PETER Henessey's new book, The Secret State - Whitehall And The Cold War, refers in part to the issue of RAF Fylingdales.
Having access to recently-declassified documents he writes: "Fylingdales would have been one of the first places to be taken out in a nuclear attack because it is a ballistic early warning station."
I believe the situation remains the same today, but the risk will certainly be increased should Fylingdales become part of the United States Missile Defence (NMD) programme.
I have been writing to the Ministry of Defence regularly since last May asking if there will be consultation about this.
The answer is always the same: "We have received no request from the US for the use of sites in the United Kingdom for missile defence purposes, nor any indication of when any such request might be made."
But the Government is once again being economical with the truth. We know that after September 11, the Ministry of Defence is going ahead with upgrading Fylingdales secretly without planning permission.
Vicki Elcoate, director of the Council for National Parks, has expressed concern that: "Fylingdales could be developed by the back door, without proper public scrutiny".
Furthermore, the Commons Defence Committee has been told that a missile defence system of the kind the US is pressing on its allies would cost British taxpayers up to £10 billion - more than 40 per cent of the defence budget. "The facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill feature very large in their calculations," Brian Hawtin, the director general for international security policy MOD, told the committee.
How can we allow 40 per cent of our defence budget to be spent on a system that gives us no protection, only increased danger?
It is time to press for proper public scrutiny and debate.
Christopher Dove,
Blackburn's Yard, Whitby.
...LIKE many others, I deplore the recent events caused by terrorism, and fully back George Bush in his stance against global terror.
We must, however, err on the side of caution over his latest plans to combat terror. Six months after September 11, the Anglo-American alliance against terrorism is facing its sternest test.
Consider the grim background. The Middle-East is in flames, with dozens dead in the latest cycle of atrocity and retaliation between Palestinians and Israelis. An attack on Iraq would add to the volatility.
What would the effect be on the region if America launched an assault? Second, if Mr Blair cannot even persuade his own party on the issue, how is he going to carry opinion in the country?
If Saddam does have the power to attack our country we must go to war with him. Never mind the NHS, or schools, or anything else; the defence of our realm is fundamental to our way of life. money must be diverted, if necessary, to ensure it can be maintained.
Today the case for attacking Iraq is less evident. That is why the Prime Minister must explain his reasons and try to convince us to back him.
Colin Henson,
Moorcroft Road,
Woodthorpe, York.
...TONY Blair was elected with a huge majority on a firm Labour ticket, by a nation tired of Thatcher/Major policies. Voters expected traditional Labour policies.
Since then, trade unions and workers in the public sector have been made to feel increasingly insecure. In Europe Mr Blair has sided against France and Germany, with Conservative leaders in Italy and Spain. He has been called the leader of the European right in terms of social policy.
In his support for the USA, he has out-Thatchered Thatcher, despite the fact that America now has a far more extreme president than Lady T ever had to deal with, one who gives the impression he would sacrifice Britain's security for the sake of the USA.
Although, traditionally, Labour has been internationalist, Tony Blair is better and keener at waging war than in sorting out the mess in his own his country. Meanwhile, a grey Chancellor holds back badly-needed public money 'for our own good'.
If a Conservative administration suddenly adopted socialist principles, the same sort of cynicism would result. All this would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
In the 1940s the Labour government stuck by its principles - that now seems a golden time.
When cynicism becomes widespread, democracy dies and that matters.
Roy Stevens,
Willow Bank,
New Earswick, York.
Updated: 12:26 Thursday, March 28, 2002
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article