Many wild statements have been made regarding Trident replacement and the nuclear relationship between the US and the UK. Some genuine history might be a good idea.
Following the end of the Second World War, the US congress passed a law prohibiting the sharing of nuclear technology with anyone. This cut the connection with the UK. The UK contribution to the Manhattan project was a mostly a number of scientists - most of the personnel and money was American. The most significant non-US contribution came from émigré scientists who chose to go to the US from Nazi occupied Europe.
In fact the McMahon Act was based on a misunderstanding - the Manhattan project had been held so secretly that Vice President Truman hadn't been told, let alone Congress. When Roosevelt died, there was a degree of confusion. This was not helped by the security paranoia of Leslie Groves, the man in charge of the project. Mind you, his paranoia was justified - thanks to the stupidity of British civil servants Klaus Fuchs had been given clearance to work on the project.
In the immediate aftermath of the act, it was realized a mistake had been made. In fact cooperation restarted almost immediately. British observers at the subsequent US tests were allowed to install their own measuring equipment, for instance.
The French withdrawal from NATO was partly caused by this culture of secrecy. It was also in part due to French anger at what they regarded as the unfair attributed towards the UK - contrary to popular belief, the UK built its first atomic weapons using design information from the Manhattan project.
After the breach with the French, the US revised its policy and essentially re-wrote it with a special exemption for the UK. From then on, UK scientists worked in the US. They were not sharing data, but doing joint design. You could say the current US arsenal is 90% US designed and 10% UK. The UK builds its own weapons at Aldermaston to these same designs. This infuriated the French even more - since they were now specifically excluded. There are no “black” nuclear programs in the US, incidentally. After 1947 Congress took firm control of development and deployment of nukes and has not relinquished it – breaking it would be a very good way to end up in jail.
Much has been written on the Skybolt cancellation - the simple truth is that the US cancelled an expensive, obsolete, fragile system and offered the UK (a minor partner in the project) the Polaris system instead. This was the equivalent so telling someone you don’t want to sell them
an MG Roadster, but offering them a Ferrari instead. Polaris was the crown jewel of the American arsenal, decades ahead of everything else. The French were, again, very upset. Incidentally, British nuclear subs got their start when the Americans pretty much gave us their reactor design. The first UK sub, HMS Dreadnought was half US made.
When the decision replace Polaris was made, variousoptions were considered. The French were, in fact, contacted. The problem was that their system was obsolete as well, and required an expensive replacement. The French wanted to keep all the actual work in France, but get Britain to fund half the project. They also wanted all the warhead design information that the Americans had shared with the UK. Not surprisingly the talks foundered very rapidly – they were asking us to pay more for a system that was less capable, and give them information that we had promised not to pass on to third parties.
A great deal of what has been written about UK Trident is based around argument from personal incredulity. Many people simply can’t accept that there is no US control over the missiles and their targeting. The simple fact is that one of these boats can go to sea for 6 months – in that time there is no need for external contact. The only way that the US could influence their usage would be to withdraw the maintenance cycle for the missiles. Assuming that nothing was done, this would mean that Trident would be out of service about 18 months to 2 years after this happened – the missiles are “canned”, sealed in their tubes with no need for maintenance. They would be operational until their service life expired and they required overhaul. And, of course they could refuse to give us reloads, if we start a nuclear war they
objected to.
It is worth noting that during the early sixties, US nuclear weapons were being carried on German (among others) aircraft. Fighter-bombers would sit on German airbases with German crews, with the bombs attached. A couple of US guards preserved the 2 man rule. There are a number of stories regarding the fact that a couple of the German pilots had tin ties….. The truth is that in the area of nuclear policy, the US has pursued a remarkably un-paranoid policy with regard to its allies since the late 50s. Quite simply they had no objection to NATO members having weapons, or a considerable level of access to US ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment