7

Somebody told me that the UK cannot fire its nuclear weapons without the agreement and support from US. Is this true?

This claim is made in the following locations:

David Morrison - Britain’s “dependent” nuclear deterrent

There is some doubt about the degree of “operational” independence that Britain enjoys in respect of its nuclear weapons system. But there is no doubt that Britain is dependent on the US for the manufacture and maintenance of a key element of the system. So, to call it an “independent” nuclear deterrent, as the Government does all the time, is fraudulent.

The Guardian - Time to debate the alternatives to replacing Trident

The financial albatross called Trident is neither independent nor credible. Control was handed to Washington when the decision was made to use a missile delivery system designed, manufactured and overhauled in the US. Even submarine-launched test firings are conducted in US waters near Cape Canaveral under, needless to say, US Navy supervision. It is inconceivable that No 10 would fire Trident in anger without prior approval from the White House.

House of Commons Report on The independence of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent

the UK would, in practice, not be able to use its nuclear deterrent in circumstances in which the US was either neutral or actively opposed to UK policy, or where the US was an adversary.

Enno Shioji
  • 273
  • 2
  • 6
  • 2
    The British nuclear arsenal consists of British warheads, over which the US have no control. Part of the launch vehicles are US built Trident missiles, but again the US has no control over them apart from being possibly able to stop supplying spare parts, but when they're launched you no longer need those anyway. – jwenting Aug 21 '13 at 19:46
  • @Sancho like what? And that'd then only prevent them firing their Tridents, not their tactical nukes or the (now retired) land based MRBMs which were fully home built. And of course those Tridents are maintained exclusively by British troops, who'd find and disable those "secret" things quickly. In all, a typical conspiracy theory. – jwenting Aug 22 '13 at 04:51
  • @jwenting Like what ever Keith Thompson was suggesting in [this comment](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17427/can-the-uk-not-fire-its-nukes-without-us-agreement?noredirect=1#comment66158_17428) –  Aug 22 '13 at 05:06
  • 1
    @Sancho which says nothing whatsoever. So some supersecret thingy of unspecified nature that's impossible to remove and that nobody knows about who's involved with the missiles in any capacity. Conspiracy theory fodder. – jwenting Aug 22 '13 at 08:25
  • Maybe OP heared something in the lines of [Mutual assured destruction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) – Lyrion Aug 22 '13 at 08:35
  • 1
    Letters page of The Guardian "The financial albatross called Trident is neither independent nor credible." - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/16/debate-alternatives-replacing-trident – Tom77 Aug 22 '13 at 09:25
  • 1
    @Tom77: Thanks for the link, I edited the question together with a few more. – Enno Shioji Aug 22 '13 at 15:08
  • @jwenting Then, how did it get three upvotes. Also, it doesn't say "supersecret" or "unspecified nature" or "impossible to remove" or "that nobody knows about who's involved with the missles in any capacity". –  Aug 22 '13 at 15:28
  • @rob The 2nd two claims say "not be able to use", "Control was handed to Washington". I think those are the ones relevant to the title question. –  Aug 22 '13 at 15:48
  • @rob The main question is whether or not the UK can "fire its nukes". It's not asing about what repercussions there would be. Even if the UK has to "go to the dealership for repairs" that is irrelevant to the question. –  Aug 22 '13 at 15:55
  • @rob Or, the question is due to the asker wanting to know if the UK can fire their weapons without US agreement. –  Aug 22 '13 at 16:01
  • @rob It's heard in the third quote. I read its context, and its context has nothing to do with maintenance, and all to do with actual "use of the nuclear deterrent". –  Aug 22 '13 at 16:06
  • 2
    I think the question should be revised to make crystal clear (and provide sources) whether the claim is (A) that there is a treaty or other formal bilateral US-UK agreement that constrains UK use of Trident. or (B) That current and future UK governments would always voluntarily choose not to launch without prior US approval because of concern that the US might discontinue support for maintenance. (C) something else. – RedGrittyBrick Aug 22 '13 at 16:12
  • @RedGrittyBrick The `(C) something else` includes that the US can prevent a launch, e.g. by denying UK access to GPS signals. There are now three different claims being quoted in the question: it would be better if, simply, there were only one claim, and the other two quotes were removed. – ChrisW Aug 22 '13 at 23:17

1 Answers1

13

Wikipedia talks at length about the UK's "independent" nuclear deterrent.

This paper from 2006 ends with,

The plans set out in this White Paper will enable the UK to maintain an effective and operationally independent nuclear deterrent until the early 2040s, when the Trident D5 missile is due to be withdrawn from service.

This paper from 2012 is titled "Maintaining an effective, independent nuclear deterrent", and this page of it says,

the UK deterrent is operationally independent, and the UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent - UK nuclear weapons remain under political control at all times; only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of UK nuclear weapons

ChrisW
  • 26,552
  • 5
  • 108
  • 141
  • Not according to that paper. – Publius Aug 21 '13 at 20:32
  • 1
    @Sancho Without any quote or reference in the OP, it's impossible to know the motive or details of the "claim". Perhaps, it is some kind of unfalsifiable conspiracy-theory claim? But I had to assume it was simply asking a mundane question which can be answered using publicly-available references. – ChrisW Aug 21 '13 at 20:34
  • What I mean is that the truth of that paper specifically precludes the notion that there are such technological measures. If you're doubting the veracity of the paper, why? – Publius Aug 21 '13 at 20:36
  • 1
    Well, perhaps theoretically there could be: for example with the consent of the UK, perhaps as part of some NATO treaty. But to contradict that, the UK government says specifically that there isn't any such dependence. Wikipedia says that "independence" has been continuous government policy since WWII. So what more is there to say? The evidence before me says, it's independent. – ChrisW Aug 21 '13 at 20:40
  • 1
    Hopefully people would [remember to try diplomacy](http://www.bartleby.com/73/1914.html) before the situation ever reached that stage: perhaps the UK *wouldn't* do it without consulting the US, but they are warning potential enemies that they *could*. – ChrisW Aug 21 '13 at 20:45
  • Sancho, if you believe in the paper, then that would mean _you think_ it's correct. If you're going to state that it might not be while you think it is to try and criticize the answer, that's dishonest. – Publius Aug 21 '13 at 22:34
  • That something may hypothetically be incorrect is not sufficient reason for doubt. There is never going to be any answer on here that cannot possibly be incorrect, by the nature of inductive logic, so I'm not sure why you are pointing this out. – Publius Aug 21 '13 at 23:20
  • He wasn't stating that the evidence you shared might hypothetically be incorrect, he was pointing out that you hadn't shared any relevant evidence. – Publius Aug 22 '13 at 00:12
  • The PM not the Royal Head of State? – Chad Aug 22 '13 at 05:09
  • @Chad the Crown is mostly symbolic in the UK, executive power rests with parliament and ultimately with the PM. – jwenting Aug 22 '13 at 08:28
  • @jwenting - [This question](http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/1237/what-governmental-power-does-the-monarch-hold-in-great-britain) on politics SE has an answer that says otherwise. If you can show otherwise I would urge you to answer there. – Chad Aug 22 '13 at 12:54
  • Since HM and the PM are both British, which of them may authorize firing seems irrelevant to this Q. – RedGrittyBrick Aug 22 '13 at 15:35
  • @RedGrittyBrick - but if the answer says it is the PM that has the say but the PM does not have the say then the answer is wrong. If it is wrong but it is the HM its a pretty easy fix. – Chad Aug 29 '13 at 17:17
  • @ChrisW: What you have to remember is the UK nuclear deterrence was designed to be used in case of ICBMs already launched from the USSR. It's too late for diplomacy at that point. – Joshua Jun 25 '21 at 01:54