Britain- France nuclear expansions

jonniebgood1

In reference to this story which did not create to much noise http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11670247

Given that Britain went to war with Iraq over false premises that they were developing nuclear (or chemical) weapons, is it not disgraceful that they seem to be openly developing nuclear weapons. The hypocrasy is so open and visible that I was surprised. By continuing to develop nuclear weapons in 'western' countries it ensures that so called rogue nations will also do this. Perhaps the US will now lead a coalition to disarm the Brits?

What do people think of this? Do we never learn from history?

Donny5

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In reference to this story which did not create to much noise http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11670247

Given that Britain went to war with Iraq over false premises that they were developing nuclear (or chemical) weapons, is it not disgraceful that they seem to be openly developing nuclear weapons. The hypocrasy is so open and visible that I was surprised. By continuing to develop nuclear weapons in 'western' countries it ensures that so called rogue nations will also do this. Perhaps the US will now lead a coalition to disarm the Brits?

What do people think of this? Do we never learn from history?

What about the Trident replacement? Have you been following UK nuclear deterent policy at all? It has always been the UK's policy to maintain their nuclear deterent. The non-profileration treaties and SALTs prohibits the distribution of nuclear weapons to previously non-nuclear nations and all nuclear test detonations, and limits the types and locations of current power's arsenals. They say nothing about replacing or upgrading their current arsenals.

who the fug

More interesting is how can Britian do this, I believe that their allot of restrictions on the Nuclear weapons imposed on them by the USA

Donny5

who the fug wrote: »

More interesting is how can Britian do this, I believe that their allot of restrictions on the Nuclear weapons imposed on them by the USA

That's bollocks. The UK designs and develops all their own nuclear warheads, which is what the co-operation will be about.

They lease the delivery system from the US without (officially, anyway) a veto.

who the fug

Donny5 wrote: »

That's bollocks. The UK designs and develops all their own nuclear warheads, which is what the co-operation will be about.

They have tested in Nevada since 1962, then one would assume that some US info would be passed on the UK under the 1958 treaty on this matter.

So this may be an issue.

Accept your point about the delivery system, but it is not leased but bought just the maintenance is done in the US

Don Juan DeMagoo

Donny5 wrote: »

What about the Trident replacement? Have you been following UK nuclear deterent policy at all? It has always been the UK's policy to maintain their nuclear deterent. The non-profileration treaties and SALTs prohibits the distribution of nuclear weapons to previously non-nuclear nations and all nuclear test detonations, and limits the types and locations of current power's arsenals. They say nothing about replacing or upgrading their current arsenals.

Oh I so like this club, basically we can buy and exchange all the players we want and you lot over there are not allowed to buy or research anything that may improve/protect yourselves.... Oh, how you may ask is this at all fair? Well you see it is all fair play under this cute little treaty that a select few of ourselves and our minions agreed to uphold, as long as that is beneficial for us.

When I eventually end up ruling this here world gentlemen/ladies. I intend to use these sort of treaties a whole lot..... FOR THE GREATER GOOD of course.

That is all!

PS: why is there a forum for mustard?;)

Steyr

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In reference to this story which did not create to much noise http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11670247

Given that Britain went to war with Iraq over false premises that they were developing nuclear (or chemical) weapons, is it not disgraceful that they seem to be openly developing nuclear weapons. The hypocrasy is so open and visible that I was surprised. By continuing to develop nuclear weapons in 'western' countries it ensures that so called rogue nations will also do this. Perhaps the US will now lead a coalition to disarm the Brits?

What do people think of this? Do we never learn from history?

Perhaps it also has to do with the fact that Rogue Nations are exactly that. They are unstable where as Nations like France/UK/USA etc would be extremely reluctant and are not about to just fall apart Politically etc yet a Rogue Nation wouldnt really think twice, if you look at History you will see the US etc would always go down the Sanction route first generally yet Nations like Iran/N Korea often sabre rattle about using these weapons in the very near future.

Donny5

who the fug wrote: »

They have tested in Nevada since 1962, then one would assume that some US info would be passed on the UK under the 1958 treaty on this matter.

So this may be an issue.

Accept your point about the delivery system, but it is not leased but bought just the maintenance is done in the US

The US hasn't tested any nukes since 1992, as far as I know. All research is theoretical now. As for Trident being owned and not leased, Wikipedia, the Gaurdian and the New Statesman disagree.

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Oh I so like this club, basically we can buy and exchange all the players we want and you lot over there are not allowed to buy or research anything that may improve/protect yourselves.... Oh, how you may ask is this at all fair? Well you see it is all fair play under this cute little treaty that a select few of ourselves and our minions agreed to uphold, as long as that is beneficial for us.

When I eventually end up ruling this here world gentlemen/ladies. I intend to use these sort of treaties a whole lot..... FOR THE GREATER GOOD of course.

That is all!

PS: why is there a forum for mustard?;)

That's exactly how the club works. Who cares if it's fair, if it's how it is?

johngalway

This is the bit I find most interesting

The UK and France have also agreed to keep at least one aircraft carrier at sea between them at any one time. Each will be able to use the other's carrier in some form, certainly for training and possibly operations.

There seems to be some more flesh put on the bones since I first heard it. I had been wondering how two nations share an aircraft carrier in practical terms. In such instances as the UK going to war in Iraq, which France disagreed with. Also I believe, but may be corrected on, they had differences over The Falklands.

LordSutch

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Britain-France nuclear expansions

Expansions? I think Consolidation might be a better word, seeing as both are strapped for cash, hence the 'sharing' arrangements, dear Lord I never thought I'd see the day when the Royal Navy would actually share an Aircraft carrier with the French!

who the fug

Donny5 wrote: »

The US hasn't tested any nukes since 1992, as far as I know. All research is theoretical now. As for Trident being owned and not leased,

But what about the 30 years of tests before that.

Donny5

who the fug wrote: »

But what about the 30 years of tests before that.

I don't see your point. Do you think the US would be upset that the UK are to share their research facilities? Surely, the UK won't pass on W77 designs or whatever without US consent, but there are other things they can share.

who the fug

Donny5 wrote: »

I don't see your point. Do you think the US would be upset that the UK are to share their research facilities? Surely, the UK won't pass on W77 designs or whatever without US consent, but there are other things they can share.

So benefit is there for France

OS119

who the fug wrote: »

So benefit is there for France

the benefit is also for the UK - the 'prize' is a joint UK/French buy/development of identical ballistic missile submarines and the missiles themselves.

8 submarines of the same class cost an awful lot less than 8 submarines in 2 different types, and even further, if the UK and France decided to explicitly cover each other in their nuclear umbrellas, the UK and France could take turns with deterance patrols - needing only four boats of one class operated by two countries, with a joint SLBM buy, and that is so much cheaper than both countries developing/buying their own systems with four boats each as to defy description....

both counties want to indepentently hold the nuclear stick, and both would rather spend money on conventional systems than on duplication of nuclear systems. so its a win-win.

jonniebgood1

Donny5 wrote: »

What about the Trident replacement? Have you been following UK nuclear deterent policy at all? It has always been the UK's policy to maintain their nuclear deterent. The non-profileration treaties and SALTs prohibits the distribution of nuclear weapons to previously non-nuclear nations and all nuclear test detonations, and limits the types and locations of current power's arsenals. They say nothing about replacing or upgrading their current arsenals.

Indeed I have followed their nuclear deterent policy. This would seem to be a way of saving money on it which was a liberal policy and providing an upgraded system which was a conservative policy, i.e. very convenient for both parties.

You place to much importance on these treaties. I can agree with my neighbour not to cut our lawns before 9am but we cant make the foreign fella down the road do the same. Thus our 'treaty' is dumb.

My point was the hypocrasy in there open developments in the face of their willingness to wage war when a different country does the same. A pseudo-treaty does not excuse this in my opinion.

OS119

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My point was the hypocrasy in there open developments in the face of their willingness to wage war when a different country does the same. A pseudo-treaty does not excuse this in my opinion.

the world is unfair, get used to it.

in society we believe that some people are fit to hold firearms and others aren't, that some are fit to drive vehicles, or dispense medicines, or handle asbestos, or cut you open and give you a new heart, and others are not.

in the big wide world there are a number of 'threshold' nuclear states that have the technology and resources to become nuclear weapon states in very short order should they decide to do so - Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, Brazil, South Korea - and nobody cares, nobody invades them because 'the world' believes that those states can be trusted both not do develop such weapons unless they felt very threatened, and that were they to develop such weapons, they could be trusted with them.

similarly 'the world' belives that a number of other states, both declared states and 'threshold' states, shouldn't be trusted with a bag of chips, let alone a nuclear weapon - Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria - there are certainly differences about what should be done, and about what is the wisest course of action, but you'll find very few other countries that think that any of these states having nuclear weapons is a good thing.

oh, and Iraq was not invaded because it had nuclear ambitions - it was invaded because of what appeared to be its chemical and biological weapons programme, and therefore its non-adherance with its 1991 ceasefire agreement. some idiots with Dick Cheney's office - including him - made nuclear noises, but no one else did, and both the British Government and the CIA repuduated his remarks long before the war.

the NPT states that N states should move towards nuclear disarmament - the UK has been reducing its nuclear stockpile for 40 years or so, does not transfer its nuclear weapons technology to other states, and is therefore fully in accordance with the NPT.

jonniebgood1

OS119 wrote: »

the world is unfair, get used to it.

Yawn

in society we believe that some people are fit to hold firearms and others aren't, that some are fit to drive vehicles, or dispense medicines, or handle asbestos, or cut you open and give you a new heart, and others are not.

Firearms may be relevent but with the other examples you must prove your able to do these things (i.e. study and then qualify). I would argue some of the holders of nuclear weapons are not capable/ qualified enough to manage the use of them.

oh, and Iraq was not invaded because it had nuclear ambitions - it was invaded because of what appeared to be its chemical and biological weapons programme, and therefore its non-adherance with its 1991 ceasefire agreement. some idiots with Dick Cheney's office - including him - made nuclear noises, but no one else did, and both the British Government and the CIA repuduated his remarks long before the war.

the NPT states that N states should move towards nuclear disarmament - the UK has been reducing its nuclear stockpile for 40 years or so, does not transfer its nuclear weapons technology to other states, and is therefore fully in accordance with the NPT.

as per post no. 01 "nuclear (or chemical) weapons"
The NPT is made by the people who already have nuclear weapons. It is made by western powers mostly so does not really have much control on them other than making them look good on the surface.

Fratton Fred

OS119 wrote: »

8 submarines of the same class cost an awful lot less than 8 submarines in 2 different types, and even further, if the UK and France decided to explicitly cover each other in their nuclear umbrellas, the UK and France could take turns with deterance patrols - needing only four boats of one class operated by two countries, with a joint SLBM buy, and that is so much cheaper than both countries developing/buying their own systems with four boats each as to defy description....

Hopefull submarine development will include proper maps of the sea lanes around Skye:p

i think the latter will be the way forward, it is pointless two neighbouring friendly countries having such big nuclear capability. Two subs each, but the fire power of four if needed is more than enough.

lapsed

The cost of theoretical nuclear testing runs into billions apparently, according to an expert on RTE today. The testing has to be theoretical because atmospheric and underground testing is now banned. Same expert said that the aircraft carrier share is to allow, mainly British , pilots to have experience and practice of fast, at sea aircraft carrier landings.

Avgas

Aside from the carrier and nukes co-op there will be apparently a joint land force structure of perhaps brigade size....details are not clear whether this would be a newly formed unit or existing units already committed to NATO reaction corps (or EU structures) and merely spun together in a new guise....

British-French land forces co-operation was both successful and vital in lifting the siege of Sarajevo in 1995. Its actually not that new for either army.

Regarding nukes the issue is probably NOT just modelling or joint SLBM technology shares, there is also work on new generation air launched tactical nuclear weapons...the French are due modernising/replacing their ASMPs.....and UK may want a look at that......as well.....

British-French security co-operation goes back to the St. Malo accords of 1998 and even further back....time of Ted Heath, etc.

It may even help the BA get the 51mm mortar back in issue as the French still stock something like it -or maybe they've ditched it more or less as well?

Donny5

Avgas wrote: »

Regarding nukes the issue is probably NOT just modelling or joint SLBM technology shares, there is also work on new generation air launched tactical nuclear weapons...the French are due modernising/replacing their ASMPs.....and UK may want a look at that......as well.....

I'll bet you 10 to 1 that the UK doesn't go for tactical nukes.

OS119

Donny5 wrote: »

I'll bet you 10 to 1 that the UK doesn't go for tactical nukes.

its not attractive for the obvious operational/political reasons, but lots of serious people within the defence and political establishment have talked about tactical nuclear ALCM/SLCM as a vastly cheaper alternative to Trident2 - it would mean not building/crewing a class of four subs that, save their very specific role, have no capability in the rest of the defence environment, it would mean a vasltly more independent nuclear capability - the UK builds its own warheads, it could easily build a cruise missile without US involvement (the UGM-109 Tommahawk is of US origin, and one of the conditions of sale was that we could not replace its conventional warhead with a nuclear one).

the nuclear capable Astue'2' could also do SIGINT off China, act as a detterent around the Falklands, escort another Astute'2' that is carrying nukes and half a hundred other tasks that SSN's excell at - given that logic, and, tbh, the rank unlikelyness of the UK actually needing to stick its nuclear capability up someones nose and saying 'back off, or else', replacing Trident on a like-for-like basis looks like spending an awful lot of money that could be better spent buying more GP Frigates, or Maritime Patrol Aircraft, or Astute'2's, or F-35C's and E-2D's for a more powerful carrier air group...

i would have said no way, but the 2010 SDSR has thought things that i didn't believe UK politicians didn't have the bottle to think.

Avgas

As OS119 explains in detail I suggested that the UK 'may want' to explore tactical nukes with the French.. I didn't say they will (how would I know?)...and what he was suggesting is exactly the type of contingency they may want an option on........also there may be developments in nuclear warhead design in coming years towards lower the yield/radioactivity and maximising the blast and penetration effects to target deeply buried targets...not my cup of tea but things could go that way.....

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

....also there may be developments in nuclear warhead design in coming years towards lower the yield/radioactivity and maximising the blast and penetration effects to target deeply buried targets...

in terms of weapons effect the advantage the Ballistic missile based weapons have over CM's or freefall air-dropped have is their penetration capability - a Tommahawk-type weapon would hit its target at 600mph or so, a freefall air-dropped weapon at 700mph, and a Trident warhead will hit at about 14,000mph.

clearly the Trident warhead is going to be able to go through more steel, more contrete and more earth than either of the other two delivery types - and its going to then need a much smaller explosive yeild to destroy its target. if the target were a ICBM field with armoured silo's the Trident system might use 2kt warheads, but an attack using CM's would have to use much larger warheads (maybe 50kt?) to make up for the fact that the warhead is going to be much further away, and on the wrong side of the steel/concrete/earthen protection of the silo when it detonates.