Blairs real reaon for war

[may18]

Saw an article from another poster about our reliance on the US for intelligence, use of cruise, even our nuke detterent. Did blair go to war with bush simply because we CANT say no to the US anymore?. If we had opposed the US and they decided we were to be "punished" it seems we would lose a lot of functionality for chunks of our military?. On a side note, the US is refusing to give our engineers the code to the JSF which means we will be unable to make any modifications of our own, and will be reliant for supplies

the article

_________
We are now a client state

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 £1.25bn 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 edito

[ELMIKE2K3]

I don't think your PM had your country go to war just because he couldn't say no to the US. Like the afghanistan war, he choose to involve your country so as to gain more influence within not only those parts of the world but also within the joint military and politcal alliances between the US/UK as well as nato and the UN. IMO there probably would not ever be a 50/50 partnership in defense contracts between the US and any other country because of the amount of jobs that the US defense industries would lose (JSF/Tomahawk cruise missle, etc) if that would happen and no president would dare step over that line.

[harry hackedoff]

Most excellent post, may 18.
This is Realpolitik writ large. Whether as a result of military dependence on US, or irrevocable ties with Europe, the fact remains. UK`s sovereignty is slowly dripping away.
One day, there won’t be any left.
Aye,

[may18]

@harry i thought i was being paranoid as noone commented ;p.

Its really worrying the thought of having to follow any country blindly whatever their actions.

quote
_______
I don't think your PM had your country go to war just because he couldn't say no to the US. Like the afghanistan war, he choose to involve your country so as to gain more influence within not only those parts of the world but also within the joint military and politcal alliances between the US/UK as well as nato and the UN. IMO there probably would not ever be a 50/50 partnership in defense contracts between the US and any other country because of the amount of jobs that the US defense industries would lose (JSF/Tomahawk cruise missle, etc) if that would happen and no president would dare step over that line.
______

Its not a matter of wanting 50/50 deals, noone could expect that in the UK. Its a matter of giving control of military equipment to another country. For instance, if we had to retake he falklands, cruise would not be useable unless we had permission and targetting aid from the US. Yet our subs are being fitted to use them extensively.

With the JSF. We arent just buying them, we spent billions t become a level 1 partner. Yet the tech is not to be released to the uk to allow us to modify the aicraft at need. We will essentially be assembling kits

[borntokill]

If that article is true May 18, it is somehting to be very worried about, the fact that, however unlikely this may be, if in some amazing twist of events, the UK ever had to go to war with the US, our most modern and effective weapons systems would be of little use, the Tomahawks would be no use whatsoever, our nuclear submarine deterrent force would be useless if things went that far, and the US would know exactly the limitations of our new JSF as they bloody well designed them and have made it so no mod's can be added, it seems once great blighty is under pressure to lose it's sovereignty from all sides, the proposed EU constitution giving European Courts ruling over how our judicical system is run and the Yanks with a choke hold over our military might! The only thing that stops me from breaking out in cold sweats over all this is for one, British Inginuity, no matter what the US do to prevent us using our weapons without permission, I'm sure a great British mind could overcome it, there are countless examples of inginiuty through adversity, eg. The Bouncing Bomb, and the old 'Bulldog Spirit' thats served us well unde rmany trying times.

[harry hackedoff]

Username> borntokill
Signature>If I`m gonna get my balls....poontang
Occupation>Student

Now, why doesn`t that surprise me?
Aye, wonder

[Contractor]

You're such a cutey loz

[Contractor]

amazing what you can do with Microsoft Photo Editor

[borntokill]

Harry, everything in life doesnt have to be dead serious, my name is off of 'Full Metal Jacket' as is my signature, Animal Mother says it, it is a bit of light hearted fun. Take it easy, you'll give yourself a heart attack pal! If you had a problem with my post, address it instead of simply attacking me!

[Andy O'Pray]

I have just heard an interesting news article that would fit into this thread.

Apparently the hand grenades used by the British military are made in Switzerland. When it became apparent that the UK and US were going to invade Iraq, the Swiss stated that they would stop supplying the UK forces with hand grenades and held up a shipment of 10,000 grenades. The Swiss also make a small component for some US missiles. They stopped supplying them as well.

Aye - Andy.

[borntokill]

Loz I feel I must correct you, Pile was not actually called Pile, his real name was Leonard Lawrence, but Sgt.Hartman stated, 'only fags and sailors are called Lawrence' , I would have thought fags and sailors were both the same thing, just in different names! Ha ha only kidding, as I thought of the Navy, for 30 seconds!

[borntokill]

Loz I'm well up for some Poontang, spekaing of the 'Nam era, do you know what always mistifies me, I don't know whether it's freedom of media developing and better technology in media or what. But some of the thigns which happened in the 'Nam, although evoking much discontenet and controversy, such events now would evoke 10 time smore outrage than back then I believe, guess it's just down to society evolving and changing, maybe the fall of the Iron Curtain has out everyone more at ease as well and less willing to tolerate what was seen as essential defence against an imminent Soviet full onslaught? Anyone else have thoughts on this issue?Either way, it inspired some awesome films, everyone should see 'Full Metal Jacket' & Platoon.

[harry hackedoff]

Grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax.
Oooh, yawn, is that the time?
Charles Hawtry was brills in "Carry On Up The Khyber" in my humble opinion.

Take it easy, you'll give yourself a heart attack pal! If you had a problem with my post, address it instead of simply attacking me!

Does Mummy know you`re using the `putor?
Roll on the upgrade
Aye,

[harry hackedoff]

Lobster, you`re a very naughty girl.
Subtle, but naughty
Game of Poontang, indeed
I sit in the passenger seat and Mrs H prefers to drive

[Tab]

Now do we stand with America and support them, or do we stand back until some clobbers us and try and do on our own. I know what I think is right