Blair's So-Called Nuclear Defence



Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
So, it seems Blair plans to renew Trident or, correction, Blair has been "told" to renew Trident.
One thing most people over here aren't aware of is the U.K doesn't have a nuclear defence at all, unlike France, China and Russia. The whole thing is controlled by the U.S.A. not by any British politician.
This is why Blair was so willing to go to war in Iraq - he had no choice.
I quote this from Wlikepedia:
"The UK has relied on the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) and, in later years, Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites for warning of a nuclear attack. Both of these systems are owned and controlled by the United States. One of the four component radars for the BMEWS is based at RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire."
Another thing Blair has kept quiet about is we really derive zero advantage from an American controlled nuclear defence system apart from becoming a target if a thermonuclear war broke out between the U.S. and China. If such a situation did develop, China or Russia would have no choice but to attack the U.K. with ICBM's even if any conflict over Taiwan, for instance, had nothing to do with us whatsoever.
So, I can only conclude any political leader with the foggiest idea would scrap the whole U.S. system and build a proper independent defence system as France has done.
However, Poodle Blair basically leads a Banana Republic which is something we should bear in mind.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
To be clear, Blair's decison simply re-emphasises our role as a strategic firing zone should a war break out - a convenient location for the U.S. to fire missiles from.
What they don't tell you is that instantly converts you into a target yourself.
However, if we had an independent nuclear deterrent as France does, we wouldn't become a target in the event the U.S. chose to go to war. We'd only be a target if we were unexpectedy at war ourselves.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
This seems to be the news story in Britain at the moment.

Blair insists that Trident must be replaced.
One needs to ask, who poses a threat which warrants such a defense system?
No one poses a threat unless China or France or the USA decide that they wish to attack Britain with nuclear warheads.

The British goverment would be better off putting the money that they intend to spend on Trident, in to more beneficial and more important projects.
 

DiabloScott

New Member
May 15, 2003
2,284
2
38
limerickman said:
One needs to ask, who poses a threat which warrants such a defense system?
No one poses a threat unless China or France or the USA decide that they wish to attack Britain with nuclear warheads.

Well there's Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Still not anything to worry about at the moment but the situation's a little complex than the three-player game you describe.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
I don't have anything against being a U.S. ally specifically but I do object to being a Banana Republic. France has its own nuclear capability controlled by the French Government. It's not a particularly huge defence capacity but it does allow France to decide its own foreign policy. Therefore, if France wishes to question the Iraq War, that's the direction France will take.
Here in the U.K. we rely totally on the U.S. for defence so this whole idea that the U.K. is a nuclear power is a myth. What we consist of is strategic base for U.S. missiles to be fired from which likewise converts us into a target.
Therefore, if the U.S. decided to go to war with China, we would inevitably be drawn into the same conflict and be subject to retaliation.
A sovereign nation is defined by one that chooses whether or not to go to war on its own terms. As for Iraq, had Iraq posed a credible threat to this country then I'd have backed the war. As it stands, Iraq never threatened this country so we should never have sent troops to that region. This was a matter of U.S. policy which I believe had nothing at all to do with us.


DiabloScott said:
Well there's Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Still not anything to worry about at the moment but the situation's a little complex than the three-player game you describe.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
This situation with Russia is becoming dangerous. The U.S. has been trying to push Ukraine and Georgia out of Russia's sphere of influence and towards the E.U. However, Russia and Ukraine have always been like sister countries -even Krushchev was actually Ukranian.
Dark forces in Russia and ex KGB are now apparently hitting out at dissidents and anti-Putin elements in this country which, by all accounts, has exposed some innocent people to radiation.
Again, I don't think we really have any business trying to undermine Russian interests in order to get a hold on oil in that region. Any attempt to destabilise Russia could allow WMD to fall into the hands of terrorists so I don't see how it's in anyone's interest to interfere in Russian politics.
The current crisis in London seems to have resulted from London being used as a platform to shelter political rivals and undermine Putin now that Putin has consolidated his control over Russian oil.



DiabloScott said:
Well there's Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Still not anything to worry about at the moment but the situation's a little complex than the three-player game you describe.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
DiabloScott said:
Well there's Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Still not anything to worry about at the moment but the situation's a little complex than the three-player game you describe.

As I understand it - only the USA, France, China (and perhaps Russia??) have the means to propel whatever nuclear weapons that they have against mainland Britain.
India and Pakistan don't have that capability to struck Britain. Nor do Israel (to strike Britain), Nor do North Korea (to strike Britain).

Blair is trying to tell the British people that Trident should be updated for "self defence".
On the issue of "self-defence", who does Britain view as a threat?
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,605
337
83
limerickman said:
As I understand it - only the USA, France, China (and perhaps Russia??) have the means to propel whatever nuclear weapons that they have against mainland Britain.
India and Pakistan don't have that capability to struck Britain. Nor do Israel (to strike Britain), Nor do North Korea (to strike Britain).

Blair is trying to tell the British people that Trident should be updated for "self defence".
On the issue of "self-defence", who does Britain view as a threat?


Lim,the sad part is they need not be propelled,just assembled on location which would be the best way to attack an unsuspecting target.
Not that I forsee this but the threat exists.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
I'm not saying we should be defenceless as such but what I question is how come we got to a situation of total dependency on the U.S.?
I mean, the reason we winded up in Iraq was because Blair was too afraid to upset the U.S. Government since he depends on the U.S. economically and militarily.
It now turns out France has been right all along. The French Prime Minister told Blair history would finally prove who would be right about the Iraq war and whether history would prove France wrong or Blair wrong.
The response to that statement at the time was outright mockery of the French in the tabloids and media over here and accusations the French were yellow or "cheese-eaters" as some papers put it. :eek:
It now turns out France's policy has been right all along. The Iraq War was indeed a mistake. There were no ballistic missiles with WMD to threaten us. Seeing as France has its own nuclear defence it can afford to make decisions that are in the interest of the French people as opposed to what might suit American policy.
What amazes me is if Bush decides to jump in the deep waters, we all have to follow without even raising questions. How's that a democracy? :confused:


limerickman said:
As I understand it - only the USA, France, China (and perhaps Russia??) have the means to propel whatever nuclear weapons that they have against mainland Britain.
India and Pakistan don't have that capability to struck Britain. Nor do Israel (to strike Britain), Nor do North Korea (to strike Britain).

Blair is trying to tell the British people that Trident should be updated for "self defence".
On the issue of "self-defence", who does Britain view as a threat?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
Carrera said:
I'm not saying we should be defenceless as such but what I question is how come we got to a situation of total dependency on the U.S.?
I mean, the reason we winded up in Iraq was because Blair was too afraid to upset the U.S. Government since he depends on the U.S. economically and militarily.
It now turns out France has been right all along. The French Prime Minister told Blair history would finally prove who would be right about the Iraq war and whether history would prove France wrong or Blair wrong.
The response to that statement at the time was outright mockery of the French in the tabloids and media over here and accusations the French were yellow or "cheese-eaters" as some papers put it. :eek:
It now turns out France's policy has been right all along. The Iraq War was indeed a mistake. There were no ballistic missiles with WMD to threaten us. Seeing as France has its own nuclear defence it can afford to make decisions that are in the interest of the French people as opposed to what might suit American policy.
What amazes me is if Bush decides to jump in the deep waters, we all have to follow without even raising questions. How's that a democracy? :confused:


I didn't know that British defence was dependent upon US.
Does the PM have to ask the US permission if he wants to lauch a WMD ?

The easy solution is for Britain to go it's own way - and have full control of it's weapons systems.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
Lim, are you kidding? :rolleyes: Russia has over 2000 long range nuclear ballistic missiles for intercontinental use. Some of these are equipped for multiple warheads.
Of course, they can hit Britain or any other country.
The only main advantage Russia lost after the fall of the USSR was strategic location. Russia no longer has bases in Hungary, Poland, Romania and other locations.
All the military hardware had to be taken back to Russia, although I imagine there are still bases in Siberia e.t.c.
So, in a nutshell, Russia is still far more powerful than France and still has, more or less, the same military strength as the U.S. and still far more than China.


limerickman said:
As I understand it - only the USA, France, China (and perhaps Russia??) have the means to propel whatever nuclear weapons that they have against mainland Britain.
India and Pakistan don't have that capability to struck Britain. Nor do Israel (to strike Britain), Nor do North Korea (to strike Britain).

Blair is trying to tell the British people that Trident should be updated for "self defence".
On the issue of "self-defence", who does Britain view as a threat?
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
I may be wrong but, so far as I'm aware, Britain couldn't launch a single nuclear warhead without co-operation from the U.S. There is only the capability for conventional warfare.
This means even Israel is less dependent on the U.S. in that respect since I believe Israel was aided by France in its nuclear program.
All I'm really saying is we should have invested in our own defence. We sat back during the Cold War and allowed the U.S. to take care of defence issues. Only France built its own nuclear defence program so France is the only country in Europe that can truly decide its own foreign policy.
Very possibly France will opt out of the E.U.
There are, of course, instances when it would have been right to ally with the U.S. but I believe Iraq wasn't one of those cases.
I believe one day America will thank France for not following Bush into a needless war and this policy will be seen as a mistake in later years.

limerickman said:
I didn't know that British defence was dependent upon US.
Does the PM have to ask the US permission if he wants to lauch a WMD ?

The easy solution is for Britain to go it's own way - and have full control of it's weapons systems.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
A rough estimate is Russia has more than 6,000 nuclear warheads for strategic use, over 3,600 in its non-strategic forces, and 12,000 in stock. Strategic forces include 750 ICBMs, 436 SLBMs, and 80 nuclear bombers.
Some missile systems are converted for space launch vehicles in order to bypass the Start 1 Treaty where the U.S. and Russia agreed to reduce their nuclear stockpiles.
The following Russian space launchers are simply modified ICBM's:
Missile Space Launcher ICBMs
SS-19 Rockot
SS-19 Strela
SS-18 Dnepr-1
SS-18 Dnepr-M
SS-20 Start
SS-25 Start-1



limerickman said:
As I understand it - only the USA, France, China (and perhaps Russia??) have the means to propel whatever nuclear weapons that they have against mainland Britain.
India and Pakistan don't have that capability to struck Britain. Nor do Israel (to strike Britain), Nor do North Korea (to strike Britain).

Blair is trying to tell the British people that Trident should be updated for "self defence".
On the issue of "self-defence", who does Britain view as a threat?
 

EoinC

New Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,615
1
0
Carrera said:
...Only France built its own nuclear defence program so France is the only country in Europe that can truly decide its own foreign policy...
Countries without Nuclear arsenals are quite capable of deciding their own fate. Possession of Nuclear-capable ICBM's is not a pre-requisite for being able to go in own's own direction (unless that particular direction is ownership of Nuclear-capable ICBM's, of course).
Why does the UK need to replace its nuclear arsenal with anything? What does it plan to do with it? Nuclear weaponry is used to attack, not defend. If defense is the criteria, Patriot missiles are more effective.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
The majority of Britons today feel we're just too closely tied with the U.S. but I also feel the same way about Europe to some degree. Too much policy is dictated either by U.S. consultants or the E.U.
France has a modest nuclear deterrent which allows it to determine whatever policy might suit France.
France has backed the U.S. war in Afghanistan but refused to get involved in Iraq as France believed the proposed war was simply a bad idea and based only on a need for oil.
Now, most of America has come to see things the same way the French do which is why Bush has lost a lot of support.

EoinC said:
Countries without Nuclear arsenals are quite capable of deciding their own fate. Possession of Nuclear-capable ICBM's is not a pre-requisite for being able to go in own's own direction (unless that particular direction is ownership of Nuclear-capable ICBM's, of course).
Why does the UK need to replace its nuclear arsenal with anything? What does it plan to do with it? Nuclear weaponry is used to attack, not defend. If defense is the criteria, Patriot missiles are more effective.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
The 'rub' about these things is that they are highly-technical, highly-expensive, and rarely if never used post-1945. Probably the smartest thing your country ever did in this regard to leave it up to my countries umbrella, as it were. Besides, they are a beast when they start to get old and require constant monitoring & god forbid they start to leak :eek: . You should leave it to my country to throw money down a rathole & don't bother yourselves w/ it ;)
Not to change the subject but did you see this :confused:
Olmert remark about Israeli nuclear program spurs calls for resignation, sanctions
The Associated PressPublished: December 12, 2006

JERUSALEM: Israel's prime minister spent Tuesday trying to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, after a remark in an interview was interpreted as confirming Israel has nuclear weapons — widely assumed to be true, but never officially admitted by Israel.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/12/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Nuclear_Fallout.php
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
limerickman said:
As I understand it - only the USA, France, China (and perhaps Russia??) have the means to propel whatever nuclear weapons that they have against mainland Britain.
India and Pakistan don't have that capability to struck Britain. Nor do Israel (to strike Britain), Nor do North Korea (to strike Britain).

Blair is trying to tell the British people that Trident should be updated for "self defence".
On the issue of "self-defence", who does Britain view as a threat?

To answer that question one would have to work out what motives a potential attacker may have for attacking Britain, and whether 2 operational Submarines launching ~100 warheads would be an effective deterrent. I can't think of any such motives off hand. What would anyone gain from threatening or attacking Britain with nukes ? That's not a rhetorical question btw.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
limerickman said:
This seems to be the news story in Britain at the moment.

Blair insists that Trident must be replaced.
One needs to ask, who poses a threat which warrants such a defense system?
No one poses a threat unless China or France or the USA decide that they wish to attack Britain with nuclear warheads.

The British goverment would be better off putting the money that they intend to spend on Trident, in to more beneficial and more important projects.
I agree. The U.K. is too civilized for such a barbaric weapon. It isn't sporting. I'm serious. It would be nice if no one had any. I guess you might use them to shoot/divert dangerous, celestial, objects on a collision course w/ earth out of the sky
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
darkboong said:
To answer that question one would have to work out what motives a potential attacker may have for attacking Britain, and whether 2 operational Submarines launching ~100 warheads would be an effective deterrent. I can't think of any such motives off hand. What would anyone gain from threatening or attacking Britain with nukes ? That's not a rhetorical question btw.
I can't think of a reason anyone would want to attack britain. France would be of more strategic importance due to the fact one could control trade to Britain from the continent, no :confused:
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
davidmc said:
I can't think of a reason anyone would want to attack britain. France would be of more strategic importance due to the fact one could control trade to Britain from the continent, no :confused:

That was the question I posed - and which you and DB have answered.
I can't think of any country who'd try to launch WMD against Britain.
There is no motive I can think of that would compel another country to attack Britain at present.