US Sells Out UK to Secure START II Treaty

[PanzerJaeger]

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.



A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

Sorry guys (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html). I didn't vote for him. :no:

[Brenus]

And that is why France was out of NATO until recently...
But then we were the paranoid having no confidence in our US Allies...

Well done Nico for having put France in the trap...

[Greyblades]

:wall: What the fracking hell could be so important that those idiots gave away our secrets for it?!

[PanzerJaeger]

:wall: What the fracking hell could be so important that those idiots gave away our secrets for it?!

Obama needed a foreign policy win for domestic consumption. He was lauded in the press here over this.

[Greyblades]

...PR?...
...They completely sell us out for PR?!...
...Good god, George bush wasnt that frelling stupid!

[Subotan]

Eh, they'll be replaced soon anyway.

[InsaneApache]

Eh, they'll be replaced soon anyway.

Will they? And what if they aren't?

I tended to disregard the polemics about Obama, my step-moms a fan, now I'm not so sure. He obviously dislikes the British. A lot.

We have long memories on these islands.

[Subotan]

Will they? And what if they aren't?
They will, yeah.


I tended to disregard the polemics about Obama, my step-moms a fan, now I'm not so sure. He obviously dislikes the British. A lot.

Because he sent back a bust of Churchill which belonged to us? Pff. Besides what we did in Kenya in crushing the Mau-Maus wasn't exactly the kind of behaviour which he should be necessarily expected to ignore.


We have long memories on these islands.
More importantly, we're incredibly anxious about our position and power relative to America, and we freak out whenever an American suggests that we aren't the second most powerful country in the world.

[InsaneApache]

Because he sent back a bust of Churchill

Couldn't give a bugger over a little statue. The Falklands do spring to mind though.

[Don Corleone]

Obama ordered Gibbs on Wednesday to avoid listing the honoring of peace treaties with Israel as one of the conditions for the "orderly transition".

And now this... is there anybody this ^@# :daisy: won't sell out to cover his 2012 re-election bid?

Throwing Israel overboard for the Islamic extremists, and throwing the British over to the Russians... this is downright criminal.

To the people of the United Kingdom, your real allies, the American people, are deeply ashamed at the acts of our leadership and we beg your forgiveness. :shame:

[Greyblades]

They will, yeah.
How can you be so sure? We can barely afford new fighter planes let alone WMD's.


Because he sent back a bust of Churchill which belonged to us? Pff. Besides what we did in Kenya in crushing the Mau-Maus wasn't exactly the kind of behaviour which he should be necessarily expected to ignore.
That was in the 60's, you'd think any grudge they would have on us would have petered out by now.


More importantly, we're incredibly anxious about our position and power relative to America, and we freak out whenever an American suggests that we aren't the second most powerful country in the world.
Maybe you are, I'm more peeved that we're getting screwed over, even though we followed them into an utter disaster of a war and didn't complain. Some freaking grattitude.

[Subotan]

Couldn't give a bugger over a little statue. The Falklands do spring to mind though.
If Argentina had come knocking for the crappy little islands of Wales-beyond-the-Sea, the USA would have stood behind us, no doubt. Instead, Kirchner who was down in the polls attempted to stir up some nationalist rhetoric, which failed pretty badly.


How can you be so sure? We can barely afford new fighter planes let alone WMD's..
Why would any government aside from an extreme old Labour surrender our nukes?



That was in the 60's, you'd think any grudge they would have on us would have petered out by now.
The Americans still ramble on about a few drunks and a black dude who we shot in Boston when they nearly killed some British soldiers. 50,000 dead 50 years ago is hardly going to be forgotten by Kenyans today.



Maybe you are, I'm more peeved that we're getting screwed over, even though we followed them into an utter disaster of a war and didn't complain. Some freaking grattitude.
Don't really care, if there ever was a nuclear war we'd all die anyway, so what's the point of caring?

[Greyblades]

If Argentina had come knocking for the crappy little islands of Wales-beyond-the-Sea, the USA would have stood behind us, no doubt. Instead, Kirchner who was down in the polls attempted to stir up some nationalist rhetoric, which failed pretty badly.
They did come knocking and the USA didn't stand by us. And what did krichner have to do with the USA's involvment in the falklands war? Wikipedia says they dropped out of politics during the time.


Why would any government aside from an extreme old Labour surrender our nukes?
The problem is that if we dont replace them the russians will pretty much have the blueprints to our entire nuclear arsenal.


The Americans still ramble on about a few drunks and a black dude who we shot in Boston when they nearly killed some British soldiers. 50,000 dead 50 years ago is hardly going to be forgotten by Kenyans today.
Ok, then why would an american from hawii care? Outside of the whole Moral & political correctness saying he should.
Edit: ignore that question, I looked it up and I realy should have done it earlier.


Don't really care, if there ever was a nuclear war we'd all die anyway, so what's the point of caring?
Nukes have other uses outsider of MAD, having nukes is the only thing giving our government's opinion weight these days.

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't really care, if there ever was a nuclear war we'd all die anyway, so what's the point of caring?

If you don't care about the nuclear weapons themselves, how about the deceit? The UK is supposed to be the US' best ally, and they showed it in Iraq II - for which we should be forever grateful. Instead, we promised the UK this deal would have nothing to do with their security, and promptly sold them out behind their backs.

With the growing re-emergence of authoritarianism in the world, the Western democracies should be working more closely together, not betraying each other to Putin's Russia for a treaty that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

[Greyblades]

Ooh. Happy 6666th post panzer!:devil:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you don't care about the nuclear weapons themselves, how about the deceit? The UK is supposed to be the US' best ally, and they showed it in Iraq II - for which we should be forever grateful. Instead, we promised the UK this deal would have nothing to do with their security, and promptly sold them out behind their backs.

With the growing re-emergence of authoritarianism in the world, the Western democracies should be working more closely together, not betraying each other to Putin's Russia for a treaty that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

Quite, and I believe that IA was reffering to the more recent Falklands sellout, where Hilary Clinton said the US backed talks for a diplomatic solution.

Yeah right, do they back talks between the US and the people of Diago Garcia.

This just confirms me in the belief that America is the real enemy Western Democracies should be afraid of, like us but not one of us, and unwilling to help us.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama ordered Gibbs on Wednesday to avoid listing the honoring of peace treaties with Israel as one of the conditions for the "orderly transition".

And now this... is there anybody this ^@# :daisy: won't sell out to cover his 2012 re-election bid?

Throwing Israel overboard for the Islamic extremists, and throwing the British over to the Russians... this is downright criminal.

To the people of the United Kingdom, your real allies, the American people, are deeply ashamed at the acts of our leadership and we beg your forgiveness. :shame:

I understand disliking the policy move but this is just silly.

Russian nuclear over-proliferation is still a huge problem. Nuclear material is not as safely guarded as it should be and that poses a danger to the entire world. Reducing US-Russian nuclear armament has always made the world safer.

I don't understand why it is that when you become allies with someone you are trapped into a constant circle **** that you should never leave. Isreal is hardly innocent in the middle eastern affairs, why must we always defend it to the max all the time?

What would be the consequences of the Russians knowing how many nukes the British have? A pre emptive strike? No. A reduction of British political clout? Probably, but what will harm the UK because of Russia being defiant? Natural gas supplies? Maybe it is time to promote different sources of energy then try to maintain the status quo with mysterious numbers of nukes.

Overall, all I see here is Cold War mentality of "if they know how much we have and it isn't big enough, we lose the game.". :shrug:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pah! I bet Obama thought he could get away with this! Bless wikileaks!

If it weren't for the leak, the UK would never have found out this treason from reading the high profile, internationally publicised, instantantly available New Start Treaty that Obama had agreed to share serial numb....wait, that doesn't make sense, does it?

This treaty is most public, so what is in Wiki that is not openly available information? Well certainly not any treason or selling out of allies by secretly divulging information. That is a rather...'creative' way to spin this by the Telegraph, which lately has been running an alarmist article every month about the Americans betraying the Special Relationship.

It is getting a bit boring. :sleeping:

[PanzerJaeger]

Pah! I bet Obama thought he could get away with this! Bless wikileaks!

If it weren't for the leak, the UK would never have found out this treason from reading the high profile, internationally publicised, instantantly available New Start Treaty that Obama had agreed to share serial numb....wait, that doesn't make sense, does it?



Nations often offer incentives to solidify treaties that are separate from those treaties.

Can you find mention of this in the treaty (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf) or the protocol (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140047.pdf)? I couldn't.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The UK knew that the US was going to use them as a bargaining chip. They asked in 2009,

"Can we tell them the specs of your missiles?"
"No."

So then they went and gave serial numbers of nukes the US had in their possession which they are giving to the UK. Omg, big shocker for the UK gov. To be honest, giving the serial numbers of the nuke transactions between the US and the UK isn't as bad as telling the Russians what the weakness of their armaments are.

It's a trade off situation, in order get a little bit further in doing this noble goal we had to say "sorry, we felt we had to do this." to a friend. People seem to think that if Obama doesn't have win-win situations where he becomes the Bobby Fisher of global politics that he is an idiot who is stumbling in the dark.

[Megas Methuselah]

Quite, and I believe that IA was reffering to the more recent Falklands sellout, where Hilary Clinton said the US backed talks for a diplomatic solution.

Yeah right, do they back talks between the US and the people of Diago Garcia.

This just confirms me in the belief that America is the real enemy Western Democracies should be afraid of, like us but not one of us, and unwilling to help us.

I agree. PJ can blame his life's problems on the black man for all he wants, but in the end, it all goes down to his country and his culture. He must accept this.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1046&d=1296883645

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nations often offer incentives to solidify treaties that are separate from those treaties.

Can you find mention of this in the treaty (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf) or the protocol (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140047.pdf)? I couldn't.I can't find it either. Sadly, the wikileaks cables are impossible to navigate unless one really has oodles of disposable time. I did not find the relevant cables either.


Nevertheless, if America did not agree to share the serial numbers, there is no story. If America did agree to share serial numbers, they are handed over openly, in some treaty, or shared secretly.


A treaty neither of us could find. I have also not seen anything that shows they were handed over in secret. From reading the Telegraph article, the Wikileaks reveal that the serial numbers were used to win over Russia. The wikileaks do not reveal that these numbers were handed over in secret, or against the will of the UK.

I have yet to see something that shows a diplomatic scandal. :shrug:

[Husar]

When the Russians come we'll all surrender anyway, so what's the outrage about? ~D

Britain could just build it's own nuclear missiles then they wouldn't have to whine over the US giving something away to teh evil commies.

[rory_20_uk]

If you don't care about the nuclear weapons themselves, how about the deceit? The UK is supposed to be the US' best ally, and they showed it in Iraq II - for which we should be forever grateful. Instead, we promised the UK this deal would have nothing to do with their security, and promptly sold them out behind their backs.

Gratitude has a very short shelf life.

The reality is the UK can't launch the damn missiles accurately without the USA in the first place; launching against Russia would also get multiples of missiles back, so not happening.

If there every was a "special relationship" it's long dead. We were useful in WW2 when merely for vast sums of money, all our patients and our empire we could help America cement its world dominance. Since then we've tried to keep it alive, and yes, it is every time we do what America wants. Of course, when we needed assistance (Suez, Argentina), we were ignored.

Why should this time be any different?

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meanwhile in reality...


The New Start treaty shows the great lengths 'Obama' has gone through to have its relationship with the United Kingdom acknowledged by Russia.

In effect, 'Obama' has re-affirmed that the close co-operation between America and the UK is a given, and must be accepted by Russia as an exceptional realtionship, that is not subject to the treaty's general provisions. What's more, 'Obama' re-affirms to Russia that Britain's nuclear deterrent remains independent.


ARTICLE XIII

Article XIII provides that each Party may not assume any international obligations or undertakings that would conflict with the Treaty’s provisions. The phrase “obligations or undertakings” covers both formal written agreements and informal arrangements between governments.

Article XIII further provides that the Parties undertake not to transfer strategic offensive arms subject to this Treaty to third parties. The Parties are to hold consultations within the framework of the BCC in order to resolve any ambiguities that may arise in this regard. Article XIII makes it clear that this provision does not apply to any patterns of cooperation, including obligations, in the area of strategic offensive arms existing at the time of signature of the Treaty between a Party and a third State.

For the United States, the only pattern of cooperation existing at the time of Treaty signature is the longstanding and continuing pattern of cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom, which the Russian side acknowledged during the New START Treaty negotiations. The Russian side understands this pattern to be as it was described during the START Treaty negotiations, as discussed below.

With respect to the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, the phrase "pattern of cooperation," while not defined, is broader than any specific, currently existing sales or cooperation agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom. On July 29, 1991, in the final plenary meeting of the START negotiations, the United States made a formal statement with regard to the scope of its longstanding pattern of cooperation with the United Kingdom. The United States stated that it attaches great importance to the role played by the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent in helping maintain world peace, and that the United States has, for many years, helped maintain and modernize that deterrent. The United States further stated that this is what it referred to as "the existing pattern of cooperation" between the United States and the United Kingdom, which then included agreement by the United States to sell the United Kingdom the Trident II weapon system. The United States has consistently maintained that, in this case, "pattern of cooperation" refers to maintaining an independent United Kingdom deterrent and not to any specific weapon system or any specific category of strategic offensive arms.



Section 2, Paragraph seven deals with 'selling out the UK':

Paragraph 7 requires notification of the transfer of SLBMs to or from a third State in accordance with an established pattern of cooperation existing at the time of signature of the Treaty, as referred to in Article XIII of the Treaty. The number, type, date, unique identifier, and location of the transferred SLBM must be provided. This notification will be used with respect to the longstanding pattern of cooperation that existed at the time of signature of the Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. There is a separate notification, provided under paragraph 2 of Section III of Part Four of the Protocol that the Russian Federation will use to notify the transit of Russian ICBMs to and from the Leninsk Test Range in Kazakhstan for the purpose of conducting flight test launches from the Leninsk Test Range. Under its long-term lease arrangement with Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation maintains ownership and control over all ICBMs transported to and from the Leninsk Test Range.


What a laugh, that article in the Telegraph.

There is no secret selling out of the UK to Russia. There is no wild discovery in a wikileaked cable. The agreement to share serial numbers of is perfectly open and can be accessed by anybody with an internets. I found it at the website of the US Departement of State, where it's been up and running ever since may last year: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/141829.htm

[Louis VI the Fat]

To the people of the United Kingdom, your real allies, the American people, are deeply ashamed at the acts of our leadership and we beg your forgiveness. :shame:Nah.

What you need to ask yourself is why the Telegraph, a Conservative bastion, has been running these alarmist articles about 'American betrayals' for the past year or so. Let them apologise to you for printing that America is yet again selling out Britian.

Why the British press should be so alarmist was revealed, unlike the non-discovery of this thread, in a wikileak cable by American diplomats: Britain feels very insecure in the special relationship, and seeks constant confirmation. American diplomacy must literally re-assure them every day of the relationship.

Meanwhile in the press, anything perceived injustice done by Washington is blown up way out of proportion to show American ingratitude and unreliability. To the British press, America can never do enough, no matter how hard it tries. :shrug:

[Subotan]

They did come knocking and the USA didn't stand by us. And what did krichner have to do with the USA's involvment in the falklands war? Wikipedia says they dropped out of politics during the time.
Regan actually permitted the use of key US air bases which were crucial for us in winning the Falklands War.



The problem is that if we dont replace them the russians will pretty much have the blueprints to our entire nuclear arsenal.

...But we will replace them.


Nukes have other uses outsider of MAD, having nukes is the only thing giving our government's opinion weight these days.
True, but then we haven't been in a position to tell Russia what to do since 1917, and having nukes or not isn't going to affect that one iota.


If you don't care about the nuclear weapons themselves, how about the deceit? The UK is supposed to be the US' best ally, and they showed it in Iraq II - for which we should be forever grateful. Instead, we promised the UK this deal would have nothing to do with their security, and promptly sold them out behind their backs.
OK, but that further strengthens the position of Euro-philes such as myself who believe that European countries should be working together on security and defence issues, and have a bilateral relationship with the United States than the current situation which allows the USA to divide and rule us.


With the growing re-emergence of authoritarianism in the world, the Western democracies should be working more closely together, not betraying each other to Putin's Russia for a treaty that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.I completely agree we should be working more closely, but this is an example of a relationship where the Europeans don't have much sway at all, given that the Americans and Russians are very used to dealing with each other one-to-one.


Quite, and I believe that IA was reffering to the more recent Falklands sellout, where Hilary Clinton said the US backed talks for a diplomatic solution.
Mhm, as was I. The Kirchners did not have the balls or the capabilities to go through with an invasion though, and we can just flat out refuse to enter talks.


This just confirms me in the belief that America is the real enemy Western Democracies should be afraid of, like us but not one of us, and unwilling to help us.
Heavens! Are you becoming a Europhile PVC?



What you need to ask yourself is why the Telegraph, a Conservative bastion, has been running these alarmist articles about 'American betrayals' for the past year or so. Let them apologise to you for printing that America is yet again selling out Britian.
Because they've ran out of articles about MPs expenses and need to keep tensions high amongst their readership, some of whom have a convenient fear of brown people.


Why the British press should be so alarmist was revealed, unlike the non-discovery of this thread, in a wikileak cable by American diplomats: Britain feels very insecure in the special relationship, and seeks constant confirmation. American diplomacy must literally re-assure them every day of the relationship.

Meanwhile in the press, anything perceived injustice done by Washington is blown up way out of proportion to show American ingratitude and unreliability. To the British press, America can never do enough, no matter how hard it tries. :shrug:
:yes:

[Furunculus]

"The number, type, date, unique identifier, and location of the transferred SLBM must be provided. This notification will be used with respect to the longstanding pattern of cooperation that existed at the time of signature of the Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom."

There is no secret selling out of the UK to Russia.

^ this ^


What you need to ask yourself is why the Telegraph, a Conservative bastion, has been running these alarmist articles about 'American betrayals' for the past year or so.

really that amounts to nothing more than two of the resident blogger's Con Coughlin and Nile Gardiner, and little if anything to do with the editorial line of the paper.

[Beskar]

This just confirms me in the belief that America is the real enemy Western Democracies should be afraid of, like us but not one of us, and unwilling to help us.

That's what I been saying for years, and you just realised it now?! :tongue:

This is why we need to create a strong democratic European Union to counter the American influences, and exert our own influences on Russia and China.

[gaelic cowboy]

Build yer own bombs if ye want them kept secret.

Non story this just some journo too lazy to even google the facts

[Greyblades]

Regan actually permitted the use of key US air bases which were crucial for us in winning the Falklands War.
Oh, I actually didn't know that. Thank you. And krichner?


...But we will replace them.
Indeed, but soon? The process to replace them is only in the proposal stage, there are MP's who dont want us to have them and it is expensive, in this economy I dont think we will be able to scrounge enough support or money to replace them for at least 10 years. In the mean time Putin has the blueprints to trident and god knows how many other countries he decided he would "loan" them to.


True, but then we haven't been in a position to tell Russia what to do since 1917, and having nukes or not isn't going to affect that one iota.
Indeed, but thats the thing; Russia has more nukes than us, what about countries that dont have nukes? If we tell Burma to give control to the people us having nukes will at least give them pause. Or Argentina, if they grow enough balls to actually start invading the Falklands we could just stick a nuclear sub just off-shore of bueno aires and tell them to :daisy: off.

[Furunculus]

Indeed, but soon? The process to replace them is only in the proposal stage, there are MP's who dont want us to have them and it is expensive, in this economy I dont think we will be able to scrounge enough support or money to replace them for at least 10 years.


phttp://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13957

*cackles to himself*

[gaelic cowboy]

Indeed, but thats the thing; Russia has more nukes than us, what about countries that dont have nukes? If we tell Burma to give control to the people us having nukes will at least give them pause. Or Argentina, if they grow enough balls to actually start invading the Falklands we could just stick a nuclear sub just off-shore of bueno aires and tell them to :daisy: off.

Do you really think the USA will let you engage in that sort of lark??

[rory_20_uk]

Do you really think the USA will let you engage in that sort of lark??

That's the reality. We only pretend to have independent nukes. In reality they are only for MAD.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Do you really think the USA will let you engage in that sort of lark??

As long as we don't fire the damn things I don't think they will complain.

[Subotan]

Oh, I actually didn't know that. Thank you. And krichner?
Np. And the Kirchners (Kirchner now) were just populist rabblerousers.



Indeed, but soon? The process to replace them is only in the proposal stage, there are MP's who dont want us to have them and it is expensive, in this economy I dont think we will be able to scrounge enough support or money to replace them for at least 10 years. In the mean time Putin has the blueprints to trident and god knows how many other countries he decided he would "loan" them to.
Russia will not be in a state to seriously threaten us within the next decade or two, so the point is relatively moot.


Indeed, but thats the thing; Russia has more nukes than us, what about countries that dont have nukes? If we tell Burma to give control to the people us having nukes will at least give them pause. Or Argentina, if they grow enough balls to actually start invading the Falklands we could just stick a nuclear sub just off-shore of bueno aires and tell them to :daisy: off.
OK, but Russia is neither stupid nor reckless enough to share with countries like Burma the intricate details of our nuclear weapons technology.

[gaelic cowboy]

As long as we don't fire the damn things I don't think they will complain.

Except that is not how nuclear diplomacy works.

You only move when your sure the otherside understands you not initiating a strike, basically you move and countermove. As long as both side are on the same page about there respective moves the end result is stalemate.

The problem is when you start having to make your move by understanding what the enemies reaction will be, if your not careful you will end up following a path of launching your nukes.

So you ask what does this mean for Britain, well as Rory said your nukes are really just backup American ones so your really not going to be allowed to upset the USA's delicate nuclear diplomacy ever.

[Greyblades]

Except that is not how nuclear diplomacy works.

You only move when your sure the otherside understands you not initiating a strike, basically you move and countermove. As long as both side are on the same page about there respective moves the end result is stalemate.

The problem is when you start having to make your move by understanding what the enemies reaction will be, if your not careful you will end up following a path of launching your nukes.

So you ask what does this mean for Britain, well as Rory said your nukes are really just backup American ones so your really not going to be allowed to upset the USA's delicate nuclear diplomacy ever.

...What, are the chinese going to consider moving nukes to south america an attack waiting to happen? Does russia consider argentina vital to thier interests? Besides it's almost guarenteed the argentinians would fold instantly so america wouldnt even have to release launch codes. Just stick the sub on the coast and intimidation will do the rest.

[Beskar]

The Russians don't know about our anti-Nuclear missile shield yet. So their threats are futile, while we laugh at them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

...What, are the chinese going to consider moving nukes to south america an attack waiting to happen? Does russia consider argentina vital to thier interests? Besides it's almost guarenteed the argentinians would fold instantly so america wouldnt even have to release launch codes. Just stick the sub on the coast and intimidation will do the rest.In the real world, it is not an option to use (the threat of) nukes in low intensity conflicts. Nukes are a means of final resort, to avert imminent threat to your very existence.

Of course, the problem is what constitutes a final resort, imminent threat, a desperate measure. Small scale anti-terrorist efforts have been sold as apolcalyptic battles for freedom against the forces of evil. In that sense, important is not internationally accepted rules for using nukes, but one's ability to lie and intimidate the world into accepting your idea of what contitutes a desperate conflict over your very existence.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the real world, it is not an option to use (the threat of) nukes in low intensity conflicts. Nukes are a means of final resort, to avert imminent threat to your very existence.

Of course, the problem is what constitutes a final resort, imminent threat, a desperate measure. Small scale anti-terrorist efforts have been sold as apolcalyptic battles for freedom against the forces of evil. In that sense, important is not internationally accepted rules for using nukes, but one's ability to lie and intimidate the world into accepting your idea of what contitutes a desperate conflict over your very existence.

Everyone knows that if the Falklands were taken, Britain as we know it would cease to exist.

[JAG]

Talk about all you guys making a mountain out of a mole hill. I see no problemn what has been done. Someone asked what is the reason he is doing this? Try stable global relations between nuclear powers? Might be an idea...

[JAG]

Everyone knows that if the Falklands were taken, Britain as we know it would cease to exist.

Yep and the threat of nuclear attack was so strong it frightened the Argentinians off. Why don't people 'get it'!

[Slyspy]

Pah, the States have basically been treating us with contempt since at least 1944. It is the way things are when you are no longer top dog, merely another little pawn.

[Sarmatian]

I just can't believe no one posted this yet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLTO6_J9Fyc&feature=player_detailpage#t=288s

[gaelic cowboy]

...What, are the chinese going to consider moving nukes to south america an attack waiting to happen? Does russia consider argentina vital to thier interests? Besides it's almost guarenteed the argentinians would fold instantly so america wouldnt even have to release launch codes. Just stick the sub on the coast and intimidation will do the rest.

You cant go around destabilising globally vital regions when your only a regional power yourself it does not work like that .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meanwhile in reality...


The New Start treaty shows the great lengths 'Obama' has gone through to have its relationship with the United Kingdom acknowledged by Russia.

In effect, 'Obama' has re-affirmed that the close co-operation between America and the UK is a given, and must be accepted by Russia as an exceptional realtionship, that is not subject to the treaty's general provisions. What's more, 'Obama' re-affirms to Russia that Britain's nuclear deterrent remains independent.




Section 2, Paragraph seven deals with 'selling out the UK':



What a laugh, that article in the Telegraph.

There is no secret selling out of the UK to Russia. There is no wild discovery in a wikileaked cable. The agreement to share serial numbers of is perfectly open and can be accessed by anybody with an internets. I found it at the website of the US Departement of State, where it's been up and running ever since may last year: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/141829.htm

OK, so they soled us out openly, the treaty admits that in practice this ONLY affects the US UK relationship, and the US uses that relationship to effectively declare the UK a subornate satalite state.


Heavens! Are you becoming a Europhile PVC?

I have nothing against Europe, but I will always dispise dictatorial institutions like the EU.

[Subotan]

OK, so they soled us out openly, the treaty admits that in practice this ONLY affects the US UK relationship, and the US uses that relationship to effectively declare the UK a subornate satalite state.
We already were when it comes to nuclear diplomacy.


I have nothing against Europe, but I will always dispise dictatorial institutions like the EU.
Captain Hyperbole saves the world again!

[Furunculus]

before we get too deeply entrenched in silly arguments over how pWn'ed we'd be if the yanks pull the plug on trident, can people at least read the following:

Independence of operation (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/2005/07/BritainsNuclearArsenalControl.htm).


2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?

No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes,
procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was
being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such
circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?

No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons?

No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the answer to your second question.

Not of acquisition: (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm)


80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

81. Sir Michael Quinlan told us that the UK’s decision to choose independence of operation meant that “in the last resort, when the chips are down and we are scared, worried to the extreme, we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not”.[67] He argued that the decision to fire is an independent, sovereign decision. The United States “can neither dictate that the [UK's] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor [can it] apply any veto-legal or physical-if HMG were to decide upon [its] use”.[68]

82. Commodore Hare told us that “operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else”. He told us that the United States does not have a “technical golden key” which can prevent the UK from using the system.[69]

83. The potential disadvantage of the UK decision to forego independence of acquisition is that “if, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in… great difficulty”.[70] Commodore Hare told us that such a risk was, in reality, “very low” and that, ultimately, “one must balance that risk against the enormous cost benefits that we have in procuring an American system to house in our submarines. That should not be underestimated”.[71]

To summarise; Britain can unleash buckets of sunshine whenever it chooses. If we did so ‘inappropriately’ then the US would refuse to service our leased missiles which would render them inoperative within a year or two. If the US knew beforehand then they could switch of the GPS forcing the missiles to rely on inertial navigation which would reduce accuracy from less than 30 feet to around 100 feet. None of which prevents the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent from fulfilling its purpose.

Just in case anyone thought that situation might have changed during the intermission, we have this parliamentary report last year (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/11406.htm):


137. In its written submission the FCO reasserted the Government’s position that the UK nuclear deterrent was fully operationally independent and that the decision making, use and command and control of the system remained entirely sovereign to the UK. It explained that only the Prime Minister could authorise use of the system and that the UK’s nuclear warheads were designed and manufactured in the UK. Other elements of the system, such as the D5 Trident missile bodies, were procured from the US under the terms of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, which was amended to cover Trident in 1982. The FCO claimed that this “procurement relationship does not undermine the independence of the deterrent, nor has the US ever sought to exploit it as a means to influence UK foreign policy”.[225]

[Greyblades]

You cant go around destabilising globally vital regions when your only a regional power yourself it does not work like that .

No, it does, thats why there was colonialism worked so well in the first place. We just dont choose to do it these days for the sake of stability. And since when has south america been vital?

[gaelic cowboy]

That's all well and good but we both know the reality is you will never launch them unless you have US permission.

Sure the UK may feel threatened but to undermine long term security for some short term goal would be irresponsible in the extreme.

[gaelic cowboy]

No, it does, thats why there was colonialism worked so well in the first place. We just dont choose to do it for the sake of stability. And since when has south america been vital?

No it worked in the old days, ask the USA how there getting on in the Mid East or Central Asia lately nukes are not much use there.

The issue of stability has to be always considered in nuclear diplomacy, in fact if you dont things could get out of hand very quickly.

Ever heard of Brazil do you seriously think they will let Britain mess around in there backyard.

[Greyblades]

No it worked in the old days, ask the USA how there getting on in the Mid East or Central Asia lately nukes are not much use there.
China would disagree seeing as they are getting away with ramming japanese coast guard and claiming disputed islands with the threat of them.


The issue of stability has to be always considered in nuclear diplomacy, in fact if you dont things could get out of hand very quickly.

Ever heard of Brazil do you seriously think they will let Britain mess around in there backyard.
If argentina is the stupid enough to declare war first, then yeah. In this theoretical scenario all we would do is stick a nuke right under thier nose and get them to sign peace afew months and afew 1000 lives earlier than it would otherwise. Call me ignorant, as I am in most things, but I realy dont see the problem.

[Furunculus]

That's all well and good but we both know the reality is you will never launch them unless you have US permission.

Sure the UK may feel threatened but to undermine long term security for some short term goal would be irresponsible in the extreme.

that is the joy, the policy is deliberately left ambiguous, over threat scenario and first use/strike.

probably won't is a big gamble with nukes.

[gaelic cowboy]

China would disagree seeing as they are getting away with ramming japanese coast guard and claiming disputed islands with the threat of them.

China is a superpower different rules apply, Britain is a regional power who muct act in concert to American plans.



If argentina is the stupid enough to declare war first, then yeah. In this theoretical scenario all we would do is stick a nuke right under thier nose and get them to sign peace afew months and afew 1000 lives earlier than it would otherwise. Call me ignorant, as I am in most things, but I realy dont see the problem.

This is not the 1980s anymore the other nations in South America would have to be onboard for any British retaliation to be effective.

Anyway this is getting away from the main point which is that this US non sell out is merely reflecting the reality of the US/UK nuclear relationship.

[Fisherking]

Regardless of the excuses or justifications of the issue, it seems to me that Politicians so used to selling out friends for self gain are happily doing the same with Nations.

Making a scandal of it is the only way they will notice the objections of people who can’t vote for them.

[Strike For The South]

You don't want to be our lapdog but then when we sell you out like all the other pesants you bitch and moan

There is no winning with you limeys

[Greyblades]

Mate our national passtime is arguing with foreigners, what did you expect?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't want to be our lapdog but then when we sell you out like all the other pesants you bitch and moan

There is no winning with you limeys

You win by subjugating yourselves to our superior culture. America should do it now, get ahead of the curve and not wait for the Lion of Albion to rise again.

[Lemur]

Nonsense. As I have stated several times, the UK should become the fifty-first state. It's about damn time.

[Greyblades]

Hah, even if that was to happen, we're worth 5 states at least.

[Lemur]

How do you figure that? England, Scotland, N. Ireland and ... what? Wales? Gibraltar? Shall the Falklands get two senators just like Rhode Island? To paraphrase ODB, British, please.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, 50 states for 300M people makes ~6M per state. Britain with its 58M or so people (2001 census according to wikipedia) therefore factors in as about 10 states, actually.

[Lemur]

Pshaw. You'll take your two senators and you'll be grateful. Do not try your imperial overlord's patience!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, 50 states for 300M people makes ~6M per state. Britain with its 58M or so people (2001 census according to wikipedia) therefore factors in as about 10 states, actually.

California has 37M, so can have 1 1/2.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hah, even if that was to happen, we're worth 5 states at least.Mind your insolent tongue. Only Texas has the right to form itself into five states. :stare:



true dat

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nonsense. As I have stated several times, the UK should become the fifty-first state. It's about damn time.

I would go to vicious and brutal war to prevent that. It would make your war for independance look decidedly tame.

[Greyblades]

And this time we're mining that delaware river.

[drone]

And this time we're mining that delaware river.
We'd prefer it if you just blew up the whole state.

[PanzerJaeger]

I would go to vicious and brutal war to prevent that. It would make your war for independance look decidedly tame.

It has already been established through painstaking analysis on this very board that you guys are worthless soldiers, corrupted by a weak, coddling society. The Marines will make short work of your little insurrection!