via express.co.uk
I mean seriously? We're going to allow a foreign government, even a friendly one, to establish a base on US soil? A base that houses nuclear weapons?
FUCK NO!!!!
I don't care how friendly we are with the UK. They're testing my patience with this one. And I can't say for sure but I think the backlash from this proposal would be pretty severe in the "Bible Belt" of the US. Sure you'll have some that love money so much they'd pimp there mother so a nuclear base wouldn't make them think twice but foreign nukes on US soil? I don't fucking think so!
NOTE: Don't hit me with the canard that foreign ships visit and that some carry nuclear weapons. That's a temporary thing. A naval base that services nuclear deterrent submarines is something else entirely.
BRITAIN’S independent nuclear deterrent should be moved to the United States if Scotland gains its independence next week, senior military figures have said.Just plain wow.
Speaking to the Sunday Express they said the plan would ensure that our four Trident missile-carrying Vanguard submarines would not remain in the hands of a Non-Nato foreign country and deprive Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of any “leverage” in post -independence negotiations.
The call, which one senior US politician last night said would be “overwhelmingly supported” in Congress, comes only two days after Ministry of Defence chiefs finally green-lighted an impact assessment study on Britain’s defence in the event of a Yes vote on Thursday.
Last night Whitehall sources confirmed they were “very alive” to the US option, though, officially, the Ministry of Defence refused to confirm it was making any provisions for independence.
Speaking last night, Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, now attached to the UK National Defence Association, said: “The great leverage that Alex Salmond currently has over the British Government is the location of our nuclear defence base at Faslane. If the vote is Yes, we should move heaven and earth to move all our submarines out of Faslane as quickly as possible.
“We must decide how important, in the short term, the word independence is in terms of our nuclear deterrent. After all, we rely on the US for our missiles and for an awful lot of intelligence. Would it make a huge amount of difference if we asked the US if we could use a base to place our nuclear deterrent there as a temporary measure?
I mean seriously? We're going to allow a foreign government, even a friendly one, to establish a base on US soil? A base that houses nuclear weapons?
FUCK NO!!!!
I don't care how friendly we are with the UK. They're testing my patience with this one. And I can't say for sure but I think the backlash from this proposal would be pretty severe in the "Bible Belt" of the US. Sure you'll have some that love money so much they'd pimp there mother so a nuclear base wouldn't make them think twice but foreign nukes on US soil? I don't fucking think so!
NOTE: Don't hit me with the canard that foreign ships visit and that some carry nuclear weapons. That's a temporary thing. A naval base that services nuclear deterrent submarines is something else entirely.
How is its entirely different? The Vanguard's Trident missile system is already manufactured and maintained in the US so they already spend a not insubstantial amount of time there having it maintained, upgraded, and tested. In such an arrangement there would be very little difference between the Ohio subs of the USN and the Vanguards. both would depart out to sea for a mission that they will never be called upon to undertake. Having them tie up between cruises in a US naval base isn't going to negatively effect the US in any way.
ReplyDeleteAlso as opposed to US nukes on foreign soil? Which is obviously perfectly fine.
simply tie up? you haven't done any nuclear security have you? those warheads have to be tested and serviced as do their launch vehicles. that means that they have to be transported to facilities to do that work and that means that its alot more than simply "having them at a pier".
DeleteBUT THE BIGGER QUESTION IS WHY CAN'T THE UK USE ONE OF ITS EXISTING NAVAL BASES? WHY CAN'T IT USE ONE OF THE MANY BASES THAT THEY HAVE IN THE COMMONWEALTH? WHY ARE THEY RUNNING TO THE UNITED STATES FOR WHAT SHOULD BE AN EASILY SOLVED INTERNAL UK ISSUE?!!
I agree. This smells. What are they really up to? It's not like the location of the subs will much affect the legal wrangling over who owns them.
DeleteFor the same reason the US used that same base in Scotland to support our own boats in the cold war. It is one of the finest natural harbors around. Given we used to refit our boomers in the UK why do you have a problem with them doing the same thing with the Ohio's in GA?
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch#US_Navy
But of course you realized, when you did a minimal amount of research. The ships already come to the US to have the Tridents pulled and replaced when they need refurbishment. Using the same facilities as the Ohio class. We have subsidized the UK defense cost for decades. Let them help off load the cost for the US for a while. I doubt it will last too long, politics in the UK will have them build facilities, problem is they take quite awhile to build.
Well... Sol' you had your nukes in Great Britain for long time, don't you?
ReplyDeletelove ya Shas but this is apples and oranges. when we had nukes in the UK it was for the protection of the British people. we don't need their shit in the US to protect us! additionally if you want that card then i'll do you one better. Russia isn't threatening the US so why should we have any bases in Europe! now do you get the force of connection? it isn't for our sake its for Europe's! its time to know when you've asked to borrow the neighbors sugar one too many times and its time to go buy your own!
DeleteOh c'mon Sol, if was not for protection as with time Brits got own nukes but for better strike bases closer to Warsaw Pact. The same thing when you had nukes in Turkey... don't tell me that it was for protection of Turks. ;)
DeleteRussia is threatening NATO so it's threatening US also. But I see your point, I would also prefer have own nukes in my country and don't have the foreign ones. But ordinary people will probably react as I say above, the US had nukes in Britain, why Britain can't have them in US. Simple, catchy thing.
All of those things are already done for the USN's Ohio fleet so for all intents and purposes there is no difference. and as to solving it internally as you mentioned there are nuclear security issues. no other base in the UK is set up to handle the maintenance and testing of the warheads and building those facilities at Devonport or Plymouth will take time. so logically renting space at an existing US SSBN base would be the easiest solution in the interim.
DeleteKind of ironic that the country whose official policy for de-colonization and conquered countries was "Partitioning them off" is now getting partitioned off too. Though for the sake of Western European security and for status quo, i hope the independance vote gets defeated.
ReplyDeleteI think you will find the arrogance of Indian politicians drove Partition uncle.
Deletesure, whichever belief system makes you sleep better at night.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprized the Brits are considering such a move, seriously ... just as surprized to hear some people in the US would be willing to accept such a base. Sounds like such a real pile of BS !
ReplyDeleteThink this is another part of the spin doctoring that's been going on lately in order to influence the outcome of the vote in Scotland. I'm sure plenty of jobs depend locally on maintaining the base in Faslane.
Can't think for a second the Brits would be willing to transfer their deterrence capability into an area out of their control. And can't think for a minute the US would be foolish enough to seriously entertain the idea of 4 foreign nuclear-armed subs being stationed on a US naval base ...
The UK would struggle to base SSBN anywhere on the English or Welsh coast. The Scottish west coast is ideal SSBN territory. That is why the bombers are there and that is why the USN used Holy Loch,
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch
Our nuclear weapons are declared NATO assets. The US had nuclear weapons all over Western Europe; probably one of the reasons why the French decided to pull out of the military part of NATO.
There is a lot of debate here over just how independent our deterrent actually is considering the missiles are in a joint pool and the missile section of our boats is a US design. The levels of nuclear co-operation are very deep between the US and the UK. (It could be compared to the level of intelligence co-operation between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) It would be odd to have UK boats based in the US and far from ideal. But it is unlikely that the UK would face an independent threat one where the US wouldn't be threatened either. Remember the UK has been at war now for over decade mainly to support the US. The US defends Europe and Japan not for the sake of those peoples but because we give depth and safe bases. The US may complain about Europe not having enough defence capability but a Europe without such a capability is no threat to the US. Look at Op Ellamy
y where Europe had lots of FJ but little logistic support compared to the US's large capacity in that sphere. It means that to go to war beyond its own borders Europe needs the US and if the US doesn't want Europe it can take that support away. Having the British deterrent under further US control is a win for the US; that may sound shocking but it is true. One full loaded Trident missile submarine could bomb the US back to the 16th century; who has that capability currently or that capability to reach it? The UK. Luckily for the US Europe thanks to the EU is weak. but tweak the parameters a little, a stronger China, a retrenched EU with a more Europhilic UK............
The amount of ignorance and arrogance and naivety in some of the posts above is outstanding.
the UK could bomb the US back to the 16th century? if thats the case then the US could nuke the UK back to creation!
Deleteyou greatly overstate your nations importance AND its real military capability. lets be honest for just a moment. your standing Army is smaller than the USMC reserve! its smaller than the USMC! as a matter of fact i think that it might even be smaller than our coast guard! your Royal Air Force is smaller than the air wing of the USMC...and thats the smallest air component of the 4 services! your Royal Navy might amount to a reinforced naval squadron in the USN!
you want to talk about needing Europe? NATO fought with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan but it wasn't about needing capability or manpower. it was about seeking legitimacy.
as far as your nukes on US soil, don't get it twisted. you can't mix and match nuclear weapons. neither can you mix and match security protocol.
are we going to provide security for your nukes? are we going to service those nukes? will your vessels submit to inspection and the rules and regulations of the US when operating from our bases? and lastly why is it in the US' national interests to provide a base for a foreign nations nuclear weapons?
what do we know about the UK? we know that you have an extremely bad muslim problem. we know that your security is lax (nuke secrets left on the subway or a taxi? can't remember which) and yet you're telling me (a US citizen) that i should be good with watching your Commandos and subs stationed on our soil guarding your nuclear weapons instead of asking the natural question of WHY YOU DON"T STORE YOUR OWN FUCKING NUKES ON YOUR OWN LAND?
i mean seriously.
this is craziness is in a handbag.
oh and i'm all for you guys getting more independent. source your own missiles, warheads, etc....pull out of the F-35 and buy Typhoons, get closer to France and continue to not want to participate in the ISIS mission. the real answer is that you ally with us because it increases your influence within the EU.
Our nuclear security is lax?
DeleteDidnt you recently sack a load of people for lax nuclear security?
And if i remember correctly the most recent muslim terrorist attack in either country was in Boston US, not in the UK.
I think the idea of based nuclear subs overseas is rubbish personally, but not for the reasons you state above as bading them in the US would be just as bad
your history is faulty young man. we had a cheating scandal, not a security scandal with our nuclear weapons and that was the air force, not the Navy. additionally the most recent Muslim attack was in the UK or have you already forgotten a British soldier being hacked to death on a city street in your nation?
DeleteSorry but is this the rematch of the war of 1812 ;-)
DeleteHorseapples.
ReplyDeleteThey don't need to bring them here, and we don't need to accommodate them.
End of discussion.
They can either make arrangements to house them in Britain, or they can do without. Their house, their problem, and they shouldn't go dragging us into a squabble with their relatives.
"Never get in the middle of someone else's domestic argument" is always wise advice.
well said. you know what really has me scratching my head. HOW COME THE BRITISH PEOPLE AREN'T UP IN ARMS OVER ONE OF THEIR GENERALS EVEN PROPOSING SUCH A PLAN!
Deleteinstead of trying to base these weapons in the UK their first idea is to simply send them to the US?????? and what idiot Congressman said that the idea would be supported? i will send money to get that bastard fired. quite honestly it sounds like something McCain would say...either that or his butt boy Graham!
Sol
ReplyDeleteIts a lot less of a leap than you imagine.
The UK SSBNs operate out of Scotland.
The submarines dock there, maintain there, resupply there, ect.
But
The US and UK operate a shared pool of Trident Missiles.
So every so often, a UK SSBN sails to the US, docks, its full complement of trident missiles are offloaded, and fresh ones are onloaded, it them sails home.
So its already the case that facilities in the US exist to dock and rearm a Vanguard.
The only change, would be that the dock would also house nuclear weapons, which are a clone of a standard US warhead, which I assume a US SSBN base has the capability to store securely. My understanding is the warheads are maintenance free?
.
Now, not to overstate the case or anything, but the security risk is pretty minimal, if the UK wanted to nuke the US, we dont need to sneak weapons in, we can send them via trident.
Not that we would of course.
I dont believe for a second this would be anything but an emergency measure, the other obvious sites, Barrow where we build them doent have much in the way of housing for them, and France, may have space, but probably not enough.
I still suggest the Falklands as a long term base, virtually impregnable by dint of distance if nothing else, but there are dozens of run down port towns up and down the UK that would love the income.
Perhaps Ive misread the mood of the US, but Im not sure headlines of "redcoats occupy US town" would get more than a giggle.
you are misreading the mood of the US population. there is a definite anti-government, anti-Europe, anti-UN and in general anti-globe mood.
Deleteoh and lets be clear. it isn't a "shared pool" its the UK piggybacking off the US development of the system. additionally where does the UK get off thinking that they can just pickup and establish a base in the US and the first we hear about it is some Brit general spouting off?
i like the UK, i admire the fighting spirit and skill of the few RM's i've been around but sometimes i think that the UK presumes too much when it comes to the relationship.
They wouldn't be establishing a base in the US merely borrowing capacity at an existing USN installation, there is already ample precedent for this such as the RAF Reapers operated out of Creech.
DeleteAnd yes its a shared pool the RN is allocated a number of missiles from total Atlantic Squadron Trident stockpiles, when one of the Vanguards offloads its missiles for maintenance it is re-supplied with fresh ones from the pool that's what common pool means there are no physical or software difference between the Trident missiles on the Ohios and the Trident missiles on the Vanguards infant a missile carried on board a Vanguard may have previously seen service aboard an Ohio.
also while this may have been the first you have heard about it but its most probable that it has discussed by the higher ups of each government sometime before this announcement. odd are there is no presumption being made.
Sol' quoting the master I would say that US population should stop being so anti everything and being awesome instead. ;)
DeleteMist.
Deleteall you're doing is talking around the issue. the UK is like a tick on the US. its sucking us dry and what do we get out of it? a weak partner that has a population that talks shit about every initiative and then whines like a baby whenever their back is against the wall! when was the last time that the Brits led on some international crisis? its been a fucking long time. but lets talk about RAF Reapers! US platform that the UK is too cheap to operate from a setup in their own country! talk about cheapskates! yet somehow this is the powerful partner that we have an equal relationship with? the idea that you're even discussing placing nukes on US soil should piss you off more than it does me! your nuclear weapons---your detternet power is going to be on the soil of a foreign government????
oh and it doesn't mean shit about whats talked about behind closed doors by leadership. our leaders want to kill the 2nd amendment but it ain't happening. they want alot of things that the American people will not stand for! you know that global warming tax that you guys have? that shit ain't flying here.
but its really irrelevant. you guys need to get your shit together cause if those missiles are coming here then i'll personally campaign against it. i'll break my no video stance and plaster YouTube, write editorials, get space on some news site to show how fucked up this really is.
Shas.
we are awesome. just tired of the world acting like a bunch of bitches that can't do anything without US blood and treasure being spilled and spent.
Why dont the Brits pool their subs together with the French ? The French naval base of "ile longue" is in Brittany so much closer to uk and France is a NATO member as well ... Oh but wait ! Pride of RN docking at French naval base and whole British nuke deterrence actually on the hands of a foreign government ??!!! No fucking way ... Exactly my point: store your nukes on uk soil ! That's what the us got from helping the Brits build seaworthy nuclear subs ... They're now being asked to maintain and harbor them as well ! At least the French built their deterrence up independently (with us) ... Ouch that must hurt British pride ;-)))
DeleteSucking you dry of what exactly?
DeleteThe fact that you think I should be horrified by the fact that the British Nuclear deterrent could be based in a foreign country somewhat amuses me. The deterrent is already an American made and maintained system so all that would change is the geographical location of the base they dock at after a patrol. The subs being based in some Eastern US naval base rather then up in Scotland or Davenport doesn't diminish their capability to provide deterrence in any way.
On the subject of the Reapers the UK does actually have an operations base at Waddington, the base at Creech was set up due to expediency. Where better to stand up a unit operating a new type of aircraft then co-located with a similar unit of an allied nation already operating it. This allowed them to rapidly build up the base of knowledge and skills required to begin combat operations while a similar facility was constructed in the UK.
In fact this is a very similar situation as to the proposed basing of Vanguard in the US, the RN is faced with the prospect of its only SSBN base being in a newly independent Scotland whose leadership has frequently mentioned that they will not tolerate its continued operation should there be a Yes vote. Faced with this prospect they turned to their most stalwart ally and fellow trident operator to provide support facilities until a new facility can be constructed in the UK. This is not acting like a leach, its using common sense and being pragmatic. If the RN operated the same missile as France then the MoD would be discussing it with them. But they don't but perhaps they should consider it for the Successor program it in light of the intense dislike of Europe you purport the American people to have.
As to your point of political leaders discussing things behind closed doors...
Grow up that's how the world is run I have learned to accept it and understand that its not necessarily a bad thing. the general population of most nations (my own included) are stupid, to quote the masterpiece of cinema that is Men In Black “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it “
The missiles are already there Soloman and have been for a long time so you are somewhat behind the times as far as campaigning against it. And good luck arguing against more sailors taking their business to the various “establishments” surrounding East coast sub bases, the local population may not be with you on that one.
Sol, I think it's time you call 1600 Pennsylvania Av and let
DeleteThem know they might get a visit from a bunch of angry British "lads" dressed in red jackets and carrying torches ... Might actually be the first war started for refusal to take over the belligerent ennemy's navy !
I think some of the confusion here comes from the perception that the Royal Navy would be 'establishing a base' in the US for its SSBNs.
DeleteThis in incorrect, as Mist has already stated the Trident missiles on the Vanguards come from US stocks, and are returned to to the US for maintenance. The warheads are British, but copied almost exactly from an American design. Thus there would be no obstacle logistically for them to be stored temporarily on US soil under US custody.AS Msit also said in the absence of their own base, it makes sense for the RN ships to operate from a US base, when a lot of their support is already done at that same base.
The idea that a 'sovereign area' would be carved out, controlled by British Commandos is false. The RN likely has full faith in USN base security and would let those people get on with their jobs.
Instead the RN submarines would be treated the same as any US submarine in the Atlantic squadron (they basically are part of it anyway), and would simply be operating out of the naval base not taking it over. Many foreign ships already make port at US naval installations, though for short periods of time, and are serviced there. It is true this would be a lot longer commitment.
But it would also only be a temporary arrangement until a new UK base can be built in the south.
I do not think this would be an onerous burden on our American allies, and and the financial costs would certainly be paid for by the British MoD, not to mention the extra boost the local economy of the base would get from four more ships being stationed there.
The idea that Britain only takes from America is also patently false, There are several American bases on British soil that provide little or no direct benefit to the UK.
For example the BMEWS radar at Fylingdales which provides early warning to NORAD in the event of ICBM attack on the US. It is situated too close to potential threats to provide much warning of danger to the UK, and would be priority target during a strike.
There is also Menwith Hill, another USAF facility that contains electronic signals monitoring and satellite uplinks to US orbital assets.
During the Cold War SAC based numerous bomber squadrons in the UK not to protect Britain, but to strike at the Warsaw pact, these would also have been priority targets in the event of the cold war going hot. The USAF still operates 23 bases in the UK. These are not for our protection, a role the UK is quite capable of doing itself, the 48th Fighter wing does not assist with the QRF in defence of the British Isles.
All these bases are for the benefit of the USA in projecting it's power globally, from strike squadrons to transportation units, and aerial refueling squadrons.
The UK is undeniably the junior partner in it's alliance with the USA, and only a fool would say otherwise, but it does provide important services to the US. And despite having been heavily effected by economic and politcal issues, that have stunted it's military, it has backed every one of of the US military initiatives across the world for the last 20 years, and many before that too.
Should the Vanguard submarines need to be rebased in the event of Scottish independence, allowing them the use of a US port for one or two years would only be fair, and in the same spirit of co-operation that the UK has shown your country for so long. It would not burden your organizations much, and would almost certainly be done entirely on the USN's terms, unlike the the US bases on British soil which are mostly under entirely US control.
The article is also misleading as it suggests there is dispute over who will own the submarines and the nuclear deterrent, this is wrong.The Scots have said they do not want them, and that they want the subs and the base they use to be removed from Scottish soil in the event of independence.
DeleteThey would not be used as 'leverage' by anyone, but they would need somewhere to operate from. Which would mean building a new base, in the UK's current economic situation that would take some time, which is where a temporary use of US facilities would come in.
Just a note:
DeleteSolomon you should look up Holy Loch.
People seem to have forgotten the real reason why this whole shit storm is being kicked up in the first place. The UK has some rather onerous rules ( not sure about Laws but rules certainly) about how close to a major population center a nuclear facility can be set up. Faslane is pretty much in the middle of nowhere, good for security but also good in case they have trouble.
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Navy is fretting about where to put the subs in the immediate aftermath of Scottish Independence because
a.) They haven't been able to identify an existing naval facility that would be safe enough for the nukes in England
b.) Even after they identify a site, it would take several years and possibly dozens of millions of pounds (which they don't have) to establish the specialized facilities required to support the subs. Remember these subs cant just pop up to any old pier and moor, they are some very specific requirements which need to be fulfilled.
Basing them in the US (most likely in King's Bay) will give them a TEMPORARY but immediately available place to park them while they figure out what to do in the long term. Remember that Salomond has vowed to kick the nukes out as part of his election pledges and the UK MOD hasn't really considered the independence movement enough of a realistic threat to make any real contingency plans. So the subs have to move, the US is the obvious choice as there would be additional complications if they go to France for example due to the security agreements regarding the Trident system. They wouldn't "build" a new "sovereign" base of course (unless the Canadians agree to give them some land) but simply use space at an existing USN base in the way they already do quite regularly.