4 ms·

No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons in could have easily convinced the Americans to give them nukes for deterrence purposes

by avar 3y ago

No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons in could have easily convinced the Americans to give them nukes for deterrence purposes, as the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy etc. did. The real reason is that the UK (and France) wanted and still want a seat an the big boy's table. I.e. the UN security council etc.

jopsen 3y ago
> No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons... Maybe, maybe not? Until tested it's hard to know if a nuclear umbrella is more than bluff. That said, with US indifference from 1939 fresh in the memory I can see how they wanted the bomb. Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US.
- avar 3y ago
  > Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US. They really weren't, the nominal US control over them was always a figleaf to appease the requirements of Congress. If you look into the history of US nuclear sharing you'll find that what these NATO countries wanted was independent nuclear capabilities in the event of an emergency. That's what they got in every way except formally on paper. A relevant excerpt from "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser: > [...] Congressman Chet Holifield, the chairman of the joint committee, was amazed to find three ballistic missiles, carrying thermonuclear weapons, in the custody of a single American officer with a handgun. “All [the Italians] have to do is hit him on the head with a blackjack, and they have got his key,” Holifield said, during a closed-door committee hearing after the trip. The Jupiters were located near a forest, without any protective covering, and brightly illuminated at night. They would be sitting ducks for a sniper. “There were three Jupiters setting there in the open—all pointed toward the sky,” Holifield told the committee. “Over $300 million has been spent to set up that little show and it can be knocked out with 3 rifle bullets.” Foreign personnel weren’t supposed to enter the nuclear weapon igloos at NATO bases. But little had been done to stop them. A lone American soldier manned the entrance to the igloos, serving as a custodian of the weapons, not as an armed guard. Once again, security was provided by troops from the host nation, who also moved weapons in and out of the storage facilities. Senator Albert A. Gore, Sr., could hardly believe the arrangement: “Non-Americans with non-American vehicles are transporting nuclear weapons from place to place in foreign countries.”
andylynch 3y ago
Not that easily! The UK felt compelled to (re)build its own, independent nuclear capability after WWII when the Americans cut off technology sharing from the Manhattan Project. This was especially annoying from an ally which had learned much of the foundation essential to the endeavour from British Tube Alloys research. France saw this happen and drew a very similar conclusion.
sgift 3y ago
Maybe, probably not. Directly after WW2 the policy in the US was to keep the bomb and related technology secret at all costs. Only after UK, France and the Soviet Union showed that the cat was out of the bag the US changed their position to supporting other countries with things like the nuclear umbrella or the "Atoms for Peace" program in an effort to stop proliferation.

by avar 3y ago

jopsen 3y ago

> No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons... Maybe, maybe not? Until tested it's hard to know if a nuclear umbrella is more than bluff. That said, with US indifference from 1939 fresh in the memory I can see how they wanted the bomb. Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US.

avar 3y ago
> Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US. They really weren't, the nominal US control over them was always a figleaf to appease the requirements of Congress. If you look into the history of US nuclear sharing you'll find that what these NATO countries wanted was independent nuclear capabilities in the event of an emergency. That's what they got in every way except formally on paper. A relevant excerpt from "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser: > [...] Congressman Chet Holifield, the chairman of the joint committee, was amazed to find three ballistic missiles, carrying thermonuclear weapons, in the custody of a single American officer with a handgun. “All [the Italians] have to do is hit him on the head with a blackjack, and they have got his key,” Holifield said, during a closed-door committee hearing after the trip. The Jupiters were located near a forest, without any protective covering, and brightly illuminated at night. They would be sitting ducks for a sniper. “There were three Jupiters setting there in the open—all pointed toward the sky,” Holifield told the committee. “Over $300 million has been spent to set up that little show and it can be knocked out with 3 rifle bullets.” Foreign personnel weren’t supposed to enter the nuclear weapon igloos at NATO bases. But little had been done to stop them. A lone American soldier manned the entrance to the igloos, serving as a custodian of the weapons, not as an armed guard. Once again, security was provided by troops from the host nation, who also moved weapons in and out of the storage facilities. Senator Albert A. Gore, Sr., could hardly believe the arrangement: “Non-Americans with non-American vehicles are transporting nuclear weapons from place to place in foreign countries.”

andylynch 3y ago

Not that easily! The UK felt compelled to (re)build its own, independent nuclear capability after WWII when the Americans cut off technology sharing from the Manhattan Project. This was especially annoying from an ally which had learned much of the foundation essential to the endeavour from British Tube Alloys research. France saw this happen and drew a very similar conclusion.

sgift 3y ago

Maybe, probably not. Directly after WW2 the policy in the US was to keep the bomb and related technology secret at all costs. Only after UK, France and the Soviet Union showed that the cat was out of the bag the US changed their position to supporting other countries with things like the nuclear umbrella or the "Atoms for Peace" program in an effort to stop proliferation.