UK Trident
-
Are you referring to the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement[^] (renewed in 2005)? It doesn't mention that we would need US approval to actually deploy nukes, but back in the Cold War that might of made some sense. However, some parts of the agreement are classified, so who knows. I think we still need a nuclear deterrent, as no-one can foresee the future. Whether we should be spending £20bn on upgrading Trident or not, well, I haven't made up my mind.
This one, plus the Quebec Agreement of 1943, plus the Polaris Sales Agreement[^].
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I think we still need a nuclear deterrent
Agreed, but it lacks of credibility when the weapon system is provided by somebody else.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
The British deterrent is independent, just like the French system. It does not require permission from the USA.
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
Was just wondering what others think of this issue.
I think it'd send a good message to the rest of the world if the UK agreed to nuclear disarmament. It's the only way the UK will mentioned in history books pertaining to the present day ;P
AndyKEnZ wrote:
It's the only way the UK will mentioned in history books pertaining to the present day
I think Mr Blair has secured our place in the history books through his well thought through involvement in Iraq :) I wait with expectation for his next headline grabbing adventure on the world stage...
-
This one, plus the Quebec Agreement of 1943, plus the Polaris Sales Agreement[^].
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I think we still need a nuclear deterrent
Agreed, but it lacks of credibility when the weapon system is provided by somebody else.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Read elsewhere: £20 billion would last 17 years with Trident, or 3 months in the NHS. As an investor, which would you choose?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
Read elsewhere: £20 billion would last 17 years with Trident, or 3 months in the NHS
That does make it sound quite cheap. If we nuked a couple of hospitals then it would pay for itself :)
-
Yes, if use of the weapons requires US agreement then there seems little point in having them. A similar point could be made about France given that it fails to back up its rhetoric with military action (e.g. Lebanon) - is there really any point in having nuclear weapons if everyone knows you won't use them?
Dan Bennett wrote:
A similar point could be made about France given that it fails to back up its rhetoric with military action (e.g. Lebanon)
I don't see really the connection, but you should know there are 2,000 french soldiers[^] in lebanon, part of UNIFIL, plus 1,700 from the Navy not integrated in the UNIFIL.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Where do the weapons come from?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
I agree with your points about the vulnerability of lesser systems. However, is the deterrent primarily there for China and Russia, who may have the capability to bring down cruise missiles or is it aimed at smaller nations which do not? I'm in favour of a nuclear deterrent but I'd like a balance between need and effectiveness. It is a gamble of course, but we take calculated risks all the time and I don't think this should be any different.
Short term risks can be included in our readiness and effectiveness however risks in terms of nuclear weaponry is different because of the timescales involved in the development and deployment of such systems. And when there is a time when actions are necessary, if the nuclear option is not available, then you are tying the hands of those decision makers. Obviously, there will be ongoing risk assessments for any response irrespective of the kind of weaponry involved and their related methodologies. Russia is not the threat it once was, but Russia still has a large stockpile of nuclear weaponry aimed at western targets. Regarding China, during the time when Hong Kong was British owned, there was a need to protect that community from China, consequently, British Nuclear forces were in the vicinity. As ownership reverted to China, Britain no longer needs Nuclear weaponry in the Far East for the defense of UK interests. This is now chiefly an American problem. China is not a military threat to the UK mainland but is a military nuclear threat to west coast USA and Pacific rim nations.
-
You might be right about UK punching above its weight but it is a fallacy that UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council because of Nuclear Weaponry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council[^]
Having skim read the article (so I could be completely wrong about this), it seems to be saying that the membership is based upon those coutries that were seen as world powers after world war two. It also, seems to imply that a continued place on the security council is linked to nuclear weapons. Are the existing members permanent regardless of what happens with their weapons or economy? If, for the sake of argument, the UK gave up its nuclear and most of its conventional weapons, would it really remain a country of influence?
-
K(arl) wrote:
Agreed, but it lacks of credibility when the weapon system is provided by somebody else.
That doesn't even make sense. Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to take a pop at the UK/US. Again. :)
Come on. All the charactericis of the weapon system are known by a third party, who could transmit it to anyone, or could even have a technical mean to disable it. During the Falkland war[^] France gave data to UK to counter argentina's anti-shipping weapons. I see no guarantee that the US does not the same some day to a potential enemy to UK. Nuclear deterrence is associated with independence.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
Are you referring to the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement[^] (renewed in 2005)? It doesn't mention that we would need US approval to actually deploy nukes, but back in the Cold War that might of made some sense. However, some parts of the agreement are classified, so who knows. I think we still need a nuclear deterrent, as no-one can foresee the future. Whether we should be spending £20bn on upgrading Trident or not, well, I haven't made up my mind.
The treaty is fundamentally meaningless. If some disastrous situation occurs that forces the UK into a situation where they need to use nukes the idea that they're going to call the White House and ask "Pretty please with sugar on top" before pushing the button is absurd. OTOH the odds of the US letting one of our close allies get that deeply into trouble without attempting to bail them out using conventional forces is IMO almost as improbable as the first setup, so it doesn't really matter that much.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
A similar point could be made about France given that it fails to back up its rhetoric with military action (e.g. Lebanon)
I don't see really the connection, but you should know there are 2,000 french soldiers[^] in lebanon, part of UNIFIL, plus 1,700 from the Navy not integrated in the UNIFIL.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
I don't see really the connection, but you should know there are 2,000 french soldiers
Only after they were shamed into sending them. France, despite telling everyone that a military force should be sent to Lebanon, didn't actually want to commit any troops.
-
David Wulff wrote:
Read elsewhere: £20 billion would last 17 years with Trident, or 3 months in the NHS
That does make it sound quite cheap. If we nuked a couple of hospitals then it would pay for itself :)
if you're going down that road, a 1MT nuke over downtown London would kill ~20% of the population in the greater metro area but only destroy ~5% of the infrastructure. Which means the survivors would be richer after the strike than before. Nukes really are that surreal. :wtf:
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
The warheads come from Aldermaston, about 5km from where I'm sitting now *checks healthy glow in mirror* :)
-
Come on. All the charactericis of the weapon system are known by a third party, who could transmit it to anyone, or could even have a technical mean to disable it. During the Falkland war[^] France gave data to UK to counter argentina's anti-shipping weapons. I see no guarantee that the US does not the same some day to a potential enemy to UK. Nuclear deterrence is associated with independence.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
K(arl) wrote:
I don't see really the connection, but you should know there are 2,000 french soldiers
Only after they were shamed into sending them. France, despite telling everyone that a military force should be sent to Lebanon, didn't actually want to commit any troops.
Dan Bennett wrote:
France, despite telling everyone that a military force should be sent to Lebanon, didn't actually want to commit any troops.
In the end, 3,700 soldiers are there. However I agree on something: Chirac's move to call for troops and at the same time saying he would send only 200 soldiers was another of his blunders.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
France, despite telling everyone that a military force should be sent to Lebanon, didn't actually want to commit any troops.
In the end, 3,700 soldiers are there. However I agree on something: Chirac's move to call for troops and at the same time saying he would send only 200 soldiers was another of his blunders.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Slightly OT for a moment, but I just read this on Wikipedia (so it must be true, etc.): "It has been suggested that British ballistic missile submarine patrols are coordinated with those of the French."[^] But the reference link is broken. Can you shed any light? Hey, perhaps we also need French agreement to deploy? :) :) :)
-
K(arl) wrote:
I see no guarantee that the US does not the same some day to a potential enemy to UK.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Post of the day! :)
So if you trust the US so much, what is the point to have a nuclear deterrence? THe US nuclear umbrellla should be enough. Don't forget that the US provided intelligence to Argentina prior its invasion of Falklands (haven't the reference in minds, could provide it later if you wish), and the Monroe doctrine could have led the US to side with Argentina... US wasn't so helpful, remember?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
France, despite telling everyone that a military force should be sent to Lebanon, didn't actually want to commit any troops.
In the end, 3,700 soldiers are there. However I agree on something: Chirac's move to call for troops and at the same time saying he would send only 200 soldiers was another of his blunders.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
was another of his blunders
Still, probably not as bad as committing far more soldiers to a botched invasion, for no good reason :)
-
So if you trust the US so much, what is the point to have a nuclear deterrence? THe US nuclear umbrellla should be enough. Don't forget that the US provided intelligence to Argentina prior its invasion of Falklands (haven't the reference in minds, could provide it later if you wish), and the Monroe doctrine could have led the US to side with Argentina... US wasn't so helpful, remember?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
THe US nuclear umbrellla should be enough.
A few people here agree with that assessment actually!
K(arl) wrote:
US wasn't so helpful, remember?
Actually, this isn't the case Karl. The US supplied us with Sidewinder missiles for our Harriers, which were crucial in defeating the Argentine airforce. In fact, without them, we might of been scuppered. More info on this here[^]. Also, the Trident missiles used by the UK/US are regularly "swapped out" (with missiles from British subs going to the US Navy) - so I simply don't buy the idea that the US will give away it's own nuclear delivery system secrets to a UK enemy. Shooting themselves in the foot like that? Sorry, but this is pure fantasy.