No, the US can’t ‘switch off’ the UK’s nuclear weapons
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-us-cant-switch-off-the-uks-nuclear-weapons/
Posted by tree_boom
No, the US can’t ‘switch off’ the UK’s nuclear weapons
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-us-cant-switch-off-the-uks-nuclear-weapons/
Posted by tree_boom
11 Comments
Sharing because it’s my topic of interest, though note that the article makes the common mistake of calling the UK’s operation of Trident a lease. This is a myth that dates back to at least 1987, but it has never been true. Unfortunately plenty of usually trustworthy sources have been taken in, so the myth pervades. They’re purchased under the terms of the [Polaris Sales Agreement](https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Polaris-Sales-Agreement-1963.pdf) as [amended](https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Exchange-of-Notes-Trident-II-Weapon-System.pdf) for Trident – the clue there is in the title. [Here’s](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1990-11-19/debates/b062965b-41f4-4669-bcbc-22458711cec9/Trident) the Minister for Defence Procurement in 1990 confirming that it’s not a lease but a purchase. [Here’s](https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C15416625) the record of a cabinet meeting in which the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed to the cabinet that the missiles are being purchased, not leased.
Otherwise, pretty good.
The minute the US “switches something off”, be that F-35s or missiles, their entire defense industry is done. No-one would trust them with weapons purchases for the next 50-100 years. No amount of fantasy territorial gains would offset that.
Noooo I’m reliably informed by all the Russia shills that we purchased missiles the US can just disable and we even need permission to use. Surely they wouldn’t have any reason to lie and diminish confidence in our nuclear deterrent?
Sorry guys, but Mark Felton explains it quite well in this video called RENTED MISSILES & WORN OUT SUBMARINES https://youtu.be/O2Z0Y-mFMBk?si=rNYSmLzb4k7Hjn0W
I’m not convinced, think we should fire one at Mar-a-Lago to be sure.
America wants to control everything. Same reason they tried restrict who had nukes by reneging on the agreement to share the details of the Manhattan project despite other countries contributing extensively to it. Or stealing the gold reserves of several countries when they were sent there for safekeeping during the war.
The US likely has a kill switch for all their high end weaponry that they sell. That’s why the French don’t trust them.
This entire article is literally a straw man. It thinks the position of people saying that the US could prevent our nuclear capabilities is that they have some kind of “off” switch- that’s not even remotely the argument.
People were saying that we outsource **essential** parts of our nuclear programme to US companies. Without their cooperation, we don’t have a long term sustainable nuclear deterrent.
Our nukes literally rely on parts from the US- the article doesn’t even deny that, it just says it isn’t an issue because they haven’t embedded an off switch…
The article is misrepresenting the real argument. It’s pushing back against a weaker version of the criticism rather than engaging with the deeper issue of long term strategic dependence. Not even remotely worth reading.
So can we launch them AT America? (Asking for a friend)
I’m pretty certain that something as dependent on technology as a 5th gen multi role fighter, or a modern day submarine, cannot be disabled by a few lines of code.
It’s not like complex targeting systems need constant and direct access to satellite data, weather forecasts or any critical real time dynamic information that could be switched off by a single keystroke 🙄
so when america invades greenland and invokes article 5 against themselves we would be able to nuke american targets if so needed ?
Sure, but the warhead is pretty useless without a serviceable delivery vehicle, i.e., the US owned Tridents.