4 ms·

If England want to house American nuclear weapons, they can house them in England. Put them in Harwich or something.

• JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > If England want to house American nuclear weapons, they can house them in England Sure. But the point is they don't. Moving nuclear weapons (and building a new submarine base) is difficult, disruptive and expensive. (Having a non-nuclear power on the same landmass as a geopolitical competitor is also nice. If there is an underlined vision of this millenium shared by the world's great and regional powers, it's that nuclear sovereignty trumps the conventional kind.)
  • ErroneousBosh 10mo ago
    Well, they can pay us rent or something. Do you want a nuclear weapons site 20 miles from your largest city?
    • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > Do you want a nuclear weapons site 20 miles from your largest city? If you’re nuking a submarine port you’re nuking other port infrastructure. And if the UK is under strategic nuclear fire, any population center is going to be leveled. (I understand the NIMBY argument. I don’t want to live next to nuclear weapons more due to accident risk than targeting.) And I understand the non-proliferation one when it worked.)
• defrost 10mo ago
  Typically it's US manufacted missiles fitted with UK designed and built warheads. eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astraea_(nuclear_warhead) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astraea_(nuclear_warhead) There are / have been other nuclear warheads and bombs in the UK of both UK and US origin.