New Stateman: Trident: we’ve been conned again
The independent British nuclear deterrent is a myth – whatever else it may be, it is not independent. That reality, laid bare as never before in US presidential directives published on our website, renders meaningless the government’s suggestion that it is time to renew “our” nuclear arsenal.
Posted on March 24th, 2006 at 10:52am under Chicken Nuggets, UK politics
The history of why the UK became dependent on the US for WMD was first detailed here on 10th March 2004, which gave the true history of the UK WMD.
http://www.williambowles.info/guests/uk_wmd.html
10th March 2004
The history of why the UK became dependent on the US was first detailed here on 10th March 2004, which gave the true history of the Uk WMD.
Two recent posts cover the “debate ” about Trident and the state of US Uranium stores. Here Feb 12 th 2006
http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2006/02/iran-uranium-and-uk-nuclear-deterrant.html
and Here Feb 16th 2006.
http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2006/02/tridentvanguard-nuclear-deterrant.html
The only way the missiles can be armed, repaired etc., is by the boat being sent to Georgia.
I commend the above which should lead a lot more links
I don’t quite know what the fuss is here. When did we ever build our own bomb? Yeah, sure, there were British scientists involved in the original research, but I don’t see why anyone would ever think that we built our own bomb.
We do have the plans which would enable us to do so (exchange of information that has always happened with the US. After all, who built the first supersonic jet fighter?) but it would seem foolish to go to the expense of building our own weaponry when, whatever that article says, right here and now, at this time, the US are willing to sell the weaponry to us.
DK
“I don’t quite know what the fuss is here.”
The French funded the American War of Independence.
Interests dear chap……… What if the next President of the USA had brain cells to rub together?
And he decided…. Your comment is woeful
I have to say I don’t really see the importance of all this. If it really wanted to, the US could stop France from using their nuclear deterrent too in many of the same ways as described for the UK.
And if, in some future, the US became the enemy, having no nuclear weapons would not change the desperate position we would find ourselves in…
For me it’s not really about the specifics of the issue rather than, yet again, we’re not going to be permitted an honest debate – we simply can’t be trusted with the facts.
The fix is already in no matter where you stand on the issue of nuclear weapons and all for reasons of not wishing to own up to our waning national libido.