JohnFeb 23rd, 2007 - 15:20:17

I don't see what the big deal is. If you want peace then you have to protect yourself from harm. That's the nature of the beast. If Iran and N. Korea can have nuclear weapons, then we should develop a way to prevent them from using them on our allies or ourselves. If you really think the USA is going to use these sites to strike 'whoever they want' then you are letting your paranoia get the better of you. We have a large stake in the international economy and any sort of action like that would undermine all efforts to keep rogue states from gaining legitimacy through weapons of war.

Report this comment

Matt , ukFeb 23rd, 2007 - 15:25:44

I think the idea is daft they could also be used for shooting down our own missiles should they choose to do so i think this is part of bush's plan for the new world order and all of us should be afraid ...

Report this comment

billbeebyFeb 23rd, 2007 - 15:54:40

i am apalled by this news. how can we ask other countries not to proliferate nuclear weapons when we are perfectly willing to do so ourselves? nuclear weapons are old thinking and we should have outgrown the craziness of mad ( mutaul assued destruction) , Are we seriously saying that we are under threat of a nuclear attack from north korea or iran? that is just stupid if so and Russia is no threat to the west these days and we should try living in peace.Bush and Blair are both as bad as each other when it comes to world affairs and before they were both elected they were totally ignorant when it came to foreign policy and have let themselves be ruled by the neo-cons of USA.Blair should be ashamed of himself and I just can`t wait to see the back of him and Bush, Living under these two war freaks is almost as bad as it was at the height of the cold war to say nothing of the monetary cost involved but then again the arms industry, just like the oil industry, is a big player in USA and i`m sure this policy is coming from them, its another money maker for already rich corporations and we should resist it with all our might.

aged 54 dover in kent.
EX labour voter.

Report this comment

usaFeb 23rd, 2007 - 15:56:15

we cant not trust that that weasel putin, kim dong pong,or that monkey in iran!! it is only a matter of time before we will be fighting the entire world i dont know how effected that sheild would be but if it worry them a little so be it. i forgot to mention china there snikky mices too

Report this comment

AlexFeb 23rd, 2007 - 16:14:10

'The system would enable the US to attack other countries 'without fear of retaliation' is the key.

Americans believe they have enough resources to impose their world dominance.
If the people of the world would see it this way, this domination will be too costly to maintain as most of the people will not like to be ruled from
Washington.

Report this comment

RobFeb 23rd, 2007 - 16:33:42

In truth, the US's missile defense system is much older than the current Bush administration and is hardly the exclusive idea of the United States. Other countries are or have worked on similar systems of their own. Furthermore, it is the stated goal of the agency in charge of developing the US system to defend the United States, our friends and allies, etc from limited attack by ballistic missiles. Limited attack is the key phrase so often overlooked. Rather than bridling and ranting about regimes in America and other nonsense, opponents of the program should first do their homework. The system is viable against only a limited number of incoming missiles; it is useless against a full-blown nuclear exchange. One has only to count the number of available interceptor missiles available to realize the limited scope of this endeavor. Additionally, it is far better to have such an system than to not have it, regardless of the political organization who put it into play. With madmen and zealots in charge of nuclear arsenals the world over, the wisdom of such a system should be a no-brainer. Much of the world has forgotten or is not aware of the staggering, cataclysmic potential for destruction inherent in all nuclear weapons. Protesting the manufacture and employment of nuclear weapons of any kind is wise, smart, noble and just -- we all should be doing that. But these weapons exist in great numbers and none of us can change or refute that; protesting and calling for the end of technology that can offer at least some protection from their use against us is misguided and insane. It is like saying we should never carry an umbrella because doing so will only cause it to rain.

Report this comment

to billbeebyFeb 23rd, 2007 - 18:03:24

''aged 54 dover in kent.''

I would otherwise have sworn your post was written by a ten year old. But then again, I know of ten year olds demonstrating a firmer grasp of history and world affairs (and even spelling) than your post.

Nothing personal.

Report this comment

kiddaFeb 23rd, 2007 - 19:04:31

Surely it should be UK's duty to say no to America just as it was once to say no to Hitler's facism. Come on UK, do the right thing for the first time in half a century.

Report this comment

kautwonFeb 23rd, 2007 - 19:50:09

There really should be no debate on this topic whatsoever. The primary duty of the american govt is to protect its citizens, period. How many times have we heard Iran call for the destruction of 'the great satan'. Well now they are enriching uraniam in plans to make a bomb. And once they have that bomb they will either use it to 'destroy the great satan' or use it as leverage against the americans. It is just retarded to suggest otherwise.

Report this comment

IndianFeb 23rd, 2007 - 20:28:43

provoking other nations by deploying missle sites or establishing military bases world over wont help, I dont understand why the US leadership tends to believe that waging wars will make nations submissive to them. The world needs to unite to stop these two war freaks from causing further damage.

Report this comment