Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

The question Nuclear defence

Tony Blair is under pressure from George W Bush to sign up to the US nuclear defence strategy. This implies allowing America to use UK defence systems.

What do you think of letting the US use RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire to warn it of impending attack?

If the US wants other nations, such as the UK, to help defend itself against the perceived threat of nuclear (and other long range missile) attack form 'rogue' nations, then it should give more consideration to its international policies. President Bush has, in four months, managed to alienate most European and many developing nations with his stance on global warming and the Kyoto protocol and his antagonistic attitude towards China has only increased international tension.

Perhaps with a less adversarial, more inclusive approach to international relations, the US would not need the national missile defence system.

The UK should not become involved. The system is in breach of existing international treaties and our involvement would increase our profile as a target without benefiting our own national security.

Chris Hoy, 29, assistant engineer, Glasgow

In principle sharing information should be in everyone's interest. I am, however, concerned that America, with GWB's finger on the button, will not necessarily allow anyone else to share in the decision as to what an appropriate response might be when a blip shows on one of our screens.

Anthony Taylor, 57, consultant, St Albans

There is no simple answer to this issue - it can be addressed at several levels. First, is such a shield around the US useful, or even necessary? While the US administration may think it is, the answer from both a global and European perspective must be 'probably not'. If, and it must be a big if, the technology is successful then there could be a global role for such a system, if it is intended as a defence against rogue states, as George Bush pretends. In that case it should be promoted by some international body such as the UN and not by a single government. I suspect the real reason is to enable the US to exert its influence over the rest of the world, and probably not in a benign way.

Rupert Whitmarsh, 55, associate, Hammersmith

If the UK is to allow the US to use defence systems based in the UK we should ensure that we get some advantage from it.

In principle I would not object to such an arrangement.

However, what I do totally disagree with is the US, or any other country, unilaterally withdrawing from an existing treaty. If the US does not secure agreement from Russia to the development of this missile defence system, the UK should not be party to enabling its deployment.

Richard Monk, 44, director of facilities, Northampton

The only people to object to this can be people who might be thinking of attacking the US and I am not one of these.

Tom Moss, 60, projects director, London Colney

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.