Still, even if we have operational independence, the structural dependence is a bit of a longer-term concern now.
It would probably be sensible to develop some smaller nuclear weapons that can be launched on Storm Shadow or a similar platform. Give the deterrence an extra layer of redundancy.
Reeks of cope. The deterrence is either independent or it isn’t.
The US could deny any further access to their bases for the maintenance of the UKs trident system and submarine whenever it fancies, and the UK would be without a functioning deterrent the moment something breaks. Hopefully avoiding nuking Glasgow in the process.
If you want to make yourself into a vassal state to an orange fascist you have to pay the price.
Do the F-35 next!
The choice to fire or not fire is completely the UKs. The subs and warheads are completely UK. The missiles themselves are pooled with the US. That’s basically due to the cost. This means when we need to rotate the missiles for maintenance there’s a reliance on the US. Sources indicate that a cut off the the U.S. would take a couple of years to have an impact.
In the event of a US nuclear first strike on our NATO allies in Toronto, is the system capable of targeting the Western hemisphere for a second strike retaliation?
(obviously this sounds completely insane, but so does everything the US has been saying about Canada recently)
The 46 nuclear missiles are stored and maintained in the USA, except for those in Submarines. So the missiles are US built, maintained in the US (on cost grounds) but trigger is under UK government control.
Only really if the USA is obliterated, though.
> “Sure I’m a big girl now, mummy?”
If we’re giving up on getting rid of wmds then the least we can do is show some originality, why have nukes when we can get a face melting bioweapon that doesn’t leave the target area uninhabitable?
8 comments
Still, even if we have operational independence, the structural dependence is a bit of a longer-term concern now.
It would probably be sensible to develop some smaller nuclear weapons that can be launched on Storm Shadow or a similar platform. Give the deterrence an extra layer of redundancy.
Reeks of cope. The deterrence is either independent or it isn’t.
The US could deny any further access to their bases for the maintenance of the UKs trident system and submarine whenever it fancies, and the UK would be without a functioning deterrent the moment something breaks. Hopefully avoiding nuking Glasgow in the process.
If you want to make yourself into a vassal state to an orange fascist you have to pay the price.
Do the F-35 next!
The choice to fire or not fire is completely the UKs. The subs and warheads are completely UK. The missiles themselves are pooled with the US. That’s basically due to the cost. This means when we need to rotate the missiles for maintenance there’s a reliance on the US. Sources indicate that a cut off the the U.S. would take a couple of years to have an impact.
In the event of a US nuclear first strike on our NATO allies in Toronto, is the system capable of targeting the Western hemisphere for a second strike retaliation?
(obviously this sounds completely insane, but so does everything the US has been saying about Canada recently)
The 46 nuclear missiles are stored and maintained in the USA, except for those in Submarines. So the missiles are US built, maintained in the US (on cost grounds) but trigger is under UK government control.
Only really if the USA is obliterated, though.
> “Sure I’m a big girl now, mummy?”
If we’re giving up on getting rid of wmds then the least we can do is show some originality, why have nukes when we can get a face melting bioweapon that doesn’t leave the target area uninhabitable?
Comments are closed.