• zedcell@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Trident’s functionality is entirely reliant on the US.

    Our nuclear deterrent is the US’s nuclear deterrent but it’s parked in Scotland to have access to Russia’s western front.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I don’t really understand this.

      The subs are British and are commanded by Royal Navy Officers. They can launch autonomously as target sites autonomously as that’s the whole point of the UKs deterent, to operate after first strike has occurred and all friendly infrastructure / command structure has been destroyed.

      A RN officer will not take orders from a US officer, so how is Trident sub or weapon under control of the US?

      • zedcell@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        https://www.ft.com/content/762cd291-2a62-4e00-b69f-c60f9ee31a6e?sharetype=blocked

        The “functionality is entirely reliant on the US”. I.e. in order for Trident to function we need missiles from the US to carry the atomic warheads and we need to spend money every few years to replace old and out of date missiles. If the US decided to stop selling us the missiles Trident would cease to function. Ergo they have outsized control over our nuclear deterrent.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          If we wanted to launch the missiles today we could. So in your mind the plan on the part of the US is to wait about 20 years until the missiles don’t work and then invade?