Britains nukes

www.defencetalk.com...

Im british and i firmly believe that we should have nuclear missiles but i believe that as we get more and more embroiled in the global war agaisnt terroirism that it would be better spending the money that would have been spent on replacing the missiles on developing and upgrading weapons more suited to the war on terror.

i believe that the us have 14 ssbn's so britains 1 trident submarine (we have 4 but only 1 is on patrol at any one time) is hardly adding much to the party. especially as britain is hardly likely to do anything as big as launching a nuke without consulting america.

i guess what im saying is should britain remain as a nuclear power. or should we rely on the us for nuclear protection and concentrate on providing our soldiers weapons to fight the current war.

justin

To whom is the nuclear deterrent aimed?

Okay, it may deter France from launching a nuclear attack on us, but it makes no difference to terrorists or even smaller rogue nations (whose leaders have no regard for the lives of their countrymen) - so what's the point?

at the moment i would guess that our neclear deterrent is aimed at north korea and iran in particular. but as more and more countries try and develop nuclear weapons then it will be aimed at more and more countries.

justin

From the news on friday it looks as if you question is being answer by the goverment. We will updating all our nuclear missiles and subs as stated by the deputy PM.

Its a difficult question to answer, we do need more investment in equipment for our troops, but I do think a nuclear deterent is needed with countrys like N korea and Iran joining the nuclear party!!

Originally posted by Essan
To whom is the nuclear deterrent aimed?

Okay, it may deter France from launching a nuclear attack on us,

I live on the English Channel and the story's still told of how the French came over in 1377 and sacked our town, while the residents were at an out-of-town church service.

Apart from anything else, a new Trident replacement will put us even more in the pocket of the US.

To call it an independent UK nuclear missile system is a tad misleading. The submarine is a variant of US design, as are the warheads. The missiles themselves are leased from the US.






zero lift

Originally posted by zero lift

Apart from anything else, a new Trident replacement will put us even more in the pocket of the US.

relying on the us for nuclear proptection would put us even more in the us's pocket.

To call it an independent UK nuclear missile system is a tad misleading. The submarine is a variant of US design, as are the warheads. The missiles themselves are leased from the US.

so we own the subs and the warheads, but we lease the missiles themselves?

justin

Originally posted by justin_barton3 so we own the subs and the warheads, but we lease the missiles themselves?

Yep.

Apparently, whereas in the previous Polaris system the missiles were British owned, the UK Trident submarines instead collect the Trident missiles from a US port in Georgia on the Atlantic coast under a lease-purchase arrangement.

An arrangement that the previous UK Defence Minister, Lord Healey, derided as a rent-a-rocket agreement. He stated that -

"under the rent-a-rocket agreement we have to swap these Moss Bros missiles every seven or eight years for other missiles in the American stockpile....[there are] some serious political disadvantages, which can be summed up as a period of prolonged and humiliating dependence on the United States."

And the Times recently carried the following -

Britain has always been dependent on the US for supplying ballistic missiles, and this is unlikely to change. Although the French are developing a new submarine-launched missile, the M51, buying it would seem out of the question for political and practical reasons.

The British have a unique arrangement with the US Navy, under which all the Trident D5s for the Vanguard Class submarines are leased from a pool of missiles. The deal appears to have worked without a hitch.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

It will probably come as some surprise to many, to discover that the UK hasn't operated a truly independent nuclear deterrent since at least 1962.


zero lift

Leased from the US, eh? Just know that I am going have to retain your security deposit if you use them. I will have to deduct a bit for a fresh coat of paint if want to return them or want to upgrade to a larger or new missle unless you want to repaint to my color scheme at the time of return at your expense.

All joking aside, nuclear proliferation as a deterent has only worked to bankrupt/demoralise the populance of the enemy...see former USSR as a result of the Cold War. NK and Iran (as well as India and Pakistan) do not seem to particularly care about the amount of their stockpile nor the complaints of their poorer citizens nor media complaints (if they were able to such reports) to the powers that be.

Guilt works only if it has the power to work. Since the US has to (re)elect its officals every so often the US publicly felt remorse to Japan over the A-bombs in so much as to have let Japan near purchase the US in the 80's. It was only ecconomic instability in Asia (thank you CIA or perhaps Coca-Cola?) that Japan stopped buying up America.