Europe

[Beskar]

do you mean that america agreed to do things for us if we did things for them, wow, revolutionary!

What on earth are you on about? That has absolutely no relation to my comment.

i don't know how to put this any other way, what you utter is base drivel, unreconstructed nonsense.

the use of our strategic deterrent is operationally independant, thus is serves its purpose.

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

[Furunculus]

the US cannot stop the UK launching missiles. it is operationally independent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What on earth are you on about? That has absolutely no relation to my comment.



You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

They don't have the codes, they service the warheads. Were the US to remove that support the deterrent would remain viable for 14 months. Therefore the deterrent is Operationally independant. The US cannot stop the launch.

[Furunculus]

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

JFYI - everything you need to know about the independence of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent

Independence of Operation, not independence of acquisition:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fr...nalControl.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."

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../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]"