2 ms·
>As for outright prevent spare parts - these aren't systems in, well, active use. Effects would be tiny over long term. Experts disagree with you, at least ove
by gruez 2y ago
>As for outright prevent spare parts - these aren't systems in, well, active use. Effects would be tiny over long term.
Experts disagree with you, at least over the "long term".
>Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet secretary, Robert Armstrong, told her that “in the inconceivable case of a future US government deciding to cut off supplies of components”, there would be “no sudden effect”, though over “two or three years” the deterrent’s effectiveness would “begin to fall off”. In 2006 Commodore Tim Hare, a former nuclear-policy chief at the Ministry of Defence, told the Commons Defence Committee: “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.” But the risk was “very low”.
>Sir Lawrence reckons that were that to happen there would not be a “cliff-edge” loss of effectiveness, “but over time we would be scrambling to keep it going”. The biggest problems would be replacing the Kings Bay missile storage and running out of critical spare parts.
https://archive.is/Qz2lI https://archive.is/Qz2lI
- yyyk 2y agoThey're almost saying what I said? Effects only in the long term, and even then they may be able to manage ('scrambling').
- gruez 2y agoYour original claim: >Effects would be tiny over long term. The experts I quoted: >over a very long period, [...] we would be in…great difficulty >over time we would be scrambling to keep it going "great difficulty" and "scrambling to keep it going" isn't "almost" the same as "Effects would be tiny "
- yyyk 2y agoI'll grant that, though I think that when countries want nukes they get/keep them unless strongly opposed (and usually even then...) - so I don't think US can deny the system in practice.