Trident is more important than ever.

The tsar bomb was detonated at 2.5 miles above the ground and yet it polished the rock underneath. It had a radius of total destruction of 35km if detonated on the ground and the consequences would be much more severe.

Depends what he meant by independent. I've just been arguing that its operationally independent so if we want to press the button and nuke France the missile would fire without someone in Washington having to agree. I think in an actual situation say we wanted to launch a first strike on someone we would likely want the support of our allies, so from that perspective you could argue its not independent

It is Neither independent because we could not possible use it without the Americas.

Are you seriously suggesting that this quote can have two different interpretations?



I am agnostic on this viewpoint, I just want to look at the evidence.

Depends what he meant by independent. I've just been arguing that its operationally independent so if we want to press the button and nuke France the missile would fire without someone in Washington having to agree. I think in an actual situation say we wanted to launch a first strike on someone we would likely want the support of our allies, so from that perspective you could argue its not independent

That's not ambiguous - he is referring to political independence. The sort of "operational independence" point people keep raising is an irrelevance, there is no operation without political approval.

Portillo said (in the This Week snippet) "it's neither independent (because we couldn't possibly use it without the Americans)... etc...."

That's not ambiguous - he is referring to political independence. The sort of "operational independence" point people keep raising is an irrelevance, there is no operation without political approval.

BTW, Portillo as both a Tory and a former Defence Sec, hardly fulfills the "it's only lefties who think we should ditch Trident" nonsense that keeps getting trotted out in this and other forums, does he?

Well of course we are going to require communications with out allies before embarking on such serious action. The same would be said of the any of the armed forces, in that sense we aren't independent in any capacity. However I don't think that means we couldn't or wouldn't use it without their go ahead, only that their support would be highly favourable. In the context Trident would ever be used in an active capacity, I don't think we would need to worry about lack of US support or in fact require US support.

That's a good summary of the confusion over this topic. Trident is seen by the US as a US system deployed in the UK. This was clearly demonstrated by the Obama strategic talks with Russia, where he clearly felt at ease trading the so-called 'British deterrent' into the mix. In other words, it is their system, not ours. However, the cost is ours. In order to make this odd reality work politically, the government continue to propagate a lie (from all three main parties) that it is 'independent' - this is false.

That's a good summary of the confusion over this topic. Trident is seen by the US as a US system deployed in the UK. This was clearly demonstrated by the Obama strategic talks with Russia, where he clearly felt at ease trading the so-called 'British deterrent' into the mix. In other words, it is their system, not ours. However, the cost is ours. In order to make this odd reality work politically, the government continue to propagate a lie (from all three main parties) that it is 'independent' - this is false.

Not sure that was quite what I said.

Well, tbf, not the total cost. Their cost of developing a missile and all it's associated parts is pretty massive, we just bought it and then keep it running.

And just because they think it is their system, does not make it the case.

Nah, I think they know very well - you think the White House don't keep track of their missiles?

They'll know full well who they sold them to - just as we know exactly who we sell weapons to (we are, after all, the next biggest seller of arms in the world after the US) - but that doesn't mean they exert any control over them.

As I said above, the point about the political independence, it's a self-imposed limit.

I was saying that you were confused, but that you summarised the confusion well.

We're back to the "all weapons are equivalent, this was just another weapons sale" - no - it wasn't. It's a major co-ordinated piece of US foreign and military/industrial policy and Trident is in no way similar to other weapons sales. Really, we need to stop the silly spin now - a previous Tory defence secretary has firmly and categorically stated on the record that it is not an independent deterrent. It doesn't really require further debate.

Portillo said (in the This Week snippet) "it's neither independent (because we couldn't possibly use it without the Americans)... etc...."

That's not ambiguous - he is referring to political independence. The sort of "operational independence" point people keep raising is an irrelevance, there is no operation without political approval.

BTW, Portillo as both a Tory and a former Defence Sec, hardly fulfills the "it's only lefties who think we should ditch Trident" nonsense that keeps getting trotted out in this and other forums, does he?

But it requires the basic comprehension - that you keep ignoring - that we put that limit on ourselves. We are not told to do that, it is the way we react.

That is very different from them selling us it and saying "by the way, unless we say so, it can't be used".

That's a good summary of the confusion over this topic. Trident is seen by the US as a US system deployed in the UK. This was clearly demonstrated by the Obama strategic talks with Russia, where he clearly felt at ease trading the so-called 'British deterrent' into the mix. In other words, it is their system, not ours. However, the cost is ours. In order to make this odd reality work politically, the government continue to propagate a lie (from all three main parties) that it is 'independent' - this is false.