Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

®îçhå®?

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Mar 7, 2006
1,826
2
I just wanted all of your points of views on whether the trident nuclear system should be upgraded. My own personal point of view is no because:
We are meant to be two of the most advanced countries in the world so it is not setting a good example
billions of pounds (i'm british) are being spent when there are better causes

So what do you think and why??
 
If our nuclear capability was truly independent - which it isn't, as there is a ludicrous "dual-key" system - there might be an argument (cf. N Korea) for a minimal deterrent force. Since it is merely an expensive and useless adjunct to the US arsenal, it is nonsense to maintain it.
 
Agree with skunk. Without the ability to use it for our national needs rather than the USAs, why bother paying for it? I am quite for our country maintaining a small nuclear arsenal, but not for having it controlled by The Pentagon.
 
I believe Trident is independent. Short-range systems were deployed under a dual-key system.

Nuclear missiles are a comparatively cheap way of retaining a threatening posture with global reach, especially as in the case of Trident/Polaris if someone else has done a lot of the hard work already. Axing missiles will greatly reduce Britain's strategic prestige and importance while not having been left with that much more free dosh to spend it on more generally useful conventional weaponry. The bigger issue for a small country like Britain with it's limited resources is if it can shoulder the burden of being even the US's running capitalist lapdog in conventional warfare without taxing UK citizens and residents dry.
 
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article323505.ece
The independent nuclear deterrent is a carefully constructed political myth designed to provide false comfort to the British people. It is supposed to protect the UK in a re-run of 1940, when Britain stood alone. But Britain would only stand alone today if it were at odds with the US and in that event, Washington would have every interest and ability to remove the nuclear weapons support on which Britain depends. Trident and any similar successor fails the 1940 test.

In 1962 the US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara revealed that the British force "did not operate independently" to Harold Macmillan's embarrassment. When Macmillan later accepted President John Kennedy's offer of the Polaris missile submarine, his Permanent Secretary, Sir Robert Scott, recorded that the decision has "put us in America's pocket for a decade" . Sir John Slessor, the commander of the V bomber force, wrote privately that the deal had been done to sustain the "myth" of an independent force. President Charles De Gaulle of France turned down the same offer and built an independent force de frappe. De Gaulle then vetoed UK membership of the Common Market on the grounds that the Polaris deal had made Britain an American vassal.​
 
It is an American-designed system and I believe the UK does not actually own the missiles as such...


...BUT, the missiles do not actually need US keys nor approval to launch. As long as they are operational, the Trident can be launched solely at British discretion in practical terms.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.