US Missile Defence: 
Ten Reasons for UK Concern 
by the Missile Defence Working Group

Written by David Gee and Helen Hughes, June 2002

The full report is available as a pdf file here - below is an Executive summary

 
Missile Defence Working Group

A number of like-minded organisations have met regularly on an informal basis to oppose collectively UK involvement in US missile defence plans. The Missile Defence Working Group was formed by Abolition 2000 UK, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB), Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), Medact, Northern Friends Peace Board, Quaker Peace and Social Witness and United Nations Association, among others. Our common concerns include the impact of US missile defence on international relations, the arms control regime and future peace and security, and also on the security of the United Kingdom.

The Missile Defence Working Group was officially launched at a Forum on US Missile Defence in central London on 31 May 2001.

Executive summary

The fall of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on 13 June 2002 prepared the ground for the United States administration to push ahead with a strategic missile defence (MD) system, which had been prohibited under this bilateral agreement with Russia. During the preceding months, a series of diplomatic initiatives aimed at mitigating the damage from US unilateral withdrawal eventually culminated in Russian acquiescence with the US MD plans. The US commitment to MD should be seen in the context of a reaffirmation of the role of nuclear weapons in its security policy. This 'sword and shield' approach to security has far-reaching ramifications for international relations, international security and the future of arms control in particular. The proposed use of US bases within the UK as part of a US MD system is cause for public and parliamentary concern. Ten points are outlined here:

    1. The rationale for US MD is based on an exaggerated perception of a threat to its physical security.

    2. US MD alters the strategic relationships between nations, so risking provoking other states to develop nuclear arsenals in order to counter the perceived US advantage.

    3. US security policy is straining the arms control and disarmament regime to breaking point.

    4. There are clear indications that US MD plans include the weaponisation of space for the first time.

    5. The opaque operation of US bases in the UK and the lack of parliamentary debate raise questions of UK sovereignty in respect of these bases and their overall accountability.

    6. The use of US bases in the UK would raise the profile of the UK in any missile attack against the US.

    7. The defensive effectiveness of a MD system is highly dubious in principle and in practice.

    8. US MD represents a misuse of resources that could be used to address systemic causes of insecurity to better effect. 

    9. Risks to health and the environment in the UK from WMD exploding over Europe have not been investigated. 

    10. US MD represents a unilateralist policy based on fear of the unknown and undermines the internationalist agenda required for future peace and security.
The proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) deserves international concern and attention. However, a threefold alternative approach, based on diplomatic engagement, progress towards disarmament of the Nuclear Weapons States, and a renewed commitment to the arms control regime, has been sidelined in favour of a military solution that will undermine future peace and security over the long term.

We believe that the UK should not be party to a US MD system and call for a full public and parliamentary debate.