The United States was expected to have announced in the autumn of 2004 that its planned ballistic missile defence system was operational. That announcement was not made, but since then there have been two failed test launches of the system, in spite of the billions of dollars that have been spent on researching and developing the technology.

US ballistic missile defence in its present configuration has its origins in the Bill Clinton administration. Whilst that administration was showing cautious interest in developing a scheme for missiles to intercept missiles, the Republican administration under the presidency of George W. Bush has placed a very high priority on its development at the earliest opportunity, with the consequent financial implications. There are now interceptor missiles in California and Alaska and a growing network of associated industrial and military facilities in the US and other parts of the world.

What has this to do with the United Kingdom?

The closeness of the relationship between the two countries has been only too evident in recent years. It was, therefore, of little surprise that the Blair government agreed in early 2003 to the upgrade and use of the Fylingdales US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system in North Yorkshire.

Our government has also established a 'virtual' Missile Defence Centre which aims to help British firms obtain US Missile Defence related contracts and to develop a better understanding of the technology through close collaboration with the US. No major contacts have yet been signed with UK industry, although in 2004 it was revealed that the UK government had already spent £30 million on research into missile defence. This is in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Defence has stated that there is no current danger to the UK of a missile attack.

Australia, Japan, India and Denmark have also reached agreements to collaborate with the United States in a variety of ways, including the purchase of missile systems and the use of bases as the 'eyes and ears' of the system.

In the future, it is very likely that the UK will receive a formal request from the US for the use of its base at "RAF" Menwith Hill, the US-run electronic monitoring station (also in North Yorkshire), to be a component in the system. It is widely assumed that an affirmative response from the UK has already been drafted and will be handed to the US shortly after such a request.

But critcisms of the lack of real consultation before the agreement to use Fylingdales was given, means that the Government will at the very least go through the motions of consulting parliament and the public before saying 'yes'. There has been speculation about the use of US bases in the UK being used for further interceptor missiles, but there is so far little to suggest that the UK is preferred above other European sites.

Concerns

There have been objections from many quarters, based on a number of concerns. These include:

• Misguided response to the problem – if it actually worked (which is still unproven) in intercepting a missile, it does nothing to deal with the problems underlying international security.
• Contribution to a new arms race (China and Russia have consistently expressed concerns and are keen to stress their willingness to develop weapons systems to counter the US system)
• Cost, (about $9 billion a year and rising) at the expense of far more effective security building measures, such as sustainable development, disarmament and confidence-building measures.
• Links to the development and deployment of space-based weapons.