22nd January 2021: The Day When Nuclear Weapons Are Finally Banned

13

Comments

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Alan Cresswell: [Re Fallout] Virtually the entire medical literature on the effects of radiation.....

    I don't doubt the medical literature, but my reference to "fallout" was in relation to the wider military-political context and consequences: the abrupt ending of the war; the invasion of mainland Japan avoided; the minimisation of the social and economic consequences of prolonged fighting; the demonstration of the destruction a nuclear war would entail; and impressing Stalin of the need to keep his understanding with the United States regarding the Yalta settlement, come to mind.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Bishops Finger: That said, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki surely underline the point that nukes are awful things...

    Quiet, but how different from what had been going on since 1939 elsewhere?
    One horror doesn't excuse another. The fire bombing of Tokyo was almost as horrendous as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. None of those actions reflect well on the Allies or their commanders who approved them. The whole-sale targeting of civilians (even granted that the military-civilian division is blurred by factors such as participation in munitions manufacture, or even just growing food for the troops) is an evil whether that's done using high explosives, incendiaries, napalm or nukes.

    They reflected well at the time. And long after. Opposition to such allied activity was virtually nonexistent. Bishop Bell had two parliamentary supporters. On the contrary, I have seen ferocious US propaganda on the Pacific War. I recall a commentator, possibly on World at War, saying that the US and Japan demonized each other like no other enemies in modern warfare. Churchill pitched the tone perfectly against Germany: whatever they drop, we drop two. We did a lot more than double up. But distanced himself from Dresden as he wasn't involved in the decision; a target of opportunity. A girlfriend's beloved dad was a Lancaster navigator, lovely bloke. A gent. Never swore. Shot down twice. Twice. I saw the Caterpillar Club pins. When I raised the issue of area bombing, as brilliantly explored by Len Deighton in Bomber, he went slitty eyed and said how much he enjoyed bombing 'those bastards'. No one in my extended family for two generations up or any other adult I knew ever expressed a qualm when talking about The War. None. WWII was a peoples' war on all fronts.
  • The option that so far has not been discussed is unilateral nuclear disarmament. People tend to think that this idea is crazy. The reality of our situation is that this special kind of nuclear disarmament is our only safe option.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    South Africa did it. The UK could. And France. All we'd lose is prestige...
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    But, what we've got can be dismantled. And, we can stop inventing newer ways to destroy each other. If those nations which already have these pointless obscenities are serious about not letting other nations have them then we need to lead by example and progressively get rid of the white elephants in our rooms.

    There is not enough trust for true multilateralism?

    Multilateralism is people guns at each other and saying "you first".

    Someone has to be first.

    Correct and the only agreements so far have been agreed reductions.

    During the cold war, the USSR had a massive army. I believe it was only nuclear weapons which prevented them from moving west.

    They'd have had to sort out Afghanistan first.

    I have no reason to suppose that the Soviets had any appetite for trying to take over Western Europe. It would have cost them much and given them very little.

    And I cannot justify the threat of mass murder of their citizens to prevent it.

    MAD was a good policy for both sides to adopt.

    Only if you really were willing to press the button. In which case you would be a mass murderer. If you only pretended to be willing, you were a liar.

    Neither are good options.

    The other side had to be convinced you were willing. That's why it actually worked

    Exactly. So were we liars or genocidal psychopaths?
    We were neither. If we were genocidal psychopaths we would have instigated a first strike Without the weapons we would have been forced to surrender after the USSR made one strike.

    Doesn’t MAD mean you lose, you just do it in a murder suicide.
  • We don't defend our way of life by surrendering every trace of common decency by contemplating mass murder.

    Then how do you propose we defend our way of life against an enemy armed with nukes?

    Sabotage (or cyber warfare as I believe it is now known.)
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 6
    Kwesi wrote: »
    At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?

    Japan offered to surrender before the bombs were dropped - the surrender could have been accepted. And I have never seen any plausible reason why there was a need to drop two.

    (Or you know, you can have nuance https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender)
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    The option that so far has not been discussed is unilateral nuclear disarmament. People tend to think that this idea is crazy. The reality of our situation is that this special kind of nuclear disarmament is our only safe option.
    I'd go for that. I admit, my voice is not going to count for diddly-squat in the US and Russia, but I do have a voice here in Scotland. With independence we can unilaterally disarm, the people here would support that - the rest of the UK can think about what other big city they can park their obscene weapons of mass destruction next to when we say we don't want them next to Glasgow, or if no one wants them in their backyard then the rest of the UK can disarm as well.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?

    Japan offered to surrender before the bombs were dropped - the surrender could have been accepted. And I have never seen any plausible reason why there was a need to drop two.
    Truman was sending a message to Stalin. One bomb says "we can make these things", two says "we have several of these and can make lots more". Rather than the closing shots of WWII, the bombs dropped on Japan were the opening salvo of the Cold War.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?

    Japan offered to surrender before the bombs were dropped - the surrender could have been accepted. And I have never seen any plausible reason why there was a need to drop two.

    (Or you know, you can have nuance https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender)
    That article is a lot more nuanced than your simple assertion that the bombs were unnecessary. Is there some particular part of the revisionist argument that you find especially convincing?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?

    Japan offered to surrender before the bombs were dropped - the surrender could have been accepted. And I have never seen any plausible reason why there was a need to drop two.

    (Or you know, you can have nuance https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender)

    They didn't offer unconditional surrender and they didn't surrender after the first.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    undead_rat wrote: »
    The option that so far has not been discussed is unilateral nuclear disarmament. People tend to think that this idea is crazy. The reality of our situation is that this special kind of nuclear disarmament is our only safe option.

    That's a bit like saying it's safer to leave your doors wide open when you go on holiday, because otherwise burglars might break a window and leave shards of glass all over your carpet.
    Doesn’t MAD mean you lose, you just do it in a murder suicide.

    MAD means both sides would lose if a war started, so neither side wants to start a war.

    If only one side has nukes then that side would be guaranteed to win if a war started. How that's supposed to stop them starting a war, or keep their putative target safer, is quite beyond me.

  • If only one side has nukes then that side would be guaranteed to win if a war started.

    Only if they're willing to use them. Very, very few wars have the intent of utterly destroying the opposing nation, and even those that do prefer to leave the land inhabitable. The US could, I presume, have "won" the Vietnam War by nuking Hanois, or the USSR "won" in Afghanistan by nuking... well pretty much everything down to and including the bedrock.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate

    If only one side has nukes then that side would be guaranteed to win if a war started.

    Only if they're willing to use them. Very, very few wars have the intent of utterly destroying the opposing nation, and even those that do prefer to leave the land inhabitable. The US could, I presume, have "won" the Vietnam War by nuking Hanois, or the USSR "won" in Afghanistan by nuking... well pretty much everything down to and including the bedrock.
    In the days when only one country had them, they were used by people who credited them with ending the war, and without utterly destroying the opposing nation.
  • As I've said elsewhere, no one wins a war - the best that can be achieved (should a war start) is to not lose as badly as the other side. Even better, don't fight a war in the first place. Even more so when nukes are part of the equation. One side uses nukes and the other doesn't? Well the "winning" side becomes an international pariah; trade falls, access to loans disappears etc - significant losses for most nations. Plus, if the use of nukes is significant (beyond a couple of bombs to force surrender) then there'll be global environmental consequences that will be faced by all nations. If the other side has nukes and retaliates then there's also significant loss of life and damage to property and business.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    You know I agree with you 110% @Alan Cresswell in these matters. But history, although there's no such thing going forward, in the making is deterministic. Every cul-de-sac has to be gone down. Nothing could be changed with hindsight but getting your retaliation in early. One can be as enlightened as one likes, but if one picks up the reins of power, one is lost to that charger. And everything you say is known and acted upon by those in power, the Russians love their children too but they all know their games theory; Like the OU educated leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Who then tore in to each other with more insight... I look forward to Scots independence and unilateral nuclear disarmament as it weakens English power, no bad thing.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    One side uses nukes and the other doesn't? Well the "winning" side becomes an international pariah; trade falls, access to loans disappears etc - significant losses for most nations.
    Didn't happen to the US.

  • Dave W wrote: »
    One side uses nukes and the other doesn't? Well the "winning" side becomes an international pariah; trade falls, access to loans disappears etc - significant losses for most nations.
    Didn't happen to the US
    Very different circumstances. All sides in WWII had already committed what would be called war crimes now - mass murder of civilians through bombing of cities was considered acceptable at the time, but would be unthinkable now. Also, the loss of lives had already been staggering, and the argument of stopping the slaughter of US servicemen was stronger than in contemporary situations where there's no scenario where such loss of lives would be even remotely possible. Pariah status follows what's universally considered a disproportionate response, at the end of WWII that wasn't really seen as disproportionate compared to the expected loss of life from not dropping those bombs. There's no realistic scenario since then when the unilateral use of nukes wouldn't be seen as disproportionate.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Agreed. Korea, Vietnam, Yom Kippur, Falklands, Afghanistan.
  • CallanCallan Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Modern conventional forces, modern being after the early stages of World War Two, are subject to laws of diminishing returns as regards size. That's because the only real forms of defence against modern firepower are: a) being somewhere the enemy doesn't know you are; b) when the enemy locates you moving somewhere else faster than the enemy can bring a gun or missile to bear. Both of those become more difficult if there's a lot of you. In addition, the more of you are moving about fast the greater the likelihood of friendly fire incidents.
    You also need lots of low-ranking officers who can take independent decisions quickly and communicate them to each other directly, which authoritarian governments tend to discourage.
    The effectiveness of the Warsaw pact armies was probably not as great as their numbers would suggest.

    Did the Warsaw Pact leadership know this? With hindsight both World Wars were a catastrofuck waiting to happen but that clearly wasn't apparent to the belligerents in 1914 and 1939. The great thing about nuclear war is that, at some point between the making of The War Game and The Day After/ Threads it became apparent that a thermonuclear war would certainly end civilisation as we know it and most likely finish off the species, as well. This means that one cannot use nuclear weapons, they exist solely as a deterrent. On the other hand conventional weapons can and have been used on a virtually daily basis since VJ Day. I remember watching an interview with a guy who ran war games for the Pentagon and he had to put his thumb on the scales to get them even to think about using nuclear weapons. Once you open that bottle there is only one thing the genie will do. So there is definitely something to be said for nuclear weapons. They make politicians worry about the consequences of their actions in a way that conventional weapons never did
  • CallanCallan Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    But, what we've got can be dismantled. And, we can stop inventing newer ways to destroy each other. If those nations which already have these pointless obscenities are serious about not letting other nations have them then we need to lead by example and progressively get rid of the white elephants in our rooms.

    There is not enough trust for true multilateralism?

    Multilateralism is people guns at each other and saying "you first".

    Someone has to be first.

    Correct and the only agreements so far have been agreed reductions.

    During the cold war, the USSR had a massive army. I believe it was only nuclear weapons which prevented them from moving west.

    They'd have had to sort out Afghanistan first.

    I have no reason to suppose that the Soviets had any appetite for trying to take over Western Europe. It would have cost them much and given them very little.

    And I cannot justify the threat of mass murder of their citizens to prevent it.

    MAD was a good policy for both sides to adopt.

    Only if you really were willing to press the button. In which case you would be a mass murderer. If you only pretended to be willing, you were a liar.

    Neither are good options.

    The other side had to be convinced you were willing. That's why it actually worked

    Exactly. So were we liars or genocidal psychopaths?


    Rafe Fiennes in 'Quiz Show' voice: The correct term is bluffing.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    One side uses nukes and the other doesn't? Well the "winning" side becomes an international pariah; trade falls, access to loans disappears etc - significant losses for most nations.
    Didn't happen to the US
    Very different circumstances. All sides in WWII had already committed what would be called war crimes now - mass murder of civilians through bombing of cities was considered acceptable at the time, but would be unthinkable now.
    I think you’re kidding yourself about this. When did mass civilian casualties become unthinkable, exactly? Seems like a lot of people have thought of it since then. A lot of things seem unthinkable in peacetime, but then when war comes it turns out they’re really not.
    Also, the loss of lives had already been staggering, and the argument of stopping the slaughter of US servicemen was stronger than in contemporary situations where there's no scenario where such loss of lives would be even remotely possible. Pariah status follows what's universally considered a disproportionate response, at the end of WWII that wasn't really seen as disproportionate compared to the expected loss of life from not dropping those bombs. There's no realistic scenario since then when the unilateral use of nukes wouldn't be seen as disproportionate.
    I think this may be just a failure of imagination on your part. I agree that the ferocity of the war up to that point probably made the use of the A-bomb in 1945 seem less drastic to US leaders than it does today - but seeing as how we have an example of such a situation arising, it seems strange to argue that another one couldn’t possibly happen.

  • A handful of nation states have abandoned their nuke development programs -- South Africa and Libya, e.g. ...
    But established nuke states almost certainly will keep at least some on hand, if for nothing else than planetary defense ...
  • you defend the planet by blowing it apart?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    A handful of nation states have abandoned their nuke development programs -- South Africa and Libya, e.g. ...
    But established nuke states almost certainly will keep at least some on hand, if for nothing else than planetary defense ...

    From what? A two fingered hand is better than none I suppose.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Even better, don't fight a war in the first place.

    What if someone else decides to attack you anyway? Just surrender and let them take over?
  • you defend the planet by blowing it apart?

    No, perhaps by diverting an incoming large space rock ...
  • you defend the planet by blowing it apart?

    No, perhaps by diverting an incoming large space rock ...
    For which you don't want to set off a large explosion (at best you end up with Earth being hit by lots of smaller bits of rock rather like a shotgun). Real life, not Hollywood blockbuster.

    You want enough time to nudge the rock with steady thrust over a long period of time - though at present our ability to predict the movements of rocks in space (which is subject to non-linear dynamics) would need to be improved to know how much thrust and in what direction to apply. In theory painting it black or white might do the trick if you have enough warning and good enough data to predict the path.

  • you defend the planet by blowing it apart?

    No, perhaps by diverting an incoming large space rock ...
    For which you don't want to set off a large explosion (at best you end up with Earth being hit by lots of smaller bits of rock rather like a shotgun). Real life, not Hollywood blockbuster.

    You want enough time to nudge the rock with steady thrust over a long period of time - though at present our ability to predict the movements of rocks in space (which is subject to non-linear dynamics) would need to be improved to know how much thrust and in what direction to apply. In theory painting it black or white might do the trick if you have enough warning and good enough data to predict the path.

    Not blow it to bits, but divert it, but what is called "radiation pressure" ... akin to the " Solar wind," but by a few nukes set off nearby ...
  • The force exerted would be miniscule, unless the blast is in direct contact with the rock - in which case it risks shattering the rock (and, only nudging a small part of it). But, a sustained force over a long period will shift the orbit without shattering the rock. It's not rocket science ... oh, wait, yes it is.
  • The force exerted would be miniscule, unless the blast is in direct contact with the rock - in which case it risks shattering the rock (and, only nudging a small part of it). But, a sustained force over a long period will shift the orbit without shattering the rock. It's not rocket science ... oh, wait, yes it is.

    These questions illustrate the importance of getting good info about the nature and composition of the big rocks so that we can intervene effectively when -- not if -- the need arrives ...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Uh huh.
  • Truman was sending a message to Stalin. One bomb says "we can make these things", two says "we have several of these and can make lots more". Rather than the closing shots of WWII, the bombs dropped on Japan were the opening salvo of the Cold War.
    I believe that this assessment is correct. The dropping of the two A-bombs was expected to intimidate the Soviets. Truman also knew that the USSR was going to attack Japanese forces in August and that this attack would be devastating to Japan, maybe even forcing a surrender. By beating Russia to the punch with the A-bombs, any surrender would appear (to the US public at least) to be a result of US action.
    Another consideration is that Japan was actually trying to obtain a negotiated surrender, the sticking point being the post-war status of their emperor. Truman could not agree to amnesty for Japan's emperor and still maintain in the US public's eye that Japan had surrendered unconditionally. The A-bombs offered a way to present propaganda to the US public that US military action had forced Japan to surrender while at the same time keeping the secret pledge to forego prosecution of the war criminal Hirohito.
  • And I have never seen any plausible reason why there was a need to drop two.

    I have heard the argument that one bomb might be the only one you have, whereas two suggests that you have more available.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Truman was sending a message to Stalin. One bomb says "we can make these things", two says "we have several of these and can make lots more". Rather than the closing shots of WWII, the bombs dropped on Japan were the opening salvo of the Cold War.
    I believe that this assessment is correct. The dropping of the two A-bombs was expected to intimidate the Soviets. Truman also knew that the USSR was going to attack Japanese forces in August and that this attack would be devastating to Japan, maybe even forcing a surrender. By beating Russia to the punch with the A-bombs, any surrender would appear (to the US public at least) to be a result of US action.
    Another consideration is that Japan was actually trying to obtain a negotiated surrender, the sticking point being the post-war status of their emperor. Truman could not agree to amnesty for Japan's emperor and still maintain in the US public's eye that Japan had surrendered unconditionally. The A-bombs offered a way to present propaganda to the US public that US military action had forced Japan to surrender while at the same time keeping the secret pledge to forego prosecution of the war criminal Hirohito.
    Sure. It was the threat of Soviet military action that really lead to surrender. Because things had been going so well for the Japanese up to then.
  • Japan was hoping that the USSR would help them to negotiate a peace with the USA.
    The Russian attack in Manchuria came as a tremendous shock and threatened to deprive Japan of vital resources. The Japanese government wanted to surrender but needed to insure the emperor's survival.
  • I think the Japanese authorities were divided as to whether to surrender unconditionally or not. I think it likely that the voices in favour of surrender were strengthened both by the bombs and by the USSR's declaration of war, which cut off the hope of a peace negotiated via Stalin. (Though perhaps the idea that Stalin would be keen to do this was always misguided).

    From the US point of view I think a number of things fed into the decision to drop the bombs:

    * the desire to finish the war as quickly as possible
    * the desire to show the USSR that the US had functional bombs
    * the desire to show the USSR that the US was prepared to use the bomb on actual cities
    * the desire to see what effect the bomb actually had
    * the desire to actually use the weapon that so much money and effort had been spent on
    * the fact that massive area bombing of Japanese cities was already taking place, so there wasn't so much moral inhibition about the idea of killing large numbers of civilians

    Ultimately I think it is Truman's responsibility that the bombs were dropped. I wonder if FDR would have done the same. Interestingly General Eisenhower was against it at the time.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I will note that in just war theory demanding unconditional surrender is an injustice.
  • I can't think of any actual wars that really satisfy the demands of just war theory, certainly not WW2.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 13
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I will note that in just war theory demanding unconditional surrender is an injustice.

    Which is why the First World War led to the Second.
    Dave W wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Truman was sending a message to Stalin. One bomb says "we can make these things", two says "we have several of these and can make lots more". Rather than the closing shots of WWII, the bombs dropped on Japan were the opening salvo of the Cold War.
    I believe that this assessment is correct. The dropping of the two A-bombs was expected to intimidate the Soviets. Truman also knew that the USSR was going to attack Japanese forces in August and that this attack would be devastating to Japan, maybe even forcing a surrender. By beating Russia to the punch with the A-bombs, any surrender would appear (to the US public at least) to be a result of US action.
    Another consideration is that Japan was actually trying to obtain a negotiated surrender, the sticking point being the post-war status of their emperor. Truman could not agree to amnesty for Japan's emperor and still maintain in the US public's eye that Japan had surrendered unconditionally. The A-bombs offered a way to present propaganda to the US public that US military action had forced Japan to surrender while at the same time keeping the secret pledge to forego prosecution of the war criminal Hirohito.
    Sure. It was the threat of Soviet military action that really lead to surrender. Because things had been going so well for the Japanese up to then.
    I don't follow. @undead_rat's analysis is perfectly rational. Japan had to be forced to surrender to America rather than become a Soviet satrap.
  • CallanCallan Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I will note that in just war theory demanding unconditional surrender is an injustice.

    What would conditional surrender have looked like in a war against then Axis? Rab Butler nixed his chances of becoming PM by advocating a compromise peace in 1940 when, to be fair, things did not look like all that and a bag of chips. Advocating a compromise peace in 2020 seems a little excessive.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Compromise and conditional are different things. There's no requirement to compromise on a just war aim.
    I think requiring that those credibly accused of war crimes be fairly tried is a permissible condition.
    It's hard to say what a better treatment of Japan would have been since Japan has ended up in a decent place. Arguably Germany might have been better off if East Germany hadn't ended up under Stalin.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Germany would have been much more powerful, Russia much less. A disturbing prospect. What is arguable about unconditional surrender is that it fosters total war and war crime. On all sides.
  • Today's the day! :smiley:
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    So who of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran are going to avail themselves soon of the 'framework for negotiating the verified and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons programme'? So that they can go to war properly with each other. I mean surely America can't ever now disarm as that would be a loss of Second Amendment rights... And who'd uh thought it, world peace started with Honduras!
  • And, less than 2 months later the UK government announces plans to increase the number of nuclear warheads ... at a time when there's insufficient money to honour even the modest pay rises previously agreed for NHS staff.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Aren't the warheads (in the subs at least) on 'loan' from the US?
  • edited March 17
    The missiles are purchased from the US. The warheads are UK made, manufactured at AWE Aldermaston.

    The UK no longer has any functional nuclear warheads except for those on the Trident missiles (there is a stockpile of older non-functional warheads that may include some of the free-fall bombs or warheads for Poseidon).
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 17
    It's all about having a seat at the table and the freedom of the seas:

    'At the Labour Conference in Brighton in October 1957, unilateral nuclear disarmament was a hot and divisive topic.

    Nye Bevan was opposed to unilateralism and appealed to delegates not to send a future British foreign secretary "naked into the conference chamber".'
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    thanks for clarifying that @Alan Cresswell . So for UK to have more nuclear warheads it has to purchase more missiles from the US. So part of UK cosying up to US prior to more trade deals?
Sign In or Register to comment.