Amid growing jumpiness over Donald Trump’s re-alignment with Russia, a vulnerability that has long troubled many in UK military circles is taking centre stage: Britain’s ultimate wartime deterrent - the Trident nuclear programme - is built on the assumption that Washington has its back.
I think this was the lesson Anthony Eden learned in the Suez crisis: Washington doesn't "have our back". We might be able to persuade the US to support us, or at least not oppose us (Falklands), but we are not able to operate independently of the US. Our relative position is one of decline, and has been for over 100 years, we just seem to periodically forget.
Some inaccuracies in there fyi to bear in mind. Not sure where you got this data from but in the spirit of being helpful.
"British submarines must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming."
Not for maintenance. The Vanguard class submarines are maintained at Faslane by the Royal Navy, Babcock and BAe. It is true that they are infrequently re-armed in King's Bay.
"since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral,"
This is true but a very minor point. It is not as if the system is frequently tested.
"Nor does the UK even own its Trident missiles."
Er we pay for them so we own them. That is like saying we do not own the F-35s we purchase from Lockheed.
....and the big one
"What’s more, a huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly from the US. "
Yes and no. To unpack that
"Neutron generators" I assume you mean the neutron initiators at the heart of the UK Mk4A warhead. No those are UK owned, manufactured and maintained at Coulport and Aldermaston.
"Warheads". Big NO. Those are UK owned, manufactured and maintained at Coulport and Aldermaston. They are the UK Mk4A warhead which are in effect brand new.
"gas reservoirs". I assume you mean the gas system in the missile (or do you mean part of the physics package in the warhead). If so then yes they would be maintained by the US. If you mean a warhead component then as above.
"missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems". Yes they are all a part of the missiles which are procured from the US. You are however mixing up terms.
But to say those components are US owned is the same as saying our Cruise Missiles are US owned as the very same components in those come from the US.
"It’s worth remembering too that, even if the US were to cut off support, Britain would have a number of Trident missiles in reserve. Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the defence select committee, hence insists that Trump “will be out of office by the time the missiles need to be replaced”
Ellwood (and I am no fan) is absolutely correct. The missiles are our property and in our possession and it would be some time (classified and undefined) before they would require maintenance. This is the same for any US procured weapons system though.
I do not think you are quite making the point your article intended. I hope helpful.
I think this was the lesson Anthony Eden learned in the Suez crisis: Washington doesn't "have our back". We might be able to persuade the US to support us, or at least not oppose us (Falklands), but we are not able to operate independently of the US. Our relative position is one of decline, and has been for over 100 years, we just seem to periodically forget.
Hi Caitlin
Some inaccuracies in there fyi to bear in mind. Not sure where you got this data from but in the spirit of being helpful.
"British submarines must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming."
Not for maintenance. The Vanguard class submarines are maintained at Faslane by the Royal Navy, Babcock and BAe. It is true that they are infrequently re-armed in King's Bay.
"since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral,"
This is true but a very minor point. It is not as if the system is frequently tested.
"Nor does the UK even own its Trident missiles."
Er we pay for them so we own them. That is like saying we do not own the F-35s we purchase from Lockheed.
....and the big one
"What’s more, a huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly from the US. "
Yes and no. To unpack that
"Neutron generators" I assume you mean the neutron initiators at the heart of the UK Mk4A warhead. No those are UK owned, manufactured and maintained at Coulport and Aldermaston.
"Warheads". Big NO. Those are UK owned, manufactured and maintained at Coulport and Aldermaston. They are the UK Mk4A warhead which are in effect brand new.
"gas reservoirs". I assume you mean the gas system in the missile (or do you mean part of the physics package in the warhead). If so then yes they would be maintained by the US. If you mean a warhead component then as above.
"missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems". Yes they are all a part of the missiles which are procured from the US. You are however mixing up terms.
But to say those components are US owned is the same as saying our Cruise Missiles are US owned as the very same components in those come from the US.
"It’s worth remembering too that, even if the US were to cut off support, Britain would have a number of Trident missiles in reserve. Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the defence select committee, hence insists that Trump “will be out of office by the time the missiles need to be replaced”
Ellwood (and I am no fan) is absolutely correct. The missiles are our property and in our possession and it would be some time (classified and undefined) before they would require maintenance. This is the same for any US procured weapons system though.
I do not think you are quite making the point your article intended. I hope helpful.
Thank you for your helpful comments. I have made a few corrections.