7 ms·

US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt

74 points by zabzonk 2y ago

zabzonk 2y ago
I made a comment here about this a couple of days ago. It seems that possibly better informed people than me are of the same opinion. Very worrying.
ggm 2y ago
Given the last test firing went bad, I could be 50/50 on this. Maybe European rocketry will work better? The US government lives in a city surrounded by mountains of lobbyists for defence industries. They could drown in their tears of lost revenue. Unreliable? Yes. Vanishing tomorrow? No.
ksec 2y ago
>An existing debate about the future of Trident – 40+ years later it is still about Trident. "Kremlin usually gets the NATO defence information before it gets filtered to us at Number 10."
- exe34 2y ago
  "the warheads don't fit on the end of the rocket".
- iamthemonster 2y ago
  I don't recall ever having heard that line before, but it could only have come from one place: https://youtu.be/nX0cmGxdFKU?t=57 https://youtu.be/nX0cmGxdFKU?t=57
Yeul 2y ago
I envision a future crisis in which the European Federation places missiles in Canada.
- TwoNineA 2y ago
  If this can dissuade the orange man payrolled by Moscow from annexing Canada, then so be it.
- zadler 2y ago
  Why are they like this? Why dont they stop the nuclear posturing and just get on with reindustrializing
  - dybber 2y ago
    The Canadians will probably want to protect themself in the case Trump really means it with the 51st state stuff. They will have interest in getting nuclear weapons, and they can perhaps get them from their allies.
gnfargbl 2y ago
The US has a vested interest in a large number of military bases in the UK, including Fylingdales which is an essential part of the US's ballistic missile warning system. There's no way that the US could renege on existing defence commitments without causing itself severe reciprocal damage. For future generations of missiles, recent events might encourage the UK to make buy/build decisions in line with those made by France, and I would personally be very pleased if we did. It's not at all good for us to rely on the US to make things that we could build ourselves, if we actually tried. But: there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing, and we shouldn't allow the mercurial temperament of the current president to make us think that there is.
- simion314 2y ago
  US has bases in Germany and Trump already announce moving parts of all of it out. So with Trump you can use logic to be sure what comes next, because is actions align very well with Ruzzia for now but it could be he is either stupid or he really prepares for invading NATO countries before he nature claims him.
- technothrasher 2y ago
  > without causing itself severe reciprocal damage I believe the entire reason we're having this conversation is because that doesn't appear to be much of a concern for the current administration.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    And by extension a lot of voters. We’ve got a Caligula problem at the centre of the empire. And the calls are coming from inside the house.
- kdavis 2y ago
  Given the past week, I think “there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing” is wishful thinking. In his last term Trump wanted to pullout of NATO[1], but “cooler heads” prevailed. Now these moderating forces are no longer members of his cabinet. So he will doubtlessly try officially, through legal means, or unofficially, by weakening NATO to the point where its guarantees are no longer believed, to withdraw. The only real moderating force preventing official withdrawal is the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024”[2] which “prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress”. There is no real moderating force preventing unofficial withdrawal. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-ukraine-election/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=Most%20recently%2C%20the%20National%20Defense,or%20an%20act%20of%20Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=M...
highwaylights 2y ago
It’s pretty clear from Macron’s speech that we’re heading into a massive nuclear escalation over the next few years, he has as much as said so. Since the Cold War, nuclear non-proliferation has been based entirely on the idea that NATO would balance Russia and vice versa. Given that NATO as it has been understood is now effectively dead, the non-proliferation treaty is essentially dead too. Europe needs to rapidly increase it’s nuclear weapons stockpile (and realises this), but this also gives other countries around the world an incentive/excuse to do the same. Canada has no nuclear umbrella of its own, is not part of a mutual defence alliance beyond NATO, and they are being actively threatened with annexation by a Russia-controlled US. They’ll clearly need to build or agree by pact their own nuclear defence as a matter of national emergency. It’s hard to see how anyone will place much trust in such pacts ever again though. It’s a scarier world we’re entering, and is significantly more dangerous than even the Cuban missile crisis.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  It’s not just Trump. Look at Biden’s deference to Russia over Ukraine and Israel over its neighbours. (Or Bush and Obama with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya versus North Korea.) There is a nuclear sovereignty subtly expressed by decades of American Presidents. In part due to realism. But in part because triggering a nuclear war, even a limited one, is presumed punsihable heavily diplomatically and electorally. Trump, of course, has accelerated this shift. But Le Monde Diplomatique wrote elegantly about it in ‘22 [1]. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war-in-ukraine-a-major-third-nuclear-age-crisis_6004714_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war...
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Pakistan, which some may not realize is a nuclear power, is also one of the best examples. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan for decades under the pretext of it being Bin Laden safe haven. It turns out Bin Laden was in Pakistan directly adjacent to the premises of Pakistan's top military academy. So we do the most minimal in and out operation imaginable, and then shortly thereafter got back to shipping Pakistan billions of dollars in "aid." The world going nuclear is only a danger when one nation begins to think they could win a nuclear conflict, or are enticed to play chicken with another nuclear power. Outside of that nukes are almost certainly the reason that the window from ~1945 to today has been, by far, one of the safest in the developed world. Without nukes the Cold War would, with complete certainty, have ended up as WW3.
Trasmatta 2y ago
It's absurd how Trump ran as the "candidate of peace" and that people actually bought it.
whoitwas 2y ago
MAGA making the world more dangerous one step at a time. Let nukes proliferate freely. Lockheed Martin needs moar!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

74 points by zabzonk 2y ago

I made a comment here about this a couple of days ago. It seems that possibly better informed people than me are of the same opinion. Very worrying.

ggm 2y ago

Given the last test firing went bad, I could be 50/50 on this. Maybe European rocketry will work better? The US government lives in a city surrounded by mountains of lobbyists for defence industries. They could drown in their tears of lost revenue. Unreliable? Yes. Vanishing tomorrow? No.

ksec 2y ago

>An existing debate about the future of Trident – 40+ years later it is still about Trident. "Kremlin usually gets the NATO defence information before it gets filtered to us at Number 10."

exe34 2y ago
"the warheads don't fit on the end of the rocket".
iamthemonster 2y ago
I don't recall ever having heard that line before, but it could only have come from one place: https://youtu.be/nX0cmGxdFKU?t=57 https://youtu.be/nX0cmGxdFKU?t=57

Yeul 2y ago

I envision a future crisis in which the European Federation places missiles in Canada.

TwoNineA 2y ago
If this can dissuade the orange man payrolled by Moscow from annexing Canada, then so be it.
zadler 2y ago
Why are they like this? Why dont they stop the nuclear posturing and just get on with reindustrializing
- dybber 2y ago
  The Canadians will probably want to protect themself in the case Trump really means it with the 51st state stuff. They will have interest in getting nuclear weapons, and they can perhaps get them from their allies.

gnfargbl 2y ago

The US has a vested interest in a large number of military bases in the UK, including Fylingdales which is an essential part of the US's ballistic missile warning system. There's no way that the US could renege on existing defence commitments without causing itself severe reciprocal damage. For future generations of missiles, recent events might encourage the UK to make buy/build decisions in line with those made by France, and I would personally be very pleased if we did. It's not at all good for us to rely on the US to make things that we could build ourselves, if we actually tried. But: there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing, and we shouldn't allow the mercurial temperament of the current president to make us think that there is.

simion314 2y ago
US has bases in Germany and Trump already announce moving parts of all of it out. So with Trump you can use logic to be sure what comes next, because is actions align very well with Ruzzia for now but it could be he is either stupid or he really prepares for invading NATO countries before he nature claims him.
technothrasher 2y ago
> without causing itself severe reciprocal damage I believe the entire reason we're having this conversation is because that doesn't appear to be much of a concern for the current administration.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  And by extension a lot of voters. We’ve got a Caligula problem at the centre of the empire. And the calls are coming from inside the house.
kdavis 2y ago
Given the past week, I think “there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing” is wishful thinking. In his last term Trump wanted to pullout of NATO[1], but “cooler heads” prevailed. Now these moderating forces are no longer members of his cabinet. So he will doubtlessly try officially, through legal means, or unofficially, by weakening NATO to the point where its guarantees are no longer believed, to withdraw. The only real moderating force preventing official withdrawal is the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024”[2] which “prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress”. There is no real moderating force preventing unofficial withdrawal. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-ukraine-election/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=Most%20recently%2C%20the%20National%20Defense,or%20an%20act%20of%20Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=M...

highwaylights 2y ago

It’s pretty clear from Macron’s speech that we’re heading into a massive nuclear escalation over the next few years, he has as much as said so. Since the Cold War, nuclear non-proliferation has been based entirely on the idea that NATO would balance Russia and vice versa. Given that NATO as it has been understood is now effectively dead, the non-proliferation treaty is essentially dead too. Europe needs to rapidly increase it’s nuclear weapons stockpile (and realises this), but this also gives other countries around the world an incentive/excuse to do the same. Canada has no nuclear umbrella of its own, is not part of a mutual defence alliance beyond NATO, and they are being actively threatened with annexation by a Russia-controlled US. They’ll clearly need to build or agree by pact their own nuclear defence as a matter of national emergency. It’s hard to see how anyone will place much trust in such pacts ever again though. It’s a scarier world we’re entering, and is significantly more dangerous than even the Cuban missile crisis.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
It’s not just Trump. Look at Biden’s deference to Russia over Ukraine and Israel over its neighbours. (Or Bush and Obama with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya versus North Korea.) There is a nuclear sovereignty subtly expressed by decades of American Presidents. In part due to realism. But in part because triggering a nuclear war, even a limited one, is presumed punsihable heavily diplomatically and electorally. Trump, of course, has accelerated this shift. But Le Monde Diplomatique wrote elegantly about it in ‘22 [1]. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war-in-ukraine-a-major-third-nuclear-age-crisis_6004714_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war...
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Pakistan, which some may not realize is a nuclear power, is also one of the best examples. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan for decades under the pretext of it being Bin Laden safe haven. It turns out Bin Laden was in Pakistan directly adjacent to the premises of Pakistan's top military academy. So we do the most minimal in and out operation imaginable, and then shortly thereafter got back to shipping Pakistan billions of dollars in "aid." The world going nuclear is only a danger when one nation begins to think they could win a nuclear conflict, or are enticed to play chicken with another nuclear power. Outside of that nukes are almost certainly the reason that the window from ~1945 to today has been, by far, one of the safest in the developed world. Without nukes the Cold War would, with complete certainty, have ended up as WW3.

Trasmatta 2y ago

It's absurd how Trump ran as the "candidate of peace" and that people actually bought it.

whoitwas 2y ago

MAGA making the world more dangerous one step at a time. Let nukes proliferate freely. Lockheed Martin needs moar!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]