Comment by rich_sasha
10 hours ago
That's probably one of very few options available quickly.
UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years.
Maybe UK could buy them from France - but I don't think France ever exported their nukes, and if they would even consider it. How would it be launched? They have air-launched missiles, presumably only working with French jets, and cruise missiles, which IIRC are not very long range.
Who else is there? India? Pakistan? Israel? North Korea? Hard to imagine a sale from either of these countries.
> UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years.
As in the other thread (that I see you've now seen) the UK does have an active nuclear weapons program, with an in-progress updated design. It's true that it would need a smaller 'tactical' warhead design for the use-case we're talking about so it would take some time.
> How would it be launched?
I have no idea, we have certainly reached beyond my competence to hold an opinion here :)
It just feels like an odd choice at the current time, to crow about a new capability, but reveal another country is going to hold the keys. especially when the UK does have an active nuclear program. :shrug:
Why does the UK need an option available quickly?
I think it does not and this is just pandering to the US.
The narrative is of a looming war with Russia, necessitating rapid rearmament.
My armchair strategist view doesn't extend as far as knowing if haste is advised or not. I'm curious why you think specifically there is no rush.
It's hard to take this "looming war" with Russia seriously when WWIII didn't happen during the USSR times when Russia was much stronger. It's hard to believe that Russia would want to start WWIII now when they didn't then and when they have shown that they were highly struggling in Ukraine (and they struggled in Chechnya, too).
Along the same line, during the Cold War Sweden was literally facing the Warsaw Pact and yet stayed out of NATO. Now it is surrounded with friends and needs to join NATO.
I am just old enough to remember the end of the Cold War and the fall of it all. To me it is very difficult to consider that the situation now is riskier than then.
A reasonable conclusion is that we are being led up the garden path...
Russia has a stockpile of nukes for defense because they are worried of invasion (history has shown this is warranted). But they know that the military might of the US and NATO would obliterate their conventional forces.
My theory is that there has always been push-back against an EU power-grab to full "statehood" and involvement in military matters, and that this is a pretext to "manufacture consent" in European public opinion.
Now, specifically for the UK, again I think this is largely pandering to the US to attract favours (tariffs, etc)
7 replies →