They 'd still have nukes. The trident is just about nukes carried in unknown location, in the subs.
Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?
- Thread starter uppi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit europe united kingdom
- Status
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
Yeah but can they do anything other than blowing themselves up? They don't have strategic bombers. Do they have lauch silos on land?
Send it by mail perhaps?
Ukraine has you beat to it, I guess.
And I doubt they think it was "cool" in retrospect.
They dont have launch silos?!
No, the UK's nuclear deterrent is entirely submarine-launched. Originally, in the 1950s and 1960s, the nuclear force was made up of free-fall bombs delivered by the so-called "V bombers", but maintaining Polaris, Trident, and land-based bombers was too expensive, so it was all pared down until Trident was the only program left. All free-fall bombs have been dismantled, and silos were never constructed.
The Americans deployed GLCMs to two RAF bases in the 1980s, but those don't use ballistic missile silos.
Given the strength of the opposition to Trident, it's very hard to imagine spending even more money to purchase land for and build silos as a replacement for the submarine-based nuclear program.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What about the last two years would suggest to you that the British have any higher aspiration than blowing themselves up?
And yet again I have to point out that it is a US-owned, UK-operated nuclear deterrent. The UK cannot fire without US authorisation and pays the US a lot of money every year to have nuclear weaponry, and yet I don't see innonimatu bawling about imperialism and extortion on this account.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
France may be subdued to the great illuminati plot of Brussels, but it can still press on the big red button
without asking anyone. 
Was that not the normal construction for US nukes in the NATO ?
What I know:
The nuke heads of the Honest John and later the nuke shells of the 8 inch howitzers (and I guess for the 155 mm howitzers as well) were stored in Germany in bases guarded by US military, and that again surrounded guarded by German, Dutch etc military.
When it would come to deployment, the nuclear artillery units operated by European NATO partners, would send their special logistic units to pick these warheads up (and only got them ofc when so desired by the US).
I guess the Trident submarines differ only in that sense, that they need those warheads on board. But who knows there is always an US officer on board as well in charge of that authorisation to deploy them.
I love the complexity of the metaphor, that's an English actor playing a German madman working for the US government.France may be subdued to the great illuminati plot of Brussels, but it can still press on the big red button
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,060
Thank you, this is relevant. Obviously I object to references to "conspiracy theories", unless you can demonstrate that any conspiracy was theorized about.
On those guidelines officially approved by the European Council, and on which basis the negotiating team of the EU should have worked, I have the following comments to make:
How is this compatible with the demand made by the EU team that the irish border issue and the "exit payment" or "financial settlement" issue must be agreed upon first, before anything was was discussed?
Months were wasted due to that demand by the EU team, who refused to discuss other subjects.
My opinion is that in taking such a position the EU team in the negotiations willfully violated one of the guidelines set by the EC council and approved by the governments of the member countries. This was the brussels bureaucracy taing over and distorting the mandate that it had been given.
Hos is the withdrawal agreement proposed by the EU, with an nonnegotiable clause demanding the "Irish backstop" deliberately with no limit in time, compatible with this point of the mandate they had to negotiate? It isn't. It is another violation of what they were approved to do.
As you should know if you read the withdrawal agreement, what the EU team demanded was not at all "a single financial settlement" but a series of variable settlements, to be decided and paid for over a very lengthy (and not defined) period of time. In other words, ongoing contributions to the EU budget by the UK.
So the mandate was to find a "flexible solution" and to "recognize existing bilateral agreements". Which, just so happened to be a possible solution. How did the EU team go from this to the "we absolutely need Northern Ireland to be under EU law, non negotiable" demand?
Now do you understand why I ask exactly who on the EU side made the decisions? What the governments approved, what the european parliament discussed and initially voted on, had little to do with what was demanded and is now said to be the one possible deal. Someone took that mandate, made additional demands and in some cases outright contradicted what it was supposed to achieve. The president of the European Comission? Or his secretary while he was too drunk to put together a proposal? Or Barnier? Who made the choices, and whether the choices were what the governments of the countries had actually approved, is very relevant. If you want a "conspiracy theory", my "conspiracy theory" is that what was actually done (the negotiations and the withdrawal agreement put forth) did not follow the guidelines and were imposed as a fait accompli for EU governments then to agree to lest they be branded spoilers. The unelected bureaucrats how handled this violated the mandate they had but counted on no one daring to later rock the boat and point it out.
I have a life you know?
If I were to condemn all thinsg imperialist I wouldn't have time for anything else. And this thread is about brexit not the UK nuclear deterrent. Which is indeed in practice tribute to the US MIC.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Its EU fault that the EU has all these trained trade negotiators and the UK had non because, UK all resigned knowing what was about to happen
Then the UK got hosed by EU veterans negotiators who knew what they were doing
The EU negotiators spent a lot of time trying to get the UK negotiators up to speed because they were so in-experienced.
Including trying to educate the UK what it would mean to fall back on WTO rules making sure that the clueless UK negotiators were passing information up the chain to the UK government.
The EU negotiators know what they are doing, EU and UK must negotiate the initial Brexit severing the treaties BEFORE they start on the trade negotiations which would take many years. The EU was trying to help the UK from shooting itself (more)
Last edited:
Its just a status symbol, a way to justify having our seat on the Security Council and pretend we are still a major power.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Mike Gapes, Gavin Shuker and Ann Coffey have left Labour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47278902
How long before Conservative MPs join them.
From Sarah Wollaston MP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47278902
How long before Conservative MPs join them.
From Sarah Wollaston MP
A brave but politically bad decision IMO. If i was choosing a system i would have:
- This new group made up of moderates from labour and tories - this group would absorb the Liberals
- All Brexit tories should join with Farage in his new party
- Labour rremain under Corbyn and concentrate primarily in London and the north.
But it would need PR to work. And we dont have it. I lament at the AV vote even more now. As any sort of move like this is destined to fail.
- Status
