Trident to leave the UK if Scotland goes independent

Original post by Fullofsurprises

"Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn’t constitute a deterrent…”
-- Michael Portillo, former Defence Secretary
https://cnduk.org/former-conservative-defence-secretary-slams-trident-replacement/

He is quite clearly wrong - and if we're going to talk about glib, that is a glib statement.

Reply 22

OP

Original post by L i b

He is quite clearly wrong - and if we're going to talk about glib, that is a glib statement.

I take it you don't deny he said it, whereas not two minutes ago you accused me of falsifying it.

Here's another former Defence Secretary, David Owen, condemning it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/25/trident-defence-policy-david-owen

"One significant report on nuclear weapons policy drawn up by senior officials in 1978 is still withheld – though a commentary on it for the chiefs of staff has been published, albeit with passages redacted.

Owen accuses the government of imposing an arbitrary and illogical policy towards the disclosure of official documents. Those that have been released show that Britain's nuclear deterrent, the pre-Trident Polaris system, did not have the capability that ministers were told that it had. They also show that crucial information about the costs of the system was withheld from the then chancellor, Denis Healey."

Reply 23

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Ancient history. Yes, the US was uneasy about the UK obtaining them originally and reluctant to share Manhattan with anyone, but in the 50s and 60s they adjusted and eventually absorbed the UK nukes into their portfolio with Trident. That is why Reagan could confidently offer up the 'British' weapons to Gorbachev at Reykjavik without so much as a phone call to Thatcher to ask permission. Viewed from DC, they are American weapons.

That's just encouraging a national penis-measuring contest. The United States has no control over that, nor did it then, other than persuasion.

Reply 24

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I take it you don't deny he said it, whereas not two minutes ago you accused me of falsifying it.

Here's another former Defence Secretary, David Owen, condemning it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/25/trident-defence-policy-david-owen

"One significant report on nuclear weapons policy drawn up by senior officials in 1978 is still withheld – though a commentary on it for the chiefs of staff has been published, albeit with passages redacted.

Owen accuses the government of imposing an arbitrary and illogical policy towards the disclosure of official documents. Those that have been released show that Britain's nuclear deterrent, the pre-Trident Polaris system, did not have the capability that ministers were told that it had. They also show that crucial information about the costs of the system was withheld from the then chancellor, Denis Healey."

No I didn't, I said it was "simply factually untrue - and has been comprehensively debunked time and again". That Michael Portillo wants to make an ambiguous statement that may suggest otherwise doesn't change a single thing.

Owen is still, as far as I'm aware, ostensibly multilateralist. That being the case, I think he's really just baulking at cost here.

Reply 25

Drewski

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Ancient history. Yes, the US was uneasy about the UK obtaining them originally and reluctant to share Manhattan with anyone, but in the 50s and 60s they adjusted and eventually absorbed the UK nukes into their portfolio with Trident. That is why Reagan could confidently offer up the 'British' weapons to Gorbachev at Reykjavik without so much as a phone call to Thatcher to ask permission. Viewed from DC, they are American weapons.

So the '50s is ancient history that can be ignored without comment, but the '80s is entirely indicative of what's happening now, 40+ years later...?

Reply 26

OP

Original post by Drewski

So the '50s is ancient history that can be ignored without comment, but the '80s is entirely indicative of what's happening now, 40+ years later...?

Ha, yeah, well, I guess I was picturing two main stages, (1) the UK goes it alone against US opposition/running interference, roughly 1943 - 62 and then after Nassau, (2) 1963 - now, Polaris followed by Trident, largely under US supervision/agreement. I realise this might be some sort of simplification. :rolleyes:

Reply 27

OP

Original post by L i b

No I didn't, I said it was "simply factually untrue - and has been comprehensively debunked time and again". That Michael Portillo wants to make an ambiguous statement that may suggest otherwise doesn't change a single thing.

Owen is still, as far as I'm aware, ostensibly multilateralist. That being the case, I think he's really just baulking at cost here.

I think Owen is balking at the way the whole thing is run. It's definitely either sinister, or ridiculous, or both, that the Secretary of State was determined not to be suitable to be privy to see the documents governing the Trident programme. There's definitely a State within a State when it comes to British nuclear weapons. Owen isn't the only past cabinet minister to demand more information and to be thwarted. Doubtless this was partly about cost, but it's not difficult to see that the terms of management, the operational protocols and any deals with the US or joint management frameworks might also have been kept hidden. They are of course kept hidden from us, the public, which is why in practise it is impossible to claim definitively that the British nuclear deterrent is independent or under full British control. From what little we know, it appears unlikely.

Reply 28

Drewski

Original post by Fullofsurprises

From what little we know, it appears unlikely.

Well of course you're going to assume that. But you don't have the evidence to make that assumption.

Reply 29

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think Owen is balking at the way the whole thing is run. It's definitely either sinister, or ridiculous, or both, that the Secretary of State was determined not to be suitable to be privy to see the documents governing the Trident programme. There's definitely a State within a State when it comes to British nuclear weapons. Owen isn't the only past cabinet minister to demand more information and to be thwarted. Doubtless this was partly about cost, but it's not difficult to see that the terms of management, the operational protocols and any deals with the US or joint management frameworks might also have been kept hidden. They are of course kept hidden from us, the public, which is why in practise it is impossible to claim definitively that the British nuclear deterrent is independent or under full British control. From what little we know, it appears unlikely.

Are you making a technical point or a political one? Because they're not exactly sophisticated weapons at their core - and can certainly be used independently.

We've previously had arrangements with the US on use. The Quebec Agreement required the Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be officially a joint endeavour with the consent of the UK. But that's obviously quite different from technical independence - the UK couldn't physically have stopped the US doing it, had they taken the notion.

Reply 30

Quady

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think Owen is balking at the way the whole thing is run. It's definitely either sinister, or ridiculous, or both, that the Secretary of State was determined not to be suitable to be privy to see the documents governing the Trident programme. There's definitely a State within a State when it comes to British nuclear weapons. Owen isn't the only past cabinet minister to demand more information and to be thwarted. Doubtless this was partly about cost, but it's not difficult to see that the terms of management, the operational protocols and any deals with the US or joint management frameworks might also have been kept hidden. They are of course kept hidden from us, the public, which is why in practise it is impossible to claim definitively that the British nuclear deterrent is independent or under full British control. From what little we know, it appears unlikely.

So perhaps the US will pay the rent?

Reply 31

Trinculo

21

This whole thing is Project Fear with a depleted uranium tip.

Written in the Guardian by a rabid pro-EU think tank spreading anti-UK nonsense.

The very idea of it is utterly laughable. Relocating Trident to France?

Does anyone with a functioning brain think that there aren't contingency plans in Faslane for some reason became unusable - from a Commie nuclear strike or something?

Anyone with even a quantum of intelligence would just go - oh well - no Scotland, it's a shame we don't have the biggest and most historic naval base in all of Europe in Plymouth.

Reply 32

OP

Original post by Trinculo

This whole thing is Project Fear with a depleted uranium tip.

Written in the Guardian by a rabid pro-EU think tank spreading anti-UK nonsense.

The very idea of it is utterly laughable. Relocating Trident to France?

Does anyone with a functioning brain think that there aren't contingency plans in Faslane for some reason became unusable - from a Commie nuclear strike or something?

Anyone with even a quantum of intelligence would just go - oh well - no Scotland, it's a shame we don't have the biggest and most historic naval base in all of Europe in Plymouth.

The report is written by Rear Admiral John Gower who was formerly Asst. Chief of the Defence Staff with responsibility for nuclear weapons.
https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/person/john-gower/

It doesn't seem very plausible that they could move them to Plymouth. Apart from technical and other considerations, it's always been clear that the weapons were located in a wild part of Scotland in case there was a bad nuclear accident. The British government have never seemed too fussed as to what would happen to the people who live within 50 miles of it (that's basically Glasgow) but Devon and Cornwall would be a whole different thing. It's also incredibly likely that there would be huge opposition to it with vocal and aggressive campaigning. I doubt that the current government has the guts to go down that path.

You mention France, but as the report says, relocation to the US is far more plausible. The missiles are leased from the US anyway and as with any lease, the terms are set by the owner.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 33

OP

Original post by Quady

So perhaps the US will pay the rent?

They are US weapons leased to the UK. It isn't known what the terms of that lease are, but probably they include the British paying through the nose year after year.

Reply 34

Quady

Original post by Fullofsurprises

They are US weapons leased to the UK. It isn't known what the terms of that lease are, but probably they include the British paying through the nose year after year.

But we won't be British anymore

Reply 35

OP

Original post by Quady

But we won't be British anymore

True. English/Welsh/Northern Irelanders then. Although probably at least one of the latter two will have gone as well. So maybe it will be the English Nuclear Deterrent (America-located and owned).

Reply 36

Quady

Original post by Fullofsurprises

True. English/Welsh/Northern Irelanders then. Although probably at least one of the latter two will have gone as well. So maybe it will be the English Nuclear Deterrent (America-located and owned).

Ah ok, no rent then

Shame, ah well

Reply 37

Drewski