The presence of nuclear weapons in an allied country, such as the United Kingdom, can be a complex and multi-faceted geopolitical issue with diverse perspectives. Some potential arguments in favor of this arrangement include the following:
1. Deterrence: Supporters of this arrangement may argue that the presence of U. S. nuclear weapons in the UK serves as a deterrent to potential adversaries, providing security and stability not only to the UK but also to the broader NATO alliance.
2. Shared defense: It can be argued that the cooperation in nuclear defense symbolizes a deep level of trust and commitment to collective security among allied nations.
Conversely, there are critics who have various concerns, including the possible negative implications relating to nuclear proliferation, global stability, and issues related to ethical and moral implications of possessing and deploying such powerful weapons.
Ultimately, decisions about nuclear deterrence, weapons deployments, and defense policies generally involve complex geopolitical considerations and often require a sophisticated understanding of global security dynamics. These decisions are typically made through diplomatic and security discussions involving a wide range of experts and policymakers.
Personally speaking I do not believe that any government should have nuclear missiles. But the call for the banning of nuclear weapons is driven by a combination of humanitarian, ethical, and strategic considerations. Some of the reasons to ban nuclear weapons include:
1. Humanitarian concerns: The humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons is enormous, as their use would result in catastrophic death, widespread destruction, and long-term environmental consequences, likely to affect generations to come. Considering the potentially devastating impact on civilian populations, many advocate for an end to these weapons based on moral and ethical grounds.
2. Moral principles: Proponents argue that the very existence of nuclear weapons encourages a potential for apocalyptic destruction, which conflicts with fundamental moral and ethical principles surrounding the value of human life and the stewardship of the planet.
3. Strategic risk reduction: Regardless of the qualifications and oversight, the existence of nuclear weapons carriers an intrinsic threat of accidental or unauthorized use, escalating into a global calamity. The risk of nuclear conflict has serious international security implications and potential implications that far outweigh any perceived security benefit.
4. Peacebuilding and international security: Advocates for the disarmament argue that eliminating nuclear weapons could help foster greater trust in international relations, reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation, and promote alternative security arrangements focused on diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution.
It is important to note that attitudes towards nuclear disarmament are diverse and complex and encapsulate numerous political, security, and moral considerations. Critics often point out concerns about national security implications and the long-term stability of global power dynamics, reinforcing the numerous complexities inherent in the nuclear weapons
No as land based weapons are simply a target with a very large X on it. For ALMs Forward bases are also known targets, by the time a bomber takes off in the US, it’s UK forward operating base with be a glowing hole in the ground. Suffolk and Gloucestershire will be proud owners of a large increase in radiation. The UK moved from air delivered nukes due to the problems of having a very fixed low time limit airbase. A sort of a side issue to all this is that the UK needs a good missile shield. Unless we have Type 45s with ABM systems then everywhere is a simple target.
It does make the UK a bigger target if they do. They would be the first to be taken out as they were closer. I figure the US has enough nuclear submarines and bombers to do the job without endangering our allies.
Like it and accept it or not, your government is the one actually asking for 'em.
However, that's not gonna come out in your local news.
Your local news will make it appear that it's the Pentagon's idea.
Opinion
21Opinion
I think the weapons need to be moved around and spread out to make it difficult for our enemies to take all our nuclear capabilities out. The US would go to war to protect the UK… again. This will help protect against Russia and China, to Russia with a faster strike time and China with a longer flight time for their rockets to destroy the nukes placed there.
If Europe wants a nuclear umbrella, this part of what needs to be done. Many in the US are tired of defending Europe with our money and people. The Germans in particular are taking advantage of us and that will eventually lead to Trump or someone else pulling out pf Nato. Contrary to what many Europeans think, we don’t need them to stay safe or prosperous, we can make peace and trade deals with whomever wins. If the US pulls out, in the end Europe would spend the money are re-arm which will actually make them a better Allie once that is done.
I think a lot of people have forgotten that the presence of US nukes in Europe is what kept the Warsaw Pact from invading Western Europe during the Cold War.
The UK has a nuclear arsenal of its own, but it's not large enough by itself to deter Putin. Unless the European countries want to have a European-only defense alliance, they are going to need to have some US nukes on several countries' territory to have a credible deterrent.
If for the defence of the USA and not the UK. Then I'd vote against it if I was a British citizen. Would be a dumb move. If it was for the defence of the UK and the USA (as with the nuclear weapons sharing within NATO), I'd vote in favour.
Is it provoking Putin? I don't think so. He put nukes in Belarus last year. Is it a deterrent? Only if the USA doesn't elect Trump this year. Nuclear deterrence only works when you think the guy behind the buttons might push it. Trump has showed over and over that he will not. He even told the world he would not honour article 5 of the NATO charter.
u How is that a good idea? What if you become angry with America and turn it on us and steal it? You may not have the code but what if you can break into it and make your own code on the nuclear missile? What if you still like us but still want to borrow a couple of them to turn it on somebody else but what if you don’t like certain animals and nook them so you launch it at the animals that you don’t like?
I seem to recall UK went through this 50 or 60 years ago, if my history is correct. I think it is ok. It will make little difference where they are fired from if we have to use them. Just makes us an even bigger target.
u defending the UK is defending USA...
defending USA is defending the UK...
this is mostly what nuclear deterrence is about... the more there is to lose by more involved, the less likely for anyone to start some shit
Of course not. The USA is the only country in the world that has proven they cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and the world should demand that they get rid of them or be annihilated.
We have a tactical advantage being strong allies with the UK. We should take advantage of it.
@purplepoppy very bad idea.
This American plan is not for nato safety but also to put grip on nato countries
Oh god, this shit again?
Dear Joe, despite your bum-chum Rishi's mewling quim, Britain is not your 51st State. Put them in Germany. See how well that goes down 🤦
It doesn't really have to; the UK has its own nuclear weapons. That said, the US and UK are very strong allies and this goes back over 100 years.
They are in other places as well and lets leave the military strategies too the military and not try second guessing them.
Barring some insane realignments in geopolitics, the nuclear arsenal is for the defense of the UK as well.
Really up to the UK but the UK lacks ground based ICBMs instead relying on 4 nuclear submarines.
I can see both sides of the argument. I guess it will be up to the voters in the UK to decide!
I don't know that seems over my head. Do they want them their? Are they causing problems? Usually we keep our missiles on subs or planes don’t we?
Only if we get to force them to eat Marmite,,,
So the UK doesn't have any submarines with nuclear missiles?
Absoloute NOT. It just makes you a certain target.
No need, they can park a sub just off the shore of wherever they want
