It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK to disarm nuclear weapons soon.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

www.defense-aerospace.com...


General Jack Sheehan, former Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, told this evening's BBC Radio 4's World Tonight: "I think the UK is very close to saying we're the first permanent member of the Security Council to do away with nuclear weapons."


the former SACLANT has come open to say the UK will disarm very soon.


well golly gosh.




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


good news in my opinion, but bad news is that someone behind the scenes wants UK disarmed



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Maybe there is more to a potential nuclear disarming by the UK than meets the eye.

It could be a way of saying our nuclear deterrent will be merged with the French as part of the joined EU Military plans.

Or we're not actually ditching them, we're just making it one of those under the table type affairs.

Or, and this is the really interesting idea, the UK has something else, possibly scalar weapons, possibly something even worse. Who knows.

Either way, I doubt even Labour would just scrap the nuclear deterrent. After all, powers behind the government surely would not just lose a major ace for no reason.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Wow!

Nice find Harlequin! I honestly am surprised to hear that the UK wants to disarm its nuclear forces! Navy, Air and Army forces reductions i can quite understand that but nuclear!

Gosh, without nuclear weapons the UK looses its second strike capabillity. quite worrying development for the Brittish down there.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

This will be a mistake.



We are one of the responsible few nations that possesses the big stick... Some of the others (mentioning no names) do not seem stable or responsible. Even Japan is considering their own nukes - and we all know they understand what it means to have the ability to wield such a thing. Once that stick is gone it's going to be very hard to get it back.

We already look like the worlds door mat, in this odd new world Britishness is a good thing.

edit: emphasis


[edit on 31/1/2009 by Now_Then]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
No need for self-congratulations just yet!

Indeed, I would take anything this former US General says about British defence strategies with a very large pinch of salt.

How would he know what the Labour government is thinking? Simple. He wouldn't. Period.

That is not to say that I am in favour of Trident. Nothing can be further from the truth. I have been advocating nuclear equipped cruise missiles with variable yield warheads. Do-able and at a snip of the cost of replacing Trident.

Taking General Jack Sheehan's report as fact is like me suddenly announcing that the Americans have agreed to buy Chally 2s to replace Abrams.

Hardly likely now, is it?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
ya right!!!! this would never ever, ever happen. it would be nice but it would cripple them militarily and probably politicaly.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


British Trident submarines aren't a second strike capability. They're a no strike capability.

Denis Healey, former Defence Secretary, has already gone on record saying that in the event Britain had been attacked by Soviet nuclear weapons in the 1960's & 1970's that there would have been no counterstrike ... on the grounds that deterrence had failed & deterrence was the only reason to justify Polaris. Once deterrence fails the game simply becomes mass murder.

Better red than dead was the policy then & I doubt British nuclear strategy has changed much during the intervening period.

Trident & its successor are a complete waste of money.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then

We already look like the worlds door mat,


Only to yanks!

Even with the turbulent past between Britain and Ireland, the British are now viewed here as pioneers towards the future.

IMO it is a bad idea for the UK to give up their nukes, the people that will be left with the large stockpiles are unstable.. that is unless behind the scenes, a new agreement has been made between the UK and US that has eternally reinforced the 'special arrangement'.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Technically, all signatories to the NPT are obliged to give up nuclear weapons eventually.

The UK "deterrent" is particulary useless as weapons go, but given that the government aren't committed disarming and have already budgeted and started spending for the next generation nukes, I doubt the views of one US offider carry much weight.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
In a world where Iran is becoming a nuclear dictatorship? I don't think so that they would go on with getting away of there nukes. We the western world need those not only to disable Iran but also for using them as a counter for enemies not from this world and for destroying asteroids and other thinks which are in the way of human prosperaty.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The only evidence is that the UK nuclear deterrent will continue. In March 2007 the House of Commons voted to replace the Trident boats. Politically, the UK Government know that the possession of nuclear weapons ensure the UK retains a seat at the top.

There will be no “merger” with France beyond the cooperation that already (allegedly) exists.

Regards



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Sorry Nial197 or whatever to burst your bubble but im afraid nuclear strategy has changed since the 1960s/70s, with the majority of change happening post 9/11 in regards to the options open to the UK.
The need for a full out SSBN salvo is (hopefully) long gone but as each UK T-SSBN is equiped with warheads covering the full range of yields down to the low kilotons then they became more able to be used if required independently of the US.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Not going to happen.

Why?

Because possessing the weapons gives us leverage on the world stage.

Without them, we're a small Island off the coast of Europe. With them we are capable of taking down every major power on the planet except the "big two" of the USA and Russia.

They are a bargaining chit - thats why we got them in the first place and thats why they'll stay where they are.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Absolutely, with other "rogue" states defiant in their nuclear ambitions it would be foolish for the UK to relinquish their only "stick". This fortunately won't happen, especially if the Conservatives win the next election. If we want a place at the top and want any sort of international influence then we have to maintain the nuclear deterrant. Whether Trident is the best means technically or not i don't know, i'll leave that for the military diletantes to debate.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
i cant believe this will be the case,being the most powerfull country in europe,we would have to be mad to disarm totally.besides arent we building a new nuclear sub fleet ?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Chamberlain announces:

"No need for all these Spitfires, the world is a safer place now".

The British seem to have very creative minds and very poor memories.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Retseh]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
In this day and age I believe that no major country would use nuclear weapons.

We have a far cleaner methods of dismantling a threat, and i believe we have more powerful weapons or atleast better capable of delivering the payload... without all the bad press n all
Not to mention, the potentially destabilising economic effects it can have by using them.

I think the UK is heading in the right direction.






posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
The UK doesn't need them. They know we will bail them out of any military situation, which will probably never arise anyway.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


To be fair, the British have never sat idly by & solely relied on the US nuclear umbrella for protection. Nor do they rely on US conventional weaponry either, the UK makes a valuable contribution to NATO with their home grown weaponry.

And it's a two way street too, you know, The Guardian newspaper revealed yesterday that US nuclear weapons designers are currently relying on the British nuclear weapons facility at Aldermaston for major research into the next generation of US warheads.

The Guardian

As early as 1945 the postwar Attlee government made the acquisition of the atomic bomb a major priority. And as it became apparent that improved Soviet technologies from the mid 1950's onwards made North America more vulnerable to attack (and made the US less minded to expose their own homeland to attack) so the British rushed ahead with their own nuclear weapons development, producing their own hydrogen bombs & making plans for their own ballistic & cruise missiles.

If anything, British nuclear weapons development signals the belief of successive governments that, when the chips are down, the Americans would sacrifice the UK to save their own skins. That's the blunt basics of it.

And by using American missiles to deliver British warheads, the fate of the USA is essentially in the hands of the British. Because to the Russian or Chinese leadership it doesn't really matter whether the incoming Trident missile warheads are British or American, they're simply Trident .... they won't have the time to determine the nation of origin. In that sense Nefermore's assessment is correct, Trident is indeed a wonderful bargaining chip ... but to friend & foe alike.

Most of the expenditure for the British Trident fleet has been long since spent. But isn't a new ballistic missile deterrent simply a luxury item in our armoury when so many parts of our armed forces are severely overstretched ?

Isn't simply being nuclear sufficient deterrent in itself, for the British at least ?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join