Britains Nuclear weapons

I presume Id123, that we would continue to build them at AWRE Aldermaston who, I believe, are undergoing something of an expansion.

All I am saying is that our 'independent' nuclear deterrent should be exactly that - independent!

Thats kinda what I think, Dont wanna be rude to the US but I hope it will be a UK only system. I think the US will still have a key role in building the missiles

Thanks for all the infomation, things seem to have gone quiet in the UK with this debate. Any more info would be nice!

I don't think so old son. It's just the Labour Government aren't releasing too many details and the MOD (as usual) is being tight lipped!

I still have my fingers in the pies and irons in the fire. I expect some info soon, but as to how reliable it is, I have no idea.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by fritz]

The only thing I have come across, is this article in The Scotsman:

news.scotsman.com...

Other than that, nothing of any significance.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by fritz]

Niceone Fritz, I made a good read. The way things are going Scotland may want independance in the future. so the subs would have to go I think. Still quiet in the media though, Many thanks

[edit on 18-4-2007 by Id123]

I have to say that I would prefer GB to put that money toward naval and ground forces. They do need a bigger naval presense given they are an island and I'd prefer that a string ally of the US also have a great military force. Especially as how so many of our other ally's have had their hands in other countries pockets as of late and the UK seems to be one that shoots it straight to us.

I'd also prefer this since there is already enough nukes out there, why make more? Since I truely believe that if an attack on the UK was made with a nuclear bomb the US would retaliate in kind if the UK asked since a threat to the UK is a threat to the US just as a threat to Canada and Australia would be.

Put I would prefer the US just give the Brits the right to use one of our subs( or maybe lease it for $100) as one of their own without a right for us to veto. This would allow the Brits to pull the trigger but it would be one of our subs. This would safe the Brits money and give our best ally a stringer military power.

Face it people. With growing globalization and terrorist being the threat now instead of countries, it helps to work with our ally's and try to safe us all money. No need to be completely independent in military now but still need to keep our stuff under our own control. Thats why I'm glad the US, UK and other counties are using the F-35 among other deals.

I do so agree with you SenHeathen. At present our ground forces are stretched across the globe and in all directions by a government who does not give a flying about them.

Operational deployments are running at 2 x 6 months in 18 months or 3 if you count deployment to the Falklands.

The RAF as we have so tragically seen, has air assets that are being used far beyond their operational life.

Yet, because the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are policing actions and therefore not wars, equipment tables in theatre, are at a peacetime levels.

For example the unit I work for, recently returned from Afghanistan and deployed there with this unit's own Modacs. Modacs are what is known as G1098 items - equipment with serial numbers.

Its bad enough that our young guys have to go out there but to take their own binos, compasses and issue wrist watches, is ludicrus to say the least.

So I do agree with much of what you said SenHeathen but if we are tro have nukes, I still favour smaller ALCMs or SLCMs.

After all, if you have to launch the well, then it's no deterrent, is it?

Ten to fifteen years from now, the threat will be China - a China getting serious about expanding it's spheres of economic, military and political in SEA, the Middle East and South America.

We must therefore, in my opinion, continue to have a minimum nuclear deterrent capability in the form of SLBMs.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by Egotosum]

Thank you.

I agree you should have your own missiles. I just think that the US and UK should work together to find a way to make it cheaper for y'all. With the US and I'm sure the UK running a not so nice budget deficit and national debt, it would be nice to work closer together to benefit us both.

China wont be a problem for awhile. Unless the US economy is crippled by an unknown threat the US economy will enable us to counter just about any economic growth the Chinese can do. That is unless they force some very lucrative alliances that enable them to do more with less. Like if we sell them more secrets or if Russia sells them stuff. Only then will they be able to pour the necessary resources into military and techology.

Or they could just fall like the USSR.

Oh and I agree that China is trying to expand its influence in Asia and the ME but thats to be expected since its their neck of the woods. But unless them and Russia AND India all get along it will be 3 great powers fighting for influence. They should keep each other busy at least with small squabbles.
I think the US should focus on South America more. Brazil will eventually be a super power and SA is much closer to us and easier for us to wield influence and harder for others to meddle in it. The US and Brazil could prove to be a great partnership.

Why just think about China? Why not think along the lines of China and India?

Their economies are slowly undercutting western economies and their R & D and counterfeit software programmes (government backed) are amassing huge fortunes.

There really is no need to worry about China or the Chinese/Indian alliance militarily speaking.

Economically speaking, it may well be too late to stop them becomming the de rigeur superpower.

I still maintain that building a fleet of nuclear subs, equipping them with Trident D-III/IVs - whatever - is an obscene waste of taxpayers money.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by fritz]

Well as I have posted before I belive we need a totally independent form of deterrent, I like the option of leasing a US boat, but that kinda takes me back to square one! Totally independent system. Would the US trust the UK with one of there boats?

No problem. I just get a little bit jumpy when someone is talking about bombing my country with american mad nuclear weapons, ya know?

Look fellahs in the interests of common decency and fair play, if the UK wants to attack USA maybe they could at least buy Russian ... ha ha ha

Well let hope we get the contract to build them, I know that the shipyard is starting to gearup for the new submarines

Originally posted by Id123
Would the US trust the UK with one of there boats?

Technology, probably. But there is no way politically the UK could "lease" a US sub and crew.

Well I dont know where to look for anymore info on this, Whats the point of having a deterent with no deterent value to the USA! IMHO

In my opinion, "new nukes" are a waste of money & resources. The primary threat today and in the foreseeable future is uncontrolled/uninforced immigration & terror from within. If some madman or regime such as Iran blasted a nuke at the UK your best nuclear choice would not be deterents but airborne interdiction. If it ever happened, God forbid, you had better pray that there is a Defensive missile installation or Interdiction aircraft squadron in service at the time. Most of the Countries in the flight path would do nothing but watch the pretty contrail caused by re-entry.

China isnt a problem ????

Ever heard of a small island called Taiwan that China says still belongs to them?
The US has said it considers an attack on Taiwan as an attack on its soil so I wouldnt jump to any conclusion about China not being a problem.

It has ICBM capability and now even space capability.

Originally posted by realyweely
China isnt a problem ????

Ever heard of a small island called Taiwan that China says still belongs to them?
The US has said it considers an attack on Taiwan as an attack on its soil so I wouldnt jump to any conclusion about China not being a problem.

It has ICBM capability and now even space capability.

Was this aimed at me, realyweely? If so, I can't for the life of me see why!

Let's remember that if Taiwan as you call it, had not established a semi-democratic and (illegal by Chinese standards) government, that the US would have supported her for so long?

China could and would have taken Taiwan by force, at any time the Beijin government chose. China is trading with Formosa and still considers her to be their wayward Province. Nothing more. Formosa is a stick that China uses to prod America's with.

Do you really think that if China wanted to take Formosa back, it couldn't? China may not be militarily or technologically equal to or superior to the US, but what it lacks in sophistication, it more than makes up for this in numbers.

Why the hell would you want to attack Russia?

Crazy ass Americans.