There is no mention of our nuclear dependence on the United States. We currently have a massive expensive nuclear power program to continue the provision of nuclear material for weapons manufacture. Heavily disguised as a civil engineering energy response to a lower, but still with significant contributions, carbon alternative to fossil fuels in the UK's Climate Change strategy.
As the US holds the nuclear trigger for our nuclear weapons, not to mention the maintenance and construction of its delivery systems, the US effectively controls the UK's defence and international policy options. If the UK is seriously faced with a, not unwelcome, divorce from US foreign policy dictations, then it would provide a reasonable expectation that the UK could divest itself of nuclear weapons and use the 100s of billions that consumes for more advantageous domestic purposes and enable a major fill-up to our ability to meet Climate, Environmental, Health and Social policy objectives.
It is often asserted that the UK is dependent on the United States for its nuclear capabilities. This is inaccurate. The phrase is interdependence. The UK and the US cooperate closely in nuclear matters, and the UK maintains a sovereign nuclear deterrent, which is deployed 24/7. It is crewed by British personnel and is based entirely in the UK.
And on divestment of nuclear weapons, one can refer to the fate of Ukraine to answer, once and for all, what happens to a national community that carries out unilateral nuclear disarmament in the proximity of an aggressor like Russia.
What you say is correct, however the decision to use or not falls elsewhere than the UK. As a nuclear weapon advocate I can understand why myths of their supposed effectiveness are attractive. As to why Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons and the effect you may find the following article of interest.
There is no mention of our nuclear dependence on the United States. We currently have a massive expensive nuclear power program to continue the provision of nuclear material for weapons manufacture. Heavily disguised as a civil engineering energy response to a lower, but still with significant contributions, carbon alternative to fossil fuels in the UK's Climate Change strategy.
As the US holds the nuclear trigger for our nuclear weapons, not to mention the maintenance and construction of its delivery systems, the US effectively controls the UK's defence and international policy options. If the UK is seriously faced with a, not unwelcome, divorce from US foreign policy dictations, then it would provide a reasonable expectation that the UK could divest itself of nuclear weapons and use the 100s of billions that consumes for more advantageous domestic purposes and enable a major fill-up to our ability to meet Climate, Environmental, Health and Social policy objectives.
It is often asserted that the UK is dependent on the United States for its nuclear capabilities. This is inaccurate. The phrase is interdependence. The UK and the US cooperate closely in nuclear matters, and the UK maintains a sovereign nuclear deterrent, which is deployed 24/7. It is crewed by British personnel and is based entirely in the UK.
And on divestment of nuclear weapons, one can refer to the fate of Ukraine to answer, once and for all, what happens to a national community that carries out unilateral nuclear disarmament in the proximity of an aggressor like Russia.
What you say is correct, however the decision to use or not falls elsewhere than the UK. As a nuclear weapon advocate I can understand why myths of their supposed effectiveness are attractive. As to why Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons and the effect you may find the following article of interest.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion