XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.current-events.terrorism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.conspiracy.america-at-war,   
   alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.local.london, uk.media, alt.politics.british   
   From: o@o.org   
      
   Dan Plesch: Britain's independent deterrent is purely a political myth   
      
   The independent nuclear deterrent is a carefully constructed political myth   
   designed to provide false comfort to the British people. It is supposed to   
   protect the UK in a re-run of 1940, when Britain stood alone. But Britain   
   would only stand alone today if it were at odds with the US and in that   
   event, Washington would have every interest and ability to remove the   
   nuclear weapons support on which Britain depends. Trident and any similar   
   successor fails the 1940 test.   
      
   In 1962 the US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara revealed that the British   
   force "did not operate independently" to Harold Macmillan's embarrassment.   
   When Macmillan later accepted President John Kennedy's offer of the Polaris   
   missile submarine, his Permanent Secretary, Sir Robert Scott, recorded that   
   the decision has "put us in America's pocket for a decade" . Sir John   
   Slessor, the commander of the V bomber force, wrote privately that the deal   
   had been done to sustain the "myth" of an independent force. President   
   Charles De Gaulle of France turned down the same offer and built an   
   independent force de frappe. De Gaulle then vetoed UK membership of the   
   Common Market on the grounds that the Polaris deal had made Britain an   
   American vassal.   
      
   Former naval officers have confirmed privately that the US knows where the   
   British submarines are and that firing the missiles without US supplied data   
   and satellites is almost impossible. Although a British prime minister could   
   theoretically fire the weapons, a US president would have the full range of   
   political and military options to prevent Britain engaging in a nuclear war   
   against Washington's wishes.   
      
   In any longer-term disagreement between London and Washington, the US can   
   remove the illusion of Britain's nuclear status. One former Royal Navy   
   officer who conducted an official study of the dependence on the US   
   concluded that in just 18 months after a US decision to withdraw support,   
   the UK could no longer send Trident to sea.   
      
   The Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston outside Reading is one-third   
   managed by the US firm Lockheed Martin. The British Government refuses to   
   say how much of the AWE budget goes to US firms. Research by non-government   
   groups, including Basic, Greenpeace and NRDC, show that the nuclear warhead   
   factory was designed and built by a US company as a copy of the one at Los   
   Alamos. The British fuse and firing system is designed and built by   
   America's Sandia national laboratory. Some of the nuclear explosive are   
   imported from the US and so too is the warhead casing and guidance system.   
   The US has been providing Britain with the blueprints of nuclear weapons for   
   more than 40 years.   
      
   President George Bush agreed last year to renew the Mutual Defence Agreement   
   providing nuclear support to the UK until 2014, stating that "in the light   
   of our previous close co-operation, I have concluded that it is in our   
   interest to continue to assist them in maintaining a credible nuclear force"   
   . Without Bush's support, the British nuclear force would not be credible   
   and without close co-operation with Washington that credibility will not be   
   sustained. South Africa and the developing world charge that the indirect   
   supply of nuclear weapons to Britain under this agreement is a violation of   
   the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which bans such transfers.   
      
   This myth of the independent nuclear force is the last taboo of British   
   politics. British politicians and civil servants are prepared to tie the UK   
   to US policy as the price of being able to pretend to have the status of an   
   independent nuclear power.   
      
   The real question for the country is not whether to renew the independent   
   deterrent but whether it wants to be independent of the US, for a successor   
   to Trident will be with us until 2060.   
      
   Dan Plesch's report on the Trident successor will be published next month by   
   the Foreign Policy Centre, where he is a senior associate   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)