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.
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.
-
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? :) :) :)
Never heard about such an agreement. IMHO, it's highly doubtful because it would mean part of the French nuclear deterrence lies on British submarines, which is in opposition with the concept of 'national independence' which led to develop a french nuclear force. After some googling, I've seen a French deputy proposing such a coordination, so I suppose it does not exist yet. On non-nuclear aspects, British-French military collaboration is vital if we want some day have an European Defence. France and UK are the two countries with the biggest capacities, it's a shame they don't cooperate more. Such a cooperaton could also help to reduce costs. For instance, 'we' both need a new aircraft carrier. Instead of building two we could build only one we would share.
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 :)
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
as bad as committing far more soldiers to a botched invasion, for no good reason
I don't get it. What invasion do you refer?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
I was referring to one of Tony Blair's more memorable blunders (not Chirac).
-
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
-
Never heard about such an agreement. IMHO, it's highly doubtful because it would mean part of the French nuclear deterrence lies on British submarines, which is in opposition with the concept of 'national independence' which led to develop a french nuclear force. After some googling, I've seen a French deputy proposing such a coordination, so I suppose it does not exist yet. On non-nuclear aspects, British-French military collaboration is vital if we want some day have an European Defence. France and UK are the two countries with the biggest capacities, it's a shame they don't cooperate more. Such a cooperaton could also help to reduce costs. For instance, 'we' both need a new aircraft carrier. Instead of building two we could build only one we would share.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
So Anglo-US military links = Pah! I laugh in the face of your inferior deterrent! Anglo-French military links = Magnifique! Plus fort ensemble! he he he. :) How would we share an aircraft carrier? How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays? :) OT again: My in-laws just made an offer on a house South-West of Bergerac. Looks like I will visiting your side of the Channel a lot... every summer in fact. And Christmas. And Easter. etc. etc. (my wife and her parents are very close, and flights from Southampton are very cheap). :) :)
-
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.
I found claims UK already owned AIM-9L[^] prior the invasion. I've got the feeling this story was spinned to counterbalance US 'inactivity' at the beginning of the conflict. Can't prove it for now, that's just a prejudice.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
he Trident missiles used by the UK/US are regularly "swapped out
What's the point?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
I found claims UK already owned AIM-9L[^] prior the invasion. I've got the feeling this story was spinned to counterbalance US 'inactivity' at the beginning of the conflict. Can't prove it for now, that's just a prejudice.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
he Trident missiles used by the UK/US are regularly "swapped out
What's the point?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
So Anglo-US military links = Pah! I laugh in the face of your inferior deterrent! Anglo-French military links = Magnifique! Plus fort ensemble! he he he. :) How would we share an aircraft carrier? How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays? :) OT again: My in-laws just made an offer on a house South-West of Bergerac. Looks like I will visiting your side of the Channel a lot... every summer in fact. And Christmas. And Easter. etc. etc. (my wife and her parents are very close, and flights from Southampton are very cheap). :) :)
Rob Caldecott wrote:
Anglo-French military links
non nuclear military links :)
Rob Caldecott wrote:
How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays?
Not quite, but not that far. 'We' need an aircraft carrier when the Charles De Gaulle[^] is under maintenance. If the Royal Navy wants to keep an aeronaval capacity, it needs two aircrafts carriers to have one constantly at sea. The second one could be shared.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
South-West of Bergerac
A lovely place. Perigord is such a beautiful country - Do you will learn French language?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
K(arl) wrote:
Can't prove it for now, that's just a prejudice.
Vous l'avez dit bébé!
K(arl) wrote:
What's the point?
The point is that the US is hardly likely to give secrets about a weapon it also uses to a UK enemy.
-
Rob Caldecott wrote:
Anglo-French military links
non nuclear military links :)
Rob Caldecott wrote:
How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays?
Not quite, but not that far. 'We' need an aircraft carrier when the Charles De Gaulle[^] is under maintenance. If the Royal Navy wants to keep an aeronaval capacity, it needs two aircrafts carriers to have one constantly at sea. The second one could be shared.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
South-West of Bergerac
A lovely place. Perigord is such a beautiful country - Do you will learn French language?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr