Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Missile shield 'will not protect Britain'

Ben Russell
Tuesday 30 October 2001 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Labour backbenchers renewed their attacks on US plans for a ballistic missile shield yesterday, insisting it would do nothing to defend Britain from international terrorists.

They used Commons defence questions to step up criticism of President George Bush's proposed Missile Defence programme. Harry Cohen, Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, warned the scheme could "make the world a more dangerous place with increased weapons proliferation, the direct militarisation of states and the likelihood of more terrorist attacks".

Paul Flynn, the Labour MP for Newport West, said: "Wouldn't the world be a far safer place if the 'Star Wars' money was invested in conflict resolution?"

He asked how "a terrorist armed with the ebola virus or smallpox could be affected by 'Star Wars' and could be persuaded not to turn out cities into a biological Armageddon". Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, replied that "fanatics" with dangerous chemicals were not any less dangerous than those prepared to launch ballistic missiles. He said: "I simply do not find that argument persuasive."

Michael Clapham, Labour MP for Barnsley West and Penistone, asked about research from America that predicted that intercepting nuclear missiles would lead to undamaged warheads falling on Europe.

Malcolm Savidge, Labour MP for Aberdeen North, said the Ministry of Defence had graded the likelihood of a missile attack on Britain as a "very low risk" and warned of a terrorist nuclear attack that could destroy parts of central London. He said: "Surely after 11 September we should see that the immediate danger is the surreptitiously smuggled weapon."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in