UK must build own nuclear missiles to end US reliance, says Ed Davey
(www.bbc.co.uk)
from MonsterMonster@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 08:08
https://lemmy.world/post/44281999
from MonsterMonster@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 08:08
https://lemmy.world/post/44281999
Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a “fully independent British nuclear deterrent” to end the UK’s reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party’s spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK’s continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security.
#world
threaded - newest
Go for it UK! 👍
Meanwhile Denmark continues to buy F-35. I’ve been screaming and shouting about how bad that deal was from the start. And that was before USA threatened the Kingdom of Denmark. It is so stupid that the deal hasn’t been cancelled yet. Now we need to get rid of the F-35 planes we already bought!
At least you’re not here in Australia, groaning as out defence minister still insists that we’re definitely getting our US-made submarines that we’ve paid for under the AUKUS deal…
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr589k5yleo
That article is only 5 month old, if that deal is so new, I cannot fathom why anybody would make a deal with USA at that point?
That should have been: HOW does Australia get out of it?
Even though the deal we made on F35 was under Obama, it was such a bad deal, and 100% based on corruption and to help Obama against criticism in congress.
The numbers were unrealistically tweaked to make it look good, as if we could maintain the planes for a third what Norway were supposed to, and then have them fly twice as much!!
Imagine the fleet we could have, even including AWACs from Sweden and it would still be cheaper both to buy and maintain, and the planes from Sweden are more versatile in many ways. I wouldn’t be surprised if F-35 is part of the problem USA has in Iran. All the planes we hear of are older planes, why aren’t we hearing about how amazing their new super plane F-35 is? Seems it’s completely useless for the conflict?
UK’s deal is better than Denmark. UK got full source code access and since they can grow jet turbines in the UK they can do whatever they want with the platform.
UK can cooperate with other EU countries. Pretty sure Poland gonna be very interested. Germany, Italy.
Lets not proliferate. Perhaps France.
Nuclear proliferation would probably lead to a safer world. Look at North Korea, they are left alone by imperialists because they have the big red button. We could distribute nukes to everyone so there is universal MAD.
May also end the world, but we’re already on the way there.
North Korea is a terrible example of this, they were only able to get nuclear weapons because they never actually needed them. North Korea is left alone because they have hundreds of artillery pieces sat in range of Seoul and the backing of China to ride out the sanctions.
Without that their nuclear program would have gotten the crap bombed out of them (again) long before it resulted in a bomb.
Sure, but times have changed a lot, these days, IMO, imperialists would happily sacrifice Seoul to distract from Epstein files, as we’ve seen recently by the US relocating missile interceptors from Korea to defend Israel.
North Korea is left alone because they have no oil
Why not?
Britain and Poland would have to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The only state to do so to date is North Korea and it would be a highly troubling precedent.
I also believe that a nuclear arms race would have catastrophic consequences for the world, but unfortunately, Russia, Israel, and the US are making it all too clear that international treaties are, sadly, worthless.
Right now, it would be important to find diplomatic solutions and return to a peaceful, international dialogue, but I fear that this is simply not possible with the unscrupulous despots at the helm of these powerful countries. They believe that international law does not apply to them and want to establish the law of the jungle as the sole premise of world politics - they commit the most horrific war crimes and apparently believe they have the right to terrorize the world simply because they can. As long as their heinous crimes go unpunished and these monsters remain at the helm of their countries, I fear that the world must arm itself to avoid becoming their next victim.
While true, I weep for an environment that will have to endure another decade of nuclear bomb tests
This is about the missiles not the warheads. Britain already manufactures those and doesn’t conduct testing.
They’ll only be testing missiles with a dummy warhead. All countries (except NK) are no longer conducting these tests.
I hope the dummy warhead is just a scroll that unfurls and says “Bang”.
If only there was a nearby group of nations we could share this financial burden with.
Hahaha, good one
fuck no. no more nuclear escalation please
This belies a complete and total ignorance of the entire topic of strategic nuclear deterrence, and an extremely naive geopolitical worldview.
For case studies of why nuclear deterrence is important, and why a lack thereof can be catastrophic to the state in question, see:
Moreover, this is not an escalation. It’s moving towards strategic independence from a (former) ally that has become deeply unreliable.
i do agree with the logic. it’s just… hate that were inching closer to nuclear annihilation
So that means Russia is justified if they bomb the UK? Same reason we go after Iran.
To be clear, the UK already has a massive nuclear arsenal. This is just about building them domestically (and only the delivery system, they already build warheads) instead of importing. So, while you’re not wrong per se, the argument you’re trying to have kind of came and went a while ago.