WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

#61
That is a specific type. There are other failsafes in the system which would be classed as PALs.
Not aware of any ...

You did. I was taking it for read that you knew I had been a cadet.
Sorry, no, didn't know - not that I would actually consider being a cadet (as opposed to being an SI or ACF officer) serving in the ACF. But you do (did) know stuff "too secret for ARRSE" - the names and addresses of a number of your fellow cadets, for example.

I was referring to the doublethink. You said "the only authority for launch is a direct and authenticated order from the UK Prime Minister. Which, clearly, needs to come from the UK", followed a bit later by "these systems are designed to be able to function when the host country is a lot of unpleasantly radioactive embers." Now to me, those two statements are contradictory, particularly when taking into account the fact that our system allows for independent action on the part of the Captain , where the US system does not.
Okay - got that. You are making a number of assumptions about the system. What I said is not actually contradictory - there is more than one method of getting a launch order to the boat. Oh, and the Captain cannot take independent action - key stuff is held under 2 man control.

Agreed. My fully functioning system is piss poor, whereas yours is hopelessly optimistic.
I didn't say "practical". But the NTSBT/FTSBT seem to be making considerable progress with Standard Block IV. It might eventually work, especially with the keen Japanese interest.
 
#62
It's seems to this pleb that it's another action that bends us towards Europe more so and in an entente cordiale with the CESMs in particular with relations to glass makers.

Or (having watched a load of Yes Minister), perhaps, there has been a rabbit off for a while given the cooling of the speshul relationship?
 
#63
Not aware of any ...
They do exist.

Idrach said:
Sorry, no, didn't know - not that I would actually consider being a cadet (as opposed to being an SI or ACF officer) serving in the ACF. But you do (did) know stuff "too secret for ARRSE" - the names and addresses of a number of your fellow cadets, for example.
That is time-expired, and therefore no longer valid.

Idrach said:
Okay - got that. You are making a number of assumptions about the system. What I said is not actually contradictory - there is more than one method of getting a launch order to the boat. Oh, and the Captain cannot take independent action - key stuff is held under 2 man control.
I meant independent as in without input from outside, not single-handedly. If you think about how the process on-board actually works, it can be seen that, even disregarding the 2-man verification, it would be impossible for a single person to effect a launch. Even the worst-written and most poorly researched accounts of how a launch is actually achieved show this.

Idrach said:
I didn't say "practical". But the NTSBT/FTSBT seem to be making considerable progress with Standard Block IV. It might eventually work, especially with the keen Japanese interest.
Are you suggesting we nuke the Yanks now, while we still can?
 
#64
It is not so much knowing how many missiles UK has rather it is more to do with the knowledge that USA is willing to stab any friends in the back. Now that is good intel to have from a Russian POV.

Anyway, with the number of 'sympathisers' in the UK I would be surprised if Russia did not know how many missiles we had already.
I would suggest we have been stabbed in the back in much the same way as we would be if the US told Ivan the the jocks don't wear anything under the kilt.
 
#65
I would suggest we have been stabbed in the back in much the same way as we would be if the US told Ivan the the jocks don't wear anything under the kilt.
Extending that argument then it's worse. If Russia was pretty sure what we had then the action of the US lets them know that their intelligence is accurate and their intelligence gathering is efficient.
 
#66
In the British nuclear launch chain? There certainly are a number of positive breaks in the chain, as well as various passive measures that stop the end product being a very large bang unless certain conditions are met - but these don't provide the external control measure that is the point of a PAL.

If you think about how the process on-board actually works, it can be seen that, even disregarding the 2-man verification, it would be impossible for a single person to effect a launch. Even the worst-written and most poorly researched accounts of how a launch is actually achieved show this.
I know how the on-board process works. Actually, the movie Crimson Tide has a very good demonstration about how an obsolete, non-British, process worked (or, in the context of the movie - failed.)

Are you suggesting we nuke the Yanks now, while we still can?
Nope. Where would our wives and daughters get their Ben and Jerry's from?
 
#67
The Kremlin still is a big player in the Stans and remains a heavyweight nuclear power that is capable of destroying the US. America is an unexceptional nation, it will inevitable act primarily in its own perceived interest no matter who leads it. Barry needs Vlad onside at the moment. Though still distracted by his predecessors strategic debacle in the ME Barry is clearly oriented to the Pacific. This is the only sensible position for a 21st century POTUS. DC is chained by ballooning debt and globalized commerce to Beijing. The Pacific rim is also where the 21st century opportunities lie for the US. The Brits are almost irrelevant to DC. In Europe the only serious player is really Germany with its high tech industrial base and the boxheads have gone permanently conchie.

The UK is an increasingly less valuable ally of the US. The defense cuts brought in by the Team Dave have only added vinegar to an already sour relationship. A nation that shirks its fair load in joint defense and hopes to offset that by counter productive toadying to DC, can only expect expect more casual abuse like this.
 
#68
In the British nuclear launch chain? There certainly are a number of positive breaks in the chain, as well as various passive measures that stop the end product being a very large bang unless certain conditions are met - but these don't provide the external control measure that is the point of a PAL.
Our definitions do differ, then.

Idrach said:
Where would our wives and daughters get their Ben and Jerry's from?
Wow, you get yours shipped in from the States? I must get a job in IT.
 
#69
Are any of you SMOs?!
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#70
So the United States are the new bully boys on the block are they ??

They poke their noses where it is not wanted.

They tell lies so they can start wars.

They have a policy of regime change to undesirable world leaders that "they" do not approve of.

Their military is well known for its ridiculously high "blue on blue" incident rate in battle.

They will stab a so called friend in the back (this very thread subject matter)

They insist on dominating space exploration at any cost.

They dominate our T,V channels and the worlds film industry.

They bought Alaska because they saw Russia as a threat at only being less then 100 miles away .

They are a extremely paranoid country and think that everybody wants to attack them.

They can not survive outside their Coke a cola, Dr.Pepper, Hot dogs, Ice cream and Hamburger environment.

But their greatest fear of all is running out of oil, as they know full well that their little tin god empire will then grind to a crashing halt.

They also know that Russia has so much gas, coal and oil reserves to last them another thousand years and that the Middle East practically floats on crude oil ....... and they hate it.

This Greedy country just fears going without at the end of the day.
Their vital oil supply is the only key to their "superpower" status ..... And they know it !
 
#71
So the United States are the new bully boys on the block are they ??

They poke their noses where it is not wanted.

They tell lies so they can start wars.

They have a policy of regime change to undesirable world leaders that "they" do not approve of.

Their military is well known for its ridiculously high "blue on blue" incident rate in battle.

They will stab a so called friend in the back (this very thread subject matter)

They insist on dominating space exploration at any cost.

They bought Alaska because they saw Russia as a threat at only being less then 100 miles away .

They are a extremely paranoid country and think that everybody wants to attack them.

They can not survive without their Coke a cola, Dr.Pepper, Hot dogs, Ice cream and Hamburger environment.

But their greatest fear of all is running out of oil, as they know full well that their little tin god empire will then grind to a crashing halt.

They also know that Russia has so much gas, coal and oil reserves to last them another thousand years and that the Middle East practically floats on crude oil ....... and they hate it.

This Greedy country just fears going without at the end of the day.
Their vital oil supply is the only key to their "superpower" status ..... And they know it !
Let it out, don't hold back now because everybody knows bottling it up is bad for a bods health.
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#73
It depends what you call 'new'. They have been at it for nearly 70 years.
True.... Now have a free world history lesson.

Every empire that has ever existed in the world has had its rise ..... and it's inevitable fall !

Well, at least we can all agree that Newtons Law was correct. L.O.L
 
#74
Before we start on the DI of the Outrage Bus, take the time to read the comments below the article. It does the soul good to read that actually, Americans like and respect their "staunchest ally" and are frankly ashamed at the actions of their politicians.

God help us all frankly - we are led on both sides of the Atlantic by a toe-curling collection of vacuous, treacherous shitehawks.
Which would be awesome..except it's what the politicians do that matters in a Republic on matters like this.
 
#76
Just as an example - to those questioning ownership rights and what say the "owners" have...without beadwindowing...

British warships have several bits of kit in several different departmenst that do different things. Many of these bits of kit are the property of the USA. Commonwealth recruits who have not lived that long in the UK prior to joining up are unable to join those branches with US kit in their departments as the USA does not acknowledge their security clearance.

There are a host of other things those bits of kit are reliant upon to operate. Operate "with consent" should be a key indicator.
 
#77
I would suggest a sense of perspective is needed here - I for one am not particularly concerend about this for the following reasons. The number of missiles that the UK has is publicly documented - IIRC the total purchase was 58, and we've fired about 6 so far in DASOs. So right now, we've got roughly 52 in service, to support a total warhead stockpile of approx 160 warheads.

I suspect the reasons the Russians are seeking clarification is to get their heads round the idea that the US isn't screwing them in the START talks. We think about this from a Western mindset - we assume that when we say 'the US is leasing the UK 58 missiles from a common pool', that we'll be taken at our word. The problem is that the Russians and others don't think like that - when they hear 58, they assume almost automatically that in reality, there are more missiles out there. They will also wonder whether the US is using the 'leasehold' arrangements to try and pull of some kind of accounting tricks - e.g. hide extra missiles within this. They may well wonder whether the US sees the UK arrangement as a means of trying to justify extra missiles which wouldnt count against verification, but which could, in extremis, be used by the US as an extra means of delivering warheads.

By clearly confirming missiles against serials, the US is clear that its not hiding any dirty secrets - I have no problem with this - fundamentally arms control agreements work on trust, and we have to build that. I doubt the UK is particularly worried either - Moscow knows how many missiles we have - knowing that we've got serial XYZ32 instead of serial XYC33 isn't going to drastically alter the balance of power (unless you know the mods of each extant missile, in which case we have a MUCH more serious problem on our hands!)

Also don't forget that in the current climate, the UK (and also Frances) nuclear arsenals are becoming strategically more significant as their warhead totals proportionately count for more of the global total than ever before. In the Cold War, the UK total of about 500 warheads was a tactical and strategic irrelevance -when compared to the US totals. Now though, a massively reduced overall warhead numbers, those 160 warheads make a bit more of an impact than before. I can understand Russian concerns.

As for some of the comments here on the US and its so called betrayal of the UK - its utter BS. The US has not betrayed the UK - the US Government has told the Russians the serials how many US manufactured and US Govt owned missiles may be available at anyone time in order to improve Western relations as a whole with the Russians. I have no doubt that if the tables were turned, the UK would do a similar thing if it was in the wider interest.

The relationship with the US and UK is far more than just that of the President / PM of the day - they are an irrelevance to be honest. The relationship is one built on strategic access, genuine sharing and a real interoperability between the two nations in the fields of diplomatic, intelligence and military co-operation. I believe the relationship is weakening, as the UK reduces its global presence, and within my lifetime, I expect the current 2 way relationship to be ovetaken by a three way one with the Australians, and potentially Canada too. The UK is no longer a significant player - I expect us to reduce in power and influence from a minor world player to a significant regional player with limited global reach. We will remain of value to the US, but as our residual ties weaken with the ex colonies, and our global footprint which provides access of value to the US diminshes, the relationship will inevitably cease to be as significant as it once was.

Personally I believe that it will remain strong for another 20-30 years, but over time the relative decline of both nations (I also believe that the US is gradually weakning in influence) will mean it evolves to a naturally reduced level of importance. Personally, were I the UK GOvt, I'd be investing in soft power right now - seeking to maintain the long term access and influences across the globe that currently means that London gets a foot in the door at the serious Washington talks, and not investing in hard military power which is ever more difficult to fund and which comes at the price of reducing our wider global footprint (but that is definitely another thread!).
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#78
The funny thing is, if you or i did this, we would be branded at a traitor and hung for high treason !

But the yanks, can dare do as they wish as they have got us all under their thumbs.

If British governments think that by "pathetic begging for special relations" American administrations will bail us out of any national emergency that may arise in the future, boy are they in for a big surprise.
 
#79
Before we start on the DI of the Outrage Bus, take the time to read the comments below the article. It does the soul good to read that actually, Americans like and respect their "staunchest ally" and are frankly ashamed at the actions of their politicians.

God help us all frankly - we are led on both sides of the Atlantic by a toe-curling collection of vacuous, treacherous shitehawks.
Interestingly enough, the tea party/bible-thumping right is outraged at Obama's treatment of the UK:

Did Obama agree to expose British nuke secrets in START pact? Update: State Dept strongly disputes report; Update: UK backs State « Hot Air

Lucianne.com News Forum - Thread
 
#80
I have my D licence. I'm ready to drive.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top