Posted on 09/13/2014 8:36:49 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
BRITAIN’S independent nuclear deterrent should be moved to the Unites States if Scotland gains its independence next week, senior military figures have said.
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?
“We could easily run Trident from the US for ten years, and prepare the rest of the UK for whatever the follow on might be.”
The Clyde naval base is currently the largest single employment site in Scotland, currently responsible for 6,700 jobs though this is set to increase to 8,200 jobs.
A recent report by the Royal United Services Institute think tank estimated that recreating the facilities to house Britain’s nuclear deterrent south of the border would cost around £3bn and take up to ten years. But the costs of “renting space” in the US would be relatively small.
Last night Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, chair of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security said the move would command overwhelming support in the United States.
“I emphatically think this is a good idea,’ he said.
“The US and UK have developed a Special Relationship through two World Wars and the Cold War, and our nations have helped each other out when we have run into strategic or military difficulties.
“Obviously what is left of the UK, if Scotland does become independent, would not want to have a significant part of its nuclear deterrent housed in a non-Nato country.
“I believe that basing the UK nuclear deterrent in the US until such time as the rest of the UK was able to build the appropriate basis would be very welcome here.
It would have very strong Republican support in Congress. If the President did request any type of legislation in Congress, it would probably pass by a margin of three to one in the House of Representatives, and I could see it being overwhelmingly approved by the Senate when the vote comes up.”
The obvious location, experts say, would be the US Naval Submarine Base at Kings Bay, Georgia, which already hosts the US’ Atlantic submarine fleet and a major Trident refit centre, the largest drydock in the world.
Air Cmdre Lambert’s views were echoed by other senior military figures and defence analysts.
“This would present an entirely sensible solution as a temporary measure,’ said former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West, last night.
“We must remember that getting rid of Trident has always been a core plank for the SNP.
"The fact that they say they want to join Nato was actually a close run thing at the Assembly conference – an awful lot of them don’t even want to be in Nato.”
Former head of the British Army Gen Mike Jackson added: “Salmond’s position on Trident is clear and it will need some tricky negotiation in the event of a Yes vote.
"Britain must remain a nuclear weapon state not only over the remainder of the life of our current system, but also in terms of a replacement.
"Scotland will be a realm problem.
"Moving the fleet to the US would be an interesting and practicable proposition.
"The US are keen that we remain a nuclear state and I suspect they would be understanding.”
Luke Coffey, a former MoD aid to Dr Liam Fox and now with Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation said:”In the chance that the vote is Yes, the first policy paper I will be writing is to recommend that the United States Government does allow the hosting of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
"It is an idea that has already been discussed in Whitehall.
“Our Special Relationship is based around nuclear cooperation - this goes back to the 1950s.
"It’s the nuclear cooperation that makes our Special Relationship special.
“The US would make much more sense than, say, France which is less dependable over this kind of issue.
“There is zero debate here about nuclear weapons and the idea of having an extra four submarines would not be an issue.
"It’s a practical short-term solution and there’s a precedent – the US has nuclear weapons in other countries.”
“And they trust that Muslim idiot Obama with them??”....
He’ll probably give them to the muzzies for their future use.
“And they trust that Muslim idiot Obama with them??”....
He’ll probably give them to the muzzies for their future use.
The favor is/has been US defense of Europe so that you can have a socialist nanny state.
There’s no reason England couldn’t lease the current facilities from Scotland, except English spite.
Well, we could keep the base and hold it, and military there'd be jack shit the iScots could do about it. Politically of course, it would be impossible, and if we tried, you'd probably get Scots Americans going round Scottish cultural events and bars with 'Brits oot o'Scotland' leaflets in the US raising money for car bombs to go off in English cities for years to come...
Try Scottish spite. Salmond actively campaigned on getting rid of Trident. They ain’t going to turn around and grant a lease.
It’s hilarious. One week before the vote and... well maybe we should come up with a plan. Talk about flat-footed.
On it being hilarious, we can agree. So funny watching the politicians run in panicky circles.
It does illustrate the Scots very legitimate grievance with Westminster quite nicely, though. They, like much of the North of England, are treated pretty much how Washington treats flyover country. “Give us your vote, then shut up and take what you are given for the next 5 years.”
The same reason we got involved in WWI and WWII. Because it's Mother England. It's the reason ABCA Armies is a much closer relationship than NATO or any other alliance we've got. Blood is thicker than water. Obviously the blood aspect is a little more dilute than it used to be, but we are ultimately Albion's seed - if not by blood, then by language, law and custom, among other things. The Brits paid for their own deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they paid back all of the Lend Lease Aid we lent to them, in contrast to most of Europe, whose debts had to be forgiven. To the extent we have any friends on this planet, the Brits, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders are it. And it's because of a common heritage.
Apart from ties of blood and sentiment, it makes sense to court England, if only to pry it away from the European Union. The country is in the midst of a bitter divorce. Why not invite it to an all-expenses paid hunting trip (i.e. provide submarine basing gratis), if only to take its mind off its troubles?
Rotherham is their new heritage
This would just give BOb more nukes to try to destroy. He has said that is his intention with our nukes, and that is one of his statements I believe.
And the US just happens to have an unused sub base sitting around?
I doubt it.
Two people I know closely who are familiar with this say that it is similar to what went on here with Obama hysteria. A lot of people think it would be cool to be part of changing everything with no concept of what they are doing or what they will be getting.
That's what they say. The real reason is that they are so pissed, they fear they would use them against Scotland.
Think again, New Mexico has plenty of nukes. Why we don't use them as deterrence against Texan skiers coming here I don't know.
They can nationalize oil production. I believe SNP has pledged to repudiate its share of the UK's debt. Assuming they manage their economy rationally (like Norway), they should be fine. The rhetoric coming from the SNP suggests Venezuelan policies. If so, they're in trouble.
Repudiate on its debts? They’ll get loan-shark rates on public borrowing if they do that.
In any case, they’ll still be doing about 70% of their external trade with rUK and they’ll be outside the EU, which means we can slap tariffs on all Scottish goods coming in to rUK until the debt is settled.
It is trending that way today. The election is Thursday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.