UK cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission




 
--
 
July 24th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 

Topic: UK cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission


How do you think? All the allies of USA are simply the "slave" countries?

Britain has lost its sovereignty to the United States
David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

Britain has by now lost its sovereignty to the United States and has become a client state. As Tony Blair flies in to Washington today to be patted on the head by the US Congress, this is the sad truth behind his visit. No surprise, therefore, that the planned award to him of a congressional medal of honour for backing the US invasion of Iraq has been postponed. To be openly patronised in that way, under the circumstances, would be just too embarrassing.
Is it fair to accuse the US of destroying our national sovereignty? The issue is so little discussed that even to make the claim has parallels with the ravings of the europhobes that Brussels plans to make Britons eat square sausages. Yet consider the following seven facts, none of which depends directly on the way the US dragged Britain into Iraq, nor on the current MI6-CIA intelligence blame game about the war.

Firstly, we cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission. The British nuclear-powered submarine fleet is being converted wholesale so that it is dependent on Tomahawks, the stubby-winged wonder-weapons of the 21st century. They transform warfare because of their awesome video-guided precision. But Britain can't make, maintain or target Tomahawks. The US agreed to sell us 95 cruise missiles before the Iraq war, the first "ally" to be thus favoured. They are kept in working order by Raytheon, the US manufacturer in Arizona. Tomahawks find targets via Tercom, the American terrain-mapping radar, and GPS, its ever-more sophisticated satellite positioning system. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is trying to block Galileo, a European rival to GPS, which the French think will rescue their country from becoming a "vassal state".

Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former head of the joint intelligence committee and former ambassador to Moscow, published earlier this year a little-noticed but devastating analysis in a small highbrow magazine, Prospect, of the price we are now paying to the US in loss of sovereignty. Of the Tomahawks purchase, he wrote: "The systems which guide them and the intelligence on which their targeting depends are all American. We could sink the Belgrano on our own. But we cannot fire a cruise missile except as part of an American operation."

The second in this list of sad facts is better known. Britain cannot use its nuclear weapons without US permission. The 58 Trident submarine missiles on which it depends were also sold us by the US. Just as Raytheon technicians control the Tomahawk, so Lockheed engineers control Trident from inside a Scottish mountain at Coulport, and from the US navy's Kings Bay servicing depot in Georgia, where the missiles must return periodically. "Cooperation with the Americans has robbed the British of much of their independence," Braithwaite observed. "Our ballistic missile submarines operate by kind permission of the Americans, and would rapidly become useless if we fell out with them. Since it is no longer clear why we need a nuclear deterrent, that probably does not matter. But it makes our admirals very nervous about irritating their US counterparts."

The third awkward fact is that Britain cannot expel the US from its bases on British territory, or control what it does there. Some, such as RAF Fairford, are well known - surrounded by armed guards as the huge B52s roared off nightly to bomb Baghdad. Others are remote, particularly Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where any British citizen who attempts a landing will rapidly find himself arrested. The bases are given bogus British names - such as RAF Fairford or RAF Croughton - because Britain is ashamed of all this. "The British have never questioned the purposes for which the Americans use these bases," Braithwaite wrote. "The agreements which govern them leave us little scope to do so. It is yet another derogation from British sovereignty."

The fourth fact is about intelligence. The row over scraps of British material used for public propaganda purposes - alleged uranium from Niger, alleged 45-minute Iraqi missile firing times - shows, if nothing else, that MI6 does still run independent spying operations. But it obscures the big truth: the policy-determining, war-fighting intelligence on which Britain depends is all American. The US has the spy satellites and the gigantic computers at Fort Meade in Maryland which eavesdrop on the world's communications. Britain gets access to some of these because GCHQ in Cheltenham contributes to the pool and collects intercepts which the US wants for its own purposes. This is cripplingly expensive: Britain has just invested a wildly over-budget ?.25bn in rebuilding Cheltenham. Yet it brings us no independence.

Braithwaite again: "The US could get on perfectly well without GCHQ's input. GCHQ, on the other hand, is heavily reliant on US input and would be of little value without it."

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, recently - and somewhat drily - let it slip to the foreign affairs committee how the US wears the trousers in the intelligence marriage. America receives all the intelligence that Britain gathers, he said. "On our side, we have full transparency." Britain, on the other hand, merely "strives to secure" transparency from its supposed partners.

These points lead inexorably to the fifth fact about our loss of sovereignty. Britain can no longer fight a war without US permission. Geoff Hoon, Britain's defence secretary, said humbly last month that "the US is likely to remain the pre-eminent political, economic and military power". Britain would concentrate, therefore, on being able to cooperate with it. "It is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the US," he said. As Rumsfeld brutally pointed out, however, the US could easily have fought the Iraq war without Britain.

The sixth fact is that Britain cannot protect its citizens from US power. Blair faces an outcry as he flies into America because the US refuses to return two British prisoners for a fair trial; rather, they have to face a Kafkaesque court martial at Guantanamo Bay.

And the seventh and final fact is that Britain is reduced to signing what the resentful Chinese used, in colonialist days, to call "unequal treaties". At the height of the Iraq fighting, David Blunkett went to Washington to be praised by John Ashcroft, the US attorney general, for what he termed Blunkett's "superb cooperation".

Blunkett agreed that the UK would extradite Britons to the US in future, without any need to produce prima facie evidence that they are guilty of anything. But the US refused to do the same with their own citizens. The Home Office press release concealed this fact - out of shame, presumably. Why did the US refuse? According to the Home Office, the fourth amendment of the US constitution says citizens of US states cannot be arrested without "probable cause". The irony appears to have been lost on David Blunkett, as he gave away yet more of Britain's sovereignty. If we really were the 51st state, as anti-Americans imply, we would probably have more protection against Washington than we do today.

?David Leigh is the Guardian's investigations editor, and Richard Norton-Taylor is security affairs editor
July 24th, 2004  
Jarhead0321
 
I bet you think Michael Moore is one hell of a Director and only speaks the truth too!!!
July 24th, 2004  
Spartan
 

Topic: Re: UK cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission


Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingFrog
How do you think? All the allies of USA are simply the "slave" countries?
And i'm sure they all appreciate you reffering to them as slaves, don't you think? Please keep your anti-americanism in check. This is not a site dedicated to international pissing contests .
--
July 24th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 

Topic: Re: UK cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission


Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingFrog
How do you think? All the allies of USA are simply the "slave" countries?

Britain has lost its sovereignty to the United States
David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

Britain has by now lost its sovereignty to the United States and has become a client state. As Tony Blair flies in to Washington today to be patted on the head by the US Congress, this is the sad truth behind his visit. No surprise, therefore, that the planned award to him of a congressional medal of honour for backing the US invasion of Iraq has been postponed. To be openly patronised in that way, under the circumstances, would be just too embarrassing.
Is it fair to accuse the US of destroying our national sovereignty? The issue is so little discussed that even to make the claim has parallels with the ravings of the europhobes that Brussels plans to make Britons eat square sausages. Yet consider the following seven facts, none of which depends directly on the way the US dragged Britain into Iraq, nor on the current MI6-CIA intelligence blame game about the war.

Firstly, we cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission. The British nuclear-powered submarine fleet is being converted wholesale so that it is dependent on Tomahawks, the stubby-winged wonder-weapons of the 21st century. They transform warfare because of their awesome video-guided precision. But Britain can't make, maintain or target Tomahawks. The US agreed to sell us 95 cruise missiles before the Iraq war, the first "ally" to be thus favoured. They are kept in working order by Raytheon, the US manufacturer in Arizona. Tomahawks find targets via Tercom, the American terrain-mapping radar, and GPS, its ever-more sophisticated satellite positioning system. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is trying to block Galileo, a European rival to GPS, which the French think will rescue their country from becoming a "vassal state".

I believe that if I gave a country a nuclear option and that state choose to use its option and if the reprisal for the act would also include the supplier, id be darn sure i controlled it too. too many darn world court of opinions going around now a days. I believe that if britain truly did not want this option, they would have not agreed to it.

Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former head of the joint intelligence committee and former ambassador to Moscow, published earlier this year a little-noticed but devastating analysis in a small highbrow magazine, Prospect, of the price we are now paying to the US in loss of sovereignty. Of the Tomahawks purchase, he wrote: "The systems which guide them and the intelligence on which their targeting depends are all American. We could sink the Belgrano on our own. But we cannot fire a cruise missile except as part of an American operation."

yeah, I bet he cant. I bet britain cant. oh yes, if i clap my hands hard enough, everyone would could believe that.

second in this list of sad facts is better known. Britain cannot use its nuclear weapons without US permission. The 58 Trident submarine missiles on which it depends were also sold us by the US. Just as Raytheon technicians control the Tomahawk, so Lockheed engineers control Trident from inside a Scottish mountain at Coulport, and from the US navy's Kings Bay servicing depot in Georgia, where the missiles must return periodically. "Cooperation with the Americans has robbed the British of much of their independence," Braithwaite observed. "Our ballistic missile submarines operate by kind permission of the Americans, and would rapidly become useless if we fell out with them. Since it is no longer clear why we need a nuclear deterrent, that probably does not matter. But it makes our admirals very nervous about irritating their US counterparts."

see comment number 2.

The third awkward fact is that Britain cannot expel the US from its bases on British territory, or control what it does there. Some, such as RAF Fairford, are well known - surrounded by armed guards as the huge B52s roared off nightly to bomb Baghdad. Others are remote, particularly Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where any British citizen who attempts a landing will rapidly find himself arrested. The bases are given bogus British names - such as RAF Fairford or RAF Croughton - because Britain is ashamed of all this. "The British have never questioned the purposes for which the Americans use these bases," Braithwaite wrote. "The agreements which govern them leave us little scope to do so. It is yet another derogation from British sovereignty."

Oh yes...that is why we have closed several bases in Britain over the years. Although we have specific leases for every over seas base we reside on, we are always at the rule of their government. I guess China wouldnt arrest anyone landing at one of their bases either.

The fourth fact is about intelligence. The row over scraps of British material used for public propaganda purposes - alleged uranium from Niger, alleged 45-minute Iraqi missile firing times - shows, if nothing else, that MI6 does still run independent spying operations. But it obscures the big truth: the policy-determining, war-fighting intelligence on which Britain depends is all American. The US has the spy satellites and the gigantic computers at Fort Meade in Maryland which eavesdrop on the world's communications. Britain gets access to some of these because GCHQ in Cheltenham contributes to the pool and collects intercepts which the US wants for its own purposes. This is cripplingly expensive: Britain has just invested a wildly over-budget ?.25bn in rebuilding Cheltenham. Yet it brings us no independence.

Braithwaite again: "The US could get on perfectly well without GCHQ's input. GCHQ, on the other hand, is heavily reliant on US input and would be of little value without it."

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, recently - and somewhat drily - let it slip to the foreign affairs committee how the US wears the trousers in the intelligence marriage. America receives all the intelligence that Britain gathers, he said. "On our side, we have full transparency." Britain, on the other hand, merely "strives to secure" transparency from its supposed partners.

These points lead inexorably to the fifth fact about our loss of sovereignty. Britain can no longer fight a war without US permission. Geoff Hoon, Britain's defence secretary, said humbly last month that "the US is likely to remain the pre-eminent political, economic and military power". Britain would concentrate, therefore, on being able to cooperate with it. "It is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the US," he said. As Rumsfeld brutally pointed out, however, the US could easily have fought the Iraq war without Britain.

Seems like britain did ok in the Falklands without our permission. It seems that we do inform them what we are going to do, so they may have the option of deciding wether they are in or out.


The sixth fact is that Britain cannot protect its citizens from US power. Blair faces an outcry as he flies into America because the US refuses to return two British prisoners for a fair trial; rather, they have to face a Kafkaesque court martial at Guantanamo Bay.


Shades of 1812..with the shoes reversed.

And the seventh and final fact is that Britain is reduced to signing what the resentful Chinese used, in colonialist days, to call "unequal treaties". At the height of the Iraq fighting, David Blunkett went to Washington to be praised by John Ashcroft, the US attorney general, for what he termed Blunkett's "superb cooperation".

Blunkett agreed that the UK would extradite Britons to the US in future, without any need to produce prima facie evidence that they are guilty of anything. But the US refused to do the same with their own citizens. The Home Office press release concealed this fact - out of shame, presumably. Why did the US refuse? According to the Home Office, the fourth amendment of the US constitution says citizens of US states cannot be arrested without "probable cause". The irony appears to have been lost on David Blunkett, as he gave away yet more of Britain's sovereignty. If we really were the 51st state, as anti-Americans imply, we would probably have more protection against Washington than we do today.

Maybe so...but i dont think they could survive the tax cut, or the protected status.

?David Leigh is the Guardian's investigations editor, and Richard Norton-Taylor is security affairs editor

it would appear this article was written to do nothing but provoke a response from the uninformed populace of Britain. if anyone in Britain truly believes that we would ever consider making a vassal state out of Great Britain, well either they are wishing for it, or they are improperly institutionalized.
July 25th, 2004  
England Expects (RAF Cdt)
 
 
I'd just like to say that millions of people in Britain think that we're becoming a slave nation and just a mere state, BUT, those millions of people do not see America as the tyrants but the European Union. The EU have taken away many of our law making abilities, we now have to abide by the European judicial system, a common agriculture situation where the Europeans have equal access rights to our fish stocks. Soon we may have a common defense programme and if a new EU constitution is signed, more of our law making abilities and British freedoms will be lost. There is a real chance of Britain becoming a state of Europe and so I laugh at that story from 'The Guardian', it's a complete waste of time reading it. No self-respecting person would believe the trash included within it.
July 26th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
That article tows some light on the future but it is for sure one pro-comm or extrem leftwing journalists that has written it as usual when it comes to those highly anti-american articles. I am used to these type of articles since I live in sweden. And by all means, one of the biggest threats of every skandinavian or european citizen today is this new Fourth Reich EU membership that turns small countries to ghosts and are ruled by the big nations in the so called european union.

That is only a European version of the American New World Order program. What a man can do is to chose 1 European NWO ruled by bankers and UN or 2 American ruled by oil investors and some parts even UN there too. Terrorists or not. Nothing is worth this new EU laws or Patriot Acts in the US.

We are all slave nations and you just have to get used to it or we have to revolt on our own gouverments and put an end to this deadly game of political pissing contests that ends up in the big buisness mans pockets anyway. This is as they said about the civilwar in america, Rich Mans`s war - Poor man`s fight and it is as always the young men of these different nations that dies for the big mans wallet.

And that is the cruel truth about almost every war in the history. Well I am not an commi or a hippie or a anti american guy but I can see this all over the place and thats why I can understand that many of the veterans that showed up in France and at the beaches of Normandy this year questioned if the war and the losses really was worth that big prise all Europe/US paid. And one thing is for sure.

These guys do know what they are talking about. They have seen a war we probably never will see again, because the modern politicians dont give a damn in moral and human lives, they are servents to the big elite in the trade and industry, business world. They are no longer servents for the people, I think the last one of them that tried that thing was J.F.K and we all knows what happend to that family donīt we.

Today there are just puppet governments in the hands of Wall Street and other big financial interests here in Europe, so the article is not entirly wrong in the sence that we the small guys- the ground people, are slaves under the iron fists of the industrial business world that are moving out and leaving us behind.

Quote:
I think it was Benjamin Franklin that stated quote:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserv neither liberty or security".
Well to be honest to you guys I think we are turning into a big group of slaves under our different gouvernments that is in the hands of these big elite in the trade and industry, business world. And yes, I think it was better before the EU and the New World Order idé because then you had more alternatives to make a good life.

If a nation or a union want to end this war on terrorism today they have to cooperate and make some stepps that arenīt legal today or have ever been. Because those shitty wars will never end as long as we are following this UN code and the codes of the bankers and the peace movements. I believe as Patton sometimes. Maby we made war against the wrong guys to be honest but on the same time, Yeah you know what I mean.

Through the history we have seen, a war on drugs we, have more drugs on the streets every year, a war on poverty, we got more poverty, a war on terrorism, we got more terrorism, and all factorys and bussines are moving down to other countrys in the regions where there is still slave sallerys and they are feasting on this and who do we have to thank for this evouloution?.

Well I say the globalists and small pockets of people in this EU have a good time but not all of them thats for sure, so we have no common enemy except for those our own gouvernments have trained and equipted for there sick wargaming through the 19th century and these are now rebellion on the ones that before this have feed them to what they are today.

And to state this you donīt have to be an ******* as Michael Moore is or an idiot that thinks that if we are just woting Kerry we all will survive and the terrorists will go to sleep. The damest thing with all this is that sometimes the leftwing are close to the truth but they are still on the wrong side of the sidewalk to make a change in what we are experiencing today and that is an terrible fact that probably will hunt me for the rest of my life.

Cheers:
Doc.S

July 26th, 2004  
SAINT
 

Topic: Re: UK cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission


[quote="FlyingFrog"]How do you think? All the allies of USA are simply the "slave" countries?






Please use your head and think before you write or post. Since these countries are allies, how can you call them slaves??

I think you're trying to be funny.
July 26th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 

Topic: Re: UK cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission


[quote="HERO"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingFrog
How do you think? All the allies of USA are simply the "slave" countries?

Please use your head and think before you write or post. Since these countries are allies, how can you call them slaves??

I think you're trying to be funny.
Hero,

Just be a little open-minded and don't take things too seriously

When you are a bit familiar with computer things, you know there are Master computers and Slave computers

When USA is the Master, how do you call those "clients"? In Computer terms, you call them "clients" or "slaves"

Of course UK is not so in general, but in some aspects, you know.
July 28th, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by England Expects (RAF Cdt)
I'd just like to say that millions of people in Britain think that we're becoming a slave nation and just a mere state, BUT, those millions of people do not see America as the tyrants but the European Union. The EU have taken away many of our law making abilities, we now have to abide by the European judicial system,

A british citizen if they dont get the decision they want in court they can go to the court of appeal in strasbourg (France) and have another trial under european laws! And quite often the british judge/jurys decision is overruled

a common agriculture situation where the Europeans have equal access rights to our fish stocks.

Spanish and french fishermen are allowed to fish in british waters due to european ruling whilst he british fishing fleets is getting smaller and smaller each year as these european rulings limit where our fishermen can go!

Soon we may have a common defense programme

European army-dont agree as british and european militaries have different trainng, different command structures and with so many british troops likely to go in the european army we wont have enough solely british units to fight wars where europe doesnt want to be involved


and if a new EU constitution is signed, more of our law making abilities and British freedoms will be lost.

We will lose the british monarchy!

There is a real chance of Britain becoming a state of Europe and so I laugh at that story from 'The Guardian', it's a complete waste of time reading it. No self-respecting person would believe the trash included within it.
July 28th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
basically, it was my understanding that "The Guardian" was considered by most brits as the intelligent englishmans "National Enquirer".

Does it have a Nostradamas prediction section, as well as a section for the latest "The Monarch Diet" as well?