Posted on 05/23/2004 11:51:37 AM PDT by wagglebee
BRITAIN is on the verge of abandoning its long-range nuclear missiles in favour of cheaper ‘mini-nukes’ that could be used to strike rogue states, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
A decision on whether to replace the ageing Trident system has to be taken by the end of the decade but a secret MoD poll suggests there would be enormous public opposition to spending tens of billions on new missiles.
Ministers and MoD chiefs are understood to be in advanced negotiations with the United States over developing a new range of much smaller and cheaper nuclear weapons that could be used to launch first-strike attacks on enemies.
More than 200 British scientists have visited American nuclear laboratories in the past year. The government has also taken on dozens of physicists to work at its top-secret Aldermaston nuclear plant in Berkshire, which is in line for a £2bn redevelopment. They will be equipped with the world’s most powerful laser, seen as crucial to the effort to produce modern nuclear weapons that could be targeted more precisely at enemy facilities.
Ministers have ensured the looming decision on whether to replace the Trident nuclear warheads, carried by specially-equipped submarines patrolling British coastal waters, will not be taken until after the next election, in an acknowledgement of the acute political sensitivities surrounding the move.
They have already begun to marshal their forces in preparation for a debate that threatens to reawaken the furious rows during the Cold War in the 1980s, when campaigners and the Labour party itself argued that Britain should unilaterally abandon its nuclear weapons.
Scotland on Sunday can reveal that a secret opinion poll commissioned by the Ministry of Defence has exposed a rising tide of anti-nuclear feeling in the country. The results, showing that almost four in 10 of the population want the nuclear arsenal scrapped altogether, demonstrate that if Labour is re-elected it will face a battle to justify any move to a more offensive nuclear capability.
Out of more than 2,000 adults questioned by Mori pollsters late last year, the narrowest majority - 51% - rejected the premise that the UK should not possess nuclear weapons. But while 11% strongly disagreed, the other 40% only "tended to agree". Some 45% overall agreed that nuclear weapons are less central to UK security in the 21st century. A senior MoD source last night admitted the level of opposition to Britain’s status as a nuclear power had been "a big surprise".
Ministers have consistently denied they have already decided to replace the Trident warheads, carried on four submarines based at Faslane, on the Clyde. Maintaining Britain’s sole nuclear weapons system, swallows up to 3% of the MoD’s under-pressure budget, about £1bn a year.
But Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon last week confirmed that "decisions on whether to replace Trident are likely to be required in the next Parliament". He added: "The costs of the design and manufacture of any nuclear warhead would depend on a range of factors, and these will be considered as part of any such decision."
Military experts believe the Trident system, brought into service in 1994, has a life-span of 30 years at most, but work on a replacement would have to begin by 2010.
Britain has taken an active part in international efforts to reduce nuclear weapons, slashing its stockpile of warheads by 70% to fewer than 200.
The operational readiness of its nuclear forces has also been reduced to the point where a single Trident submarine is now on deterrent patrol, with its missiles "de-targeted" and normally on several days’ "notice to fire".
But amid the continuing threat of nuclear proliferation among other nations, notably India and Pakistan, and fears that the technology could eventually fall into the hands of terrorists, ministers have signalled that they are not prepared to go any further.
Scotland on Sunday understands that hawks within the Ministry of Defence along with Hoon himself, are determined to maintain a significant nuclear capability. But they now favour more up-to-date "usable" alternatives, including the smaller and cheaper battlefield weapons with less radioactive fall-out proposed by the Americans.
In the past 12 months, British scientists have made visits to all America’s major weapons laboratories, including the Los Alamos complex. At Aldermaston, their new Orion laser will simulate conditions "found at the centre of a star or within a nuclear detonation".
Relatively small ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons can be delivered by aircraft, cruise missiles, and even artillery. Bush this month agreed a multi-million-dollar package to fund research into the new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons.
Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said last night of the poll: "These figures show the views of the British public are worth more than the current policy of the British government.
"Nuclear weapons are proven weapons of mass destruction and the idea that more usable nuclear weapons could be developed that could be used in further pre-emptive wars is abhorrent. It goes against the grain of international law and basic morality
As for Blair ....if he stays in power come elections then you will have witnessed a minor miracle.
NEVADA FOCUS: Stewards of U.S. nuclear stockpile plan new test (Nevada )
Connection?
Russia has super-handened shelters. The Red Chinese will at some point...
Well, the thing is the shelters the Russians have (such as the alleged one on Yamantau mountain) would require much much much much more than mini-nukes to destroy. They would actually require multiple direct hits by some of our 'big uns' to even dent them.
And anyways, a nuclear confrontation with Russia is not on the top of any one's list (at least I hope so). We strike them ....they strike us. The Russians may not have as much money as they once had, and their conventional forces have degraded at several levels. However, their nuclear and rocket forces have all the funding they want ....and it is increasing. That is what they rely on to prevent the Chinese from going to Siberia ...and trust me, the Russians are not sipping vodka when it comes to their nuke force. Launching an American strike on Russia (why I don't know ....but you mentioned them) would be totally imprudent. Doing such a thing would only be helping the Chinese out, since they'd be rid of their two greatest foes ....the US and Russia.
The mini-nukes we want are largely to take out super-hardened shelters that are too deep for our conventional deep penetrating bombs. They can only go so deep. A mini-nuke on the other hand will have a detonation that will likely cause the ceilings to collapse. Now, North Korea has several of such shelters scattered among its mountain ranges. And while we could send a Trident that is not something our adminstration would want for a number of reasons.
And no N.Korean shelter comes to close to the level of Yamantau.
"The results, showing that almost four in 10 of the population want the nuclear arsenal scrapped altogether, demonstrate that if Labour is re-elected it will face a battle to justify any move to a more offensive nuclear capability."
Brilliant idea. Just have a garage sale and watch the
terrorists line up bright and early for first dibs.
Churchill is spinning in his grave.
WHAT?!?,... there's no tooth fairy?
ha,.. next you'll be telling me that Father Christmas is just my dad with a fake white beared, and dressed up in a pilow stuffed red sutie with a sack of cheap plastic toys asembled by the lowest bidder in some far away place like korea;
Next thing that you'll be telling me is that their workers are payed 'NOT in money, but with penut's... :D
(( ....top-secret Aldermaston nuclear plant in Berkshire, - you can't miss it it's covered in camouflage! ))
Camouflage????
Ha! Surly You don't siriosly think we can aford things like that do you? :P
2. Similar circumstances. Except it's one terrorist, 8 liberals with their precious Geneva Convention, and a conservative with his copy of National Review, a concealed carry permit, and a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber pistol. The liberals are all mocking the guy for reading National Review and wearing a Bush hat. He's obviously "stupid". The terrorist gets up and starts shouting. The conservative pulls out his pistol and empties several rounds into him. The terrorist succumbs to lead poisoning. The boat makes it to the other side. The liberals immediately begin screaming that the conservative is a racist hate criminal who used excessive force on the terrorist, whose only crime was diversity. They throw the conservative in jail, melt down his pistol to make a tolerance sculpture, and go home, bust out the brie and Beaujolais and settle down to a seventh viewing of "Bowling for Columbine".The next day, a ninth liberal takes the deposed Conservative's seat on the boat. Scenario #1 occurs. Other liberals on both banks of the river see this, and blame conservatives while eating brie and Beaujolais.
(( Britain has taken an active part in international efforts to reduce nuclear weapons, slashing its stockpile of warheads by 70% to fewer than 200 ))
70 % ?
Well if history were repeting it self then could we be heading for a 3WW or a nuclear war of some sorts,
After WW1 Britain dismanteled a simuler % of her battle ships and dreadnoughts... In an arms treaty proposed by America to 'PRIVENT' war.(funny that)
But in the end it was Britan who lost out.
Our ship yards fell in to disrepare and by the start of WW2
Britan was left feeling more vunarable then she had been for over 300 years...
After over a thousand years of British soverenty and of corse history, Britan has fought off threat after threat.
But in the end, Britans dominance of the sea's and indead her future was on the edge of losing every thing, and all because of folowing Arms treaty's while Hitler on the other hand was secretly building up his forces.
and so we were nearly left crippled and at the mercey of nothing more thretening than peices of papper...
So what good are treaty's if your potentiol 'enemy' has no intention of abibing by them either.
All it leves is you looking like a fool for aggreing to sign them in the first place.
America 'was' and still is i think the largest economic power in the world, and her growth to the largest Navel and world power was only a matter of time, and so with the few number of ships that America had compared to Britan During WW1, America had very little to lose by cutting back on what few ships she had.
And unlike Britan, America also had the financel means to 'Aford' to build up her forces again in responce to the out brake of war in europe.
(Not to mention the 'luxury' of haveing 3 years to prepare,..)
But it was the financil cost of 'WW1' that had almost killed off the British Empire,
And so, it was Arms treatys combined with the onset of WW2, that can be seen as the finel nail in it's coffin,...
And so if Hitler's war in europe had not started 6 years early in 1939 and He had instead been able to keep to his Origanal plans for the war to Begin in 1945 when he was fully ready, then who know's what would have happened.
After all, during the first WW, Germany had the seconed largest navy in he world, and Britain maintaned a fleet 2 times as large again then even the 'two' seconed largest navys in the world put together.
And so Hitler may have been MAD but he wasn't stupid,
He knew what he was doing, And he wanted to take over the world, And with Britan having cut back on her over whelming supremecy of the seas,.. then he must have thought his Christmas, birthday and easter had all come at once.
Lucky for us then that japan hit Pirel harber; Because America would not have gotten involved and europe would have most sertanly fallen and it would have only been a matter of time before Britan as well would have come tumbeling down after.
And Hitler wanted The people of America to also know what war is 'REALY' like, Witch was something witch Britan and Germany allready knew all too well.
And what with his Nazi Germany being so close to developing a Nuclear bomb and also being in the process of developing the tecnolegy needed to build a plane or indeed a powerfull enough rocket witch he would have needed to have flowen the distance nesesery to have brought a Nuclear bomb to America and so with it the war to The American people them selfs, then it 'REALY WOULD' have been an error of judgement for America to have sat there and done nothing.
In WW2 The then 'British Empire' stood up to Germany to defend her alie Poland and after the fall of france in 1941 and the movement of German troops towards Russa, and british troops being pushed back, Things were getting desprate.
And despite Churchill's calls for millatery help from America it seemed to be falling on death ears, And the world was on it's way to becoming a very diferent place.
But thankfully America has since been thru many new Heads of government since WW2, And if Britan or anyone else should ever need them, I'm sure or at least I would hope that America would be there to stand with us from day one...
Just as the curent british goverment would stand by America also.
And So if roles reversed and this time it were to be 'Europe' who were to ask 'America' to cut back on her 350 billion pound defence budget; would she do so?
Well if history is to Show us anything about what happened to Britain after sining 'American' Arms treaty's after WW1; then I think not...
But I think that of all the weapons conceved by man, I 'do' think that 'Nukes' will allways be the one weapon we should hope 'NEVER' need's useing again on our selfs,.. (As in our fellow Humans)
Really?
You might want to read this article first.
These aren't the Thatcherites we remember.
The Michael Moore Conservatives (Meet Britain's anti-American Tories)
Did you read the article I linked to?
Sorry my post got split...
Did you read the article, I linked to? Because if its true, it scares the hell out of me, and makes me think that once Blair is gone, we will have no friends left in Britain.
Personally, I have needed to cut wayyyyyy back on my nuclear weapons expeditures. Why, I can only detonate one 500 Megaton warhead a year, now! I have to save up all year!
So yes, cheaper nuclear weapons is definitely on my wish list.
Yes, I did. The term 'Michael Moore Conservative' is a meaningless slur. This time next year one of three people will be Prime Minister: Blair, Brown or Howard. All 3 are pro-Americans and British patriots (despite their other failings). All 3 support the WOT. All 3 will proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush (or... gulp... Kerry :-/).
The only way that the UK will change its current course is if the Lib Dems won in the UK!
FIVE HUNDRED MEGATONS?
OMG!! have You been watching Babalon-5 angin? or have nuke's sudenly got a lot bigger since the run out standered of on avarage a figure of about 20 MegaTons, up to the 'Last I heard' Largest of 50 Mega tons used under the wings of b-52 bombers during the Cold war era?
I don't know, One little university in cambridge splits the Atom and now were talking about 'mini nukes' ?
Sounds like it could be very un-nerving for the avrage British moterist the next time he see's one of MG Rovers smallest little cars in his Rear view mirror.
And 'How" many minis did they produce in total?,.. No wonder they were selling them at a loss.
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.