Britain and France may share nuclear deterrent

reply to post by johnny c

France has offered to create a joint UK-French nuclear deterrent by sharing submarine patrols, the Guardian has learned.

Officials from both countries have discussed how a deterrence-sharing scheme might work but Britain has so far opposed the idea on the grounds that such pooling of sovereignty would be politically unacceptable.

In a speech this morning in London, Gordon Brown said he had agreed to further nuclear co-operation with France last week after talks with Nicolas Sarkozy. The prime minister did not comment explicitly about submarines, saying only that the UK and France would both retain "our independent nuclear deterrent".

Britain and France each maintain "continuous at-sea deterrence", which involves running at least one nuclear-armed submarine submerged and undetected at any given time. It is a hugely expensive undertaking, and its usefulness in a post-cold war world has long been questioned by disarmament campaigners.

more information at the linklink

Sharing patrol duties is one thing, a shared nuclear deterrent another.

We are still an independant country, just, and if we are to maintain our nuclear capability then it must remain independant.

reply to post by Freeborn


Just give it a few years and we'll be sharing a gun between us or possibly a pointed stick

I don't see it as such a bad move. I know it is infringing on your nation's sovereignty, but looking at a map of Britain and France you guys do share basically the same waters, except for France's southern shores. It makes sense if you are cutting your budget. Who gets what during wartime could be a problem, but let’s think about it for a second. France is never going to start a war, or join one for that matter. Britain still has one of the best Navys in the world and all the toys should be theirs because you guys are more likely to follow the U.S. on our world terror crusades.

I know everybody fought joining the E.U., but it could easy compete with the U.S., Russia, and China in the future if you guys could unite. It is an obvious step towards new world order and a piece to a one world order. However, I think it could really help keep the nations of Europe stable and strong, not that you aren't already. I just think a united Europe would be a force. I sort of compare it to when the Federal U.S. government took the majority of the power from the states and created a strong central government. Brussels is attempting to suck most of the power out of your countries to create the next Frankenstein, city-state monster that could be the biggest of them all.

I think it is going to happen regardless if it is good or bad thing for the people.
Just don't vote for Change, try to keep your country the way it is and the way you want it to be.

reply to post by tooo many pills


Thanks for the reply too many pills, i understand your point but what happens if england want to fire a nuke? is it a joint descision or is it we have half each and we say where that half goes? I think it would be a joke myself.
we are geting fleeced enough of soverenity without having the weapons hit.
I dont know what this world is coming to,
share nuclear weapons,where would you get it

reply to post by tooo many pills


The last time there was a major military review it was also under a Tory government.
Thatcher was going to slash military spending then Argentina invaded The Falklands and the rest as they say is history.
If they had waited a couple of years until the cuts had taken effect we would never have been able to mount the exercise we did to reclaim them.
Pretty ironic that it was The Falklands campaign that essentially got Thatcher re-elected the first time!

And do we learn anything from history.
No siree!
Another Tory government.
Another military review with swathing cuts expected.

How long till some jumped up, tin pot never has been has a pop at us?
And just wait, this time THEY will have learnt their lesson and they'll bide their time so that we won't be able to do anything about it!

reply to post by Freeborn

Hey Freeborn,thanks for the toughtfull replies buddy, I agree with everything you said.Its a shame that we
always have these stupid inbred fragiles in goverment. Sorry i ment to reply a few minutes ago and got called out of the room.That is a very good point about ol maggie, is it true they got rid of her because she hated the idea of a one world goverment?

reply to post by johnny c


Thanks for the kind words.

Not too sure about Thatcher and the 'one world government'.
I'm sure she would have had no objections if she ran it, her megalomania knew no bounds!

reply to post by johnny c


No she hated the idea, of the UK giving more Powers to Brussells, She was more against a Federal Europe than anything else.

And what has happenned most of our sovierngty is gone, most of the laws directions are instituted from brussels.

reply to post by Laurauk


You are right there Laura, probably the one thing I agreed with her on.
However, she did sign up to the ERM and The Single European Act!

news.bbc.co.uk...

Quite ironically Labour were pretty vociforous in their demands that we withdrew from the EEC at the time.
Oh how times change.
I suspect that if any major party included withdrawal from the EU now in their manifesto they would gain wholescale support!

I dont believe a french sub would launch a nuclear attack in response to an successful nuclear attack on London. The french do whats best for france at all times. Thats not a criticism of them but a reality to be accounted for.

This idea is stupid. If we cant afford a guaranteed deterrent there is no damned point in having one at all. Paying billions for a part time one is retarded.

reply to post by Freeborn


And looked what happened after she signed up, Black Wednesday was it, they had to pull out the UK Ecoonomy was going down the pan, and well it stil is lol. (Ops Goes back to the topic being discussed). Who do we have more close ties to in Europe anyways?

France?

I still do not think the UK should share its deterrent with any other country. I have the same opinion with our Aircraft Carriers, they should not be shared either.

Can you imagine the UK trying to go to war or say retake the falkland islands in this day and age, if these draconian cut backs go ahead.

The only way the UK would win if the Government threatened to use Nukes. But could you imagine the backlash we would recieve.

Answer no no no, to sharing anything.

reply to post by Laurauk


Total agreement.

May not be PC and all that but the last nation on earth I would trust to help defend this country would be France.
It is impossible to forget the last thousand years!

And the feelinng is mutual.
I know it's a gross generalisation but they have total disdain for all things British!

reply to post by johnny c


Read the article. This is just an agenda item for the meeting. And who knows if this topic will make the final agenda that the two leaders discuss? Just think how many things get put on agenda in the meetings you have, and how many of them are actioned? If my experience if anything to go by, very little.

And even if there was an agreement, what would it cover? France has developed its own nuclear weapons, where the UK and the US work together. Can they be deployed from the same delivery vehicles.

Just think of the France's view of the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan, as compared to that of the UK. This is just political talk, and we all know that talk is cheaper and even cheaper when it is political talk.

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that if you need to use them, we and our leaders have failed, and do we want to remain alive in a world that has suffered even a limited nuclear exchange.


infinite, I can thing of nothing worst that the European Collective, sorry EU, have control of our or anyone's nuclear weapons. The EU can not be trusted to even accept the votes of member states who vote against the EU, so how can we trust them to manage the control and deployment of nuclear weapons. And again, many parts of Europe are against our actions in Iraq and Afganistan, so how can we be confident they would make these weapons available for deployment?

Soshh, from my limited knowledge, our nuclear sub patrols are co-ordinated but more with the US rather than the France, who have kept their nuclear weapons under their own control, rather than fully under NATO.

And why should spending on our defence have to be cut. There are plenty of other areas of public social sending we can cut before having to reduce the ability to project power. I agree that some projects do need to be reviewed and the support to our military on the ground and service should never be cut.

And just who cares about our relationship with France. They have failed to support the UK in its recent actions around the world. They can not be trusted as friends or even allies.

Laurauk, well said and certainly the last Government have failed our brave military, and currently, I am not that impressed with what this Government is doings. It does that seem that money for overseas aid is more important than our own security. The only saving grace I can see if we are forced to share military with other EU countries, is that our military will clearly been seen as the best in the EU.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


I did read the article and i stated that it was far from set in stone it would happen.

reply to post by Freeborn

Thanks for the replies guys, freeborn and laura you got to love thacher, she stood up to the most important thing that was put in front of he in my veiw. "fair play to her for that i say" now if we could only get a few other with a bit of back bone like her everything would be sweet.
Im not really up to date with other policies she made,but for the soverenity she would get a star and a flag



wtf some guy up the road from where i live just found a bomb under his car ,the bomb squad is out
Its a nice neighbourhood not that it matters,just not your every day.
sorry if im a bit slow with the replies

reply to post by Freeborn


Good then do not be PC around me, be frank and open, I have been a member on ATS for such a long time to remain PC lol

With regrds to this comment:

Nevermind removed it I thought you were referring to yorself having distain on everything being so called british. LoL

Maybe I should just send Brussels my home address, so that they could send someone round personally and ask me to touch my toes.! ! ! ! ! !

Just hope they bring lube or is that to much to ask....

reply to post by johnny c


Sorry, I despise Thatcher with a passion.
Yes, she stood up to Argentina.
No direspect but wow, so should have any British PM, Argentina was in the wrong and she did what she had to do.
Simple as, failure to do so and she would have been guilty of treason.
That we were capable of doing what we did was through no thanks to her.
Her government was in the process of conducting a full military review which was expected to recommend drastic reductons in our military strength and capaility.
In light of The Falklands Conflict it was quietely forgotten about.
Prior to the conflict Thatcher was trailing badly in all the opinion polls and would have probably lost the 83 election.

We are still paying the price for some of her economic and policies to this day.

That she was a strong and resolute leader I don't dispute, but she was also uncompromising, vindictive, bloody minded and lacking compassion and soul.

One of the few stories I do like about her, unsubstantiated though it is, is that at the height of The Falklands Conflict when Argentina was gaining some success with the use of their French made Exocet missiles, Thatcher made an unscheduled and unrecorded flight to Paris during the night.
She demanded to see Mitterand who refused but she barged in anyway.
She told Mitterand that he must withdraw all Exocet missiles off the market.
Mitterand refused.
Thatcher replied by saying that she was not prepared to see more British service men die than absolutely necessary and that she would do everything within her power to make sure this happened, if France would not withdraw all Exocet missles from the arms market then Britain would have no option other than to launch tactical nuclear weapons on Argentinian soil.
Mitterand immediately ordered the withdrawal of all Exocet missiles.
What they couldn't the UK government bought.

Now if true that takes some balls and I admire that.
If untrue then it just shows the extent of the mystique and legend that has grown up around her.
Most of which is not true or exaggerated.

reply to post by Freeborn


You know it is funny, commented on thatchers threats of using nukes before, and was shot down for it. Now I have Proof LOL.

Dont we always have a Political Legacy in he UK?

Churchill Had A Legacy.

Thatcher has one also, and it is still progressing.

Will Cameron End this country once and for all, with the cuts to our armed forces.

As a result there will be more unemployed on the streets,and crime will rise.