oppose the siting of any Star Wars missiles in the UK and has already declared that if they end up at Fylingdales, or anywhere else, we will do all we can to oppose them, including setting up or supporting a peace camp, organising direct action and large demonstrations and raising awareness.
jjj
Fylingdales Star Wars base - Will this be the home to a set of Star Wars missiles?
HOW LIKELY?
However, are missiles really likely at Fylingdales? We can be fairly confident that the UK has been consulted about hosting an interceptor missile site. The US is currently keen to set up interceptor missile sites in Poland or the Czech Republic and has been lobbying both states hard, with both showing a willingness to host such sites. However, this does not mean that the UK and US have not entered in to unofficial discussions on the possibility of hosting interceptor missiles in the UK as well. Just as Tony Blair unofficially gave the nod for the use of the Fylingdales radar for Star Wars months before the UK government admitted to discussions (and indeed just as the same happened with the Iraq war) so it is safe to assume that such "unofficial" discussions have probably taken place.
We are sceptical however about the siting of missiles at Fylingdales. Not only is there no need to base missiles at Fylingdales, but it makes no sense to do so. Why locate the missile interceptor silos at the same place as the radar tracking facility (Fylingdales)? There is no operational reason for doing so - the two do not need to be close geographically. A missile interceptor base is a very different military and institutional facility - and a higher risk target. It is more suited to Lakenheath or Fairford. The creation of a missile silo facility at Fylingdales would require considerable destruction of National Park land and expansion of the base and its security fencing - something that would cause popular opposition amongst the local population and authorities (on top of that caused by the siting of missiles there at all).
More importantly though, the siting of interceptor missiles at the same location as the tracking facility makes it possible to target and destroy two elements of the system with one attack. Star Wars sites based outside of the US homeland are perhaps easier targets than those based on US soil. They are the frontline of the system and targeting and destroying one such element could severely reduce the effectiveness of the system as a whole (ignoring for the moment the fact that the system is apparently ineffectual anyway in its current state). Disabling Fylingdales for example would make spotting and tracking missiles fired from North Africa or the Middle East harder (though not impossible, since the Star Wars sysem will eventually employ a host of different spotting and tracking systems). Disabling Fylingdales and a set of 6 - 12 interceptor missiles based in the same place in one strike not only means you may disable or slow down the Missile Defence system but that, even if it still works, you have reduced the number of interceptor missiles.
Fylingdales may be tempting as a site for interceptor missie silos because it is not an easy place to demonstrate at, being as it is on the top of the cold, wet North York Moors. But would that in itself be enough to convince the US or UK military that they should risk losing two elements of the same system in one attack?
THE GOVERNMENT SAYS ...
On 28th October 2004, in response to a question from Menzies Campbell MP, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said "There have been no discussions between Ministers or officials of either government about the stationing of interceptor missiles in the UK. The Government have not yet decided whether the UK requires its own missile defence, and our discussions with the US on missile defence matters do not therefore involve specific architectures or basing assumptions." Sadly this tells us very little as, on Missile Defence, as the initial Fylingdales decision showed, the word of Geoff Hoon cannot be trusted.
WOULD IT WORK?
It is worth noting that missiles sited at Fylingdales would not be able to function as a boost phase intercept system (attacking the aggressor missile early on as it boosts itself upwards) as they would be positioned too far from the perceived launch sites. The missiles would instead form part of a midcourse intercept system (intercepting missiles in the mid part of their journey, whilst outside the atmosphere) but the effectiveness of the midcourse intercept system is questioned by many since the aggressor could deploy countermeasures such as decoys (which are released by the missile in the midcourse phase and make follow the missile's trajectory, making it hard to pinpoint the real warhead). Even if the incoming missiles can be intercepted in the midcourse phase the UK government must be question where the debris of such an intercept would land ? An midcourse phase intercept by missiles fired from Fylingdales could lead to debris landing in the UK, depending on where the intercept took place and what kind of intercept was deployed.
One other point is that scientific studies such as those of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Physical Society seem to indicate that boost phase intercept will be too difficult and may not be able to prevent the missiles reaching the US. The only known way of destroying an ICBM is to use nuclear tipped interceptors. Although the generation of an electromagentic pulse from this type of missile may cause problems for friendly electronic systems, if the encounter is carried out far enough away it might not effect systems based on the US mainland. Could this imply that UK hosting of interceptor missiles might mean the hosting of nuclear-tipped missiles for attacking objects in space?
Russia reacted to the Independent on Sunday's article with astonishment and anger stating that the move would "represent a disturbing new step" in international relations and posed a "possible threat to the security of Russia". Such statements add fuel to concerned groups like Yorkshire CND's much repeated point that the US Ballistic Missile Defence system already poses threats to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.
Further, the basing of missiles on UK soil would dramatically increase our involvement in the system and would make whichever area hosts them a considerably greater target for attack.
Yorkshire CND is currently sceptical about the basing of Star Wars missiles at Fylingdales but that does not mean we should not be concerned about the potential, that it won't happen or that if it does happen we won't be ready to act. We shall have to wait and see if any area of the UK is chosen to host Star War missile silos. In the mean time we will continue to call for openness and acountability from the UK Government and will resist all attempts at further involvement in Star Wars.
Because!
In the last few years a gigantic pyramid has replaced the once familiar golf balls. The radar system has been significantly changed - a sure sign that the base still performs an important role in the ever-developing technology of the US Star Wars system. The "upgrading" of the base was announced in 1985 after the US Space Command (based in Colorado Springs) decided that the three mechanical radar dishes would be replaced by an electronically steerable Large Phased Array Radar (LPAR). The contract was eventually awarded to Raytheon who also upgraded the system at Thule in a similar fashion in 1987. Despite increasing opposition locally and nationally in the U.K., work on the new system started in August 1989 and it became operational in October 1992.
It cost around £200 million, of which the US paid 70% (for the radar technology) and the UK 30% (for the operating infrastructure). The LPAR is a three-faced truncated pyramid-shaped structure about 32 metres high set on a building 7 metres high and 36 metre long on each side. Each face is about 40m across and contains an array of 2,560 aerials (circularly-polarised `Pawsey stub' antennae), each of which produces a transmitter power of 340 Watts, giving an overall mean power output of 2.5 Megawatts. The new radar has a similar output power and the same 3000 mile range as the old one. The building houses the operations rooms and support equipment.
A communications dish is also mounted on top of the modernised radar building in a dome about 1.3 metres in diameter. The access road connects the base from the A169. A 3-metre high security fence 105 metres square surrounds the building at a distance of about 35 metres (see map of base ). The break up of the Soviet Union has meant that the US military have had to search for a new "enemy" to justify the enormous expenditure on this type of system. The new radar at Fylingdales covers a much wider area than the old system, it has a 5000 km range and is unique in having three active faces and a full 360o coverage.
The strategic importance of the base was emphasised when, in January 1999 a new high security electric fence was erected (see news item of 8/1/99).
The US now intend a further upgrade so that it can be used as part of the National Missile Defence (NMD) system to shield the US mainland from missile attack by a combination of radar and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defences. (See 'NMD upgrade' ).
Feeling any safer yet?
Yes I feel very safe thank you
But as a Lancastrian, I couldn't think of a better place to put nukes than in Yorkshire !
I suppose that the fact everyone knows where Yorkshire is, means that they stay hidden........ rather than a "boomer sub" spending several months submerged would be easy to find and target ?
(oh and when not sub mounted, stored at Kineton in Warwickshire)
The subs live in Scotland.
http://www.tridentploughshares.org/
The UK's Trident nuclear weapons system is based on 4 submarines which carry between 12 and 16 missiles, each of which can deliver a number of 100 kiloton warheads to individual targets - mass destruction on an unimaginable level. These subs are based at Faslane, thirty miles from Glasgow, and armed at Coulport on Loch Long, while the warheads are manufactured at Aldermaston and Burghfield in England. Faslane and Coulport are just two of at least 39 Trident related sites in Britain which are the legitimate targets of our disarmament action. At the moment one of the submarines is being refitted at Devonport in Plymouth.
Do wish you would get some facts right !
Heathrow is British Airways base, but very few of the 'planes they own are there at any one moment.
My desk is in Scouseland, but I spend at least 1 day a week on the road.....
So why would anyone bomb a submarine base, when the subs arent there ?
Phoned the bank, their conclusion after looking at the account, a cloned copy of the card is in circulation!
BASTARDS!! How i wish the person at the paying at these places had to present ID .... hopefully CCTV will pick it up.
The only good news is that the bank will refund any dodgy transactions prior to a full investigation.
...sigh...
but even then it'd be fake.
Being serious, my original comment was I wouldn't mind if one card replaced all the others that I carry around.... driving licence, passport, credit cards, library tickets etc etc
I would 'cos they'd then all be on the same database which would allow the govt. to find out a worrying amout very easily.
The NHS database is a mess ( like so much of the NHS) and the original "DHSS/ Inland Revenue" d/b in Cumbernauld never really worked, but things have been getting a lot better