America sells Britsh nuclear secrets to Russia.

[Jawawithagun]

"Special relationship" is just another word for buttmonkey. And somewhere along the line someone convinced the British that this is something positive.

[Lonestar]

Yeah, he's definitely making major geopolitical decisions based on the events in his father's onetime homeland, all of which occurred before he was born.

Don't be an imbecile.

The Father that he didn't get along with and met a grand total of once in person.

[Shroom Man 777]

That one time was in a secret madrassa in Kenya, the same one where the Muslims faked the Moon landing on Mars. Once is more than enough!

Considering that even before Obama, during the Bush years, the Brits were already fantasizing about their PM telling off the POTUS, from PM Hugh Grant telling POTUS Billy Bob Thornton off in Love Actually, to PMaster vaporizing the POTUS in season 3 of Doctor Who, yeah. The tendency's already been there.

Like I said, Obama's just continuing the policies of the Bush junta. We've seen it with his policies on the WOT, on torture, on the other illegal acts the Bush Administration did and Obama continues to perpetuate. I guess fucking over the Brits is just another part of that.

[Lonestar]

From Ink Spots:

The Telegraph has caused quite a stir by reporting that the New START Treaty negotiations require the United States to provide information on Trident II Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) that the U.S. sells to the United Kingdom. Some folks have been up in arms about this, believing it to be a slight to our partners in the Special Relationship. While it seems like a pretty dickish move by the U.S., I don't see it that way.

Firstly, the language of the agreement in the document linked to by the Telegraph only requires the U.S. to report to Russia on Trident II missiles while they are in U.S. hands. Essentially, the treaty requires the U.S. to report and allow inspection of all offensive arms produced and maintained by both parties, including SLBMs. We have to report on each Trident II we make - why on earth would the missiles we make for the UK be exempt from that? I'm sure the Russians would just accept an "Oh those? Those are for the UK. Don't worry about them and please don't look at or count them." I know this is surprising, given U.S.-Russian relations over the decades, but something tells me that the treaty would be completely useless unless we gave them the details on our export missiles. Same, same for when the UK returns them to us for destruction at the end of their life cycle. We can't have the treaty at all (the overall effect of which is still up for debate) without this clause. Which was, apparently, in the 1991 START Treaty. There is no change in policy on this.

Our UK readers are probably thinking, "That's all fine and good for you, but what about us?? This screws us!!" Not exactly. Your new government has changed its policy on keeping its stockpile a secret and is moving towards increasing transparency on its nuclear weapons and policies. Since the UK uses SLBMs exclusively and you have a known number of submarines, the whole world knows you can only keep 160 missiles in operation at any given time. You also make your own warheads, so each missile's yield is still your state secret and not something we can know or share with the Russians. This clause doesn't change what the world knows about your arsenal, where it is, or how it may ever be used.

Bottom line is everyone needs to calm down. This hasn't changed anything that has already been ongoing for 20 years and no one's security is degraded by it. It sounds like the U.S. is screwing the UK, but a few minutes of reading reveals that we're not. The Special Relationship may not be as special as it used to be, but we're not stabbing you in the back. Well, in the New START Treaty at least. The other takeaway? Never take anything the Telegraph reports at face value. Ever.

[erik_t]

Man, I hate when a rash of common sense breaks out.

[bobalot]

You are making it sound like America treating its allies like dog shit is something new. Have you been hiding under a rock for the last 10 years?

This is the current US president taking a shit on a what should be our closest ally (they are not is his book apparently) for no good reason.

My working theory is that President Obama himself is naive, has a dislike for the UK (as his father's homeland was a British colony for quite some time), and he doesn't have a good enough staff to tell him "No, Mr. President, that is a bad idea."

It's hard to imagine how much more of a dipshit you could be in a single sentence.

You claim Obama dislikes the UK because his fathers homeland was a British colony.

This assumes:
1) Obama is close to his father and influenced heavily by him.
2) His father had a huge dislike of the UK which in turn was passed onto Obama.
3) Obama is unprofessional enough to let this cloud his judgement about something like nuclear weapons treaties.

In addition, you imply:
4) Obama is surrounded by yes men.

All of which you have not provided any evidence for.

The original premise of what Obama is doing is wrong has been shown to be false (see posts above), which makes your post doubly retarded.

[ray245]

I did remember reading somewhere in his memorial or in an interview that Obama dislike the British treatment towards his grandfather. Whether he allows that to affect his political views towards modern day UK is another issue altogether.

[Simon_Jester]

From Ink Spots:

The Telegraph has caused quite a stir by reporting that the New START Treaty negotiations require the United States to provide information on Trident II Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) that the U.S. sells to the United Kingdom. Some folks have been up in arms about this, believing it to be a slight to our partners in the Special Relationship. While it seems like a pretty dickish move by the U.S., I don't see it that way...

Our UK readers are probably thinking, "That's all fine and good for you, but what about us?? This screws us!!" Not exactly. Your new government has changed its policy on keeping its stockpile a secret and is moving towards increasing transparency on its nuclear weapons and policies. Since the UK uses SLBMs exclusively and you have a known number of submarines, the whole world knows you can only keep 160 missiles in operation at any given time. You also make your own warheads, so each missile's yield is still your state secret and not something we can know or share with the Russians. This clause doesn't change what the world knows about your arsenal, where it is, or how it may ever be used.

Bottom line is everyone needs to calm down. This hasn't changed anything that has already been ongoing for 20 years and no one's security is degraded by it. It sounds like the U.S. is screwing the UK, but a few minutes of reading reveals that we're not. The Special Relationship may not be as special as it used to be, but we're not stabbing you in the back. Well, in the New START Treaty at least. The other takeaway? Never take anything the Telegraph reports at face value. Ever.

I think this misses the essential point that the US is, by all appearances, making a unilateral decision about what secrets Britain is allowed to keep from potential enemies. This is understandably apt to create a certain amount of suspicion and resentment- heaven knows it should; we would be extremely suspicious and resentful of an ally who did the same to us.

Our motive boils down to "it wouldn't be practical to sign yet another arms reduction treaty without telling the Russians the exact size of your nuclear arsenal, sorry." To which the British can reasonably reply: "It wasn't our idea to write up another arms reduction treaty in the first place. We were quite happy with the status quo, but you didn't give us the option of keeping our part of it, nor did you consult with us ahead of time about your decision to change it."

Even if, in theory, the British don't strictly need to keep the number of missiles they maintain at sea a secret, they still have a right to expect that our knowledge of their missile deterrent will be kept in confidence. The entire British decision to rely on American-supplied SLBMs for their nuclear deterrent hinges largely on their assumption that they can trust us with their nuclear deterrent. We just proved that we are willing to compromise that trust, without warning them, over a relatively minor arms reduction agreement, during a time when tension between the nuclear superpowers is low. They don't have any overriding interest in keeping the secret, perhaps... but we don't have any overriding interest to justify spilling it, either; it's not like anyone held a gun to our heads to get us to tell the Russians this.

So I think it's totally reasonable for the Telegraph to be outraged about this. Sure, someone could make a reasonably good guess as to the size of the British SLBM force even without us giving them an exact count. Sure, it's not as if telling someone how many missiles Britain has means those missiles no longer exist or are no longer a threat to an enemy.

But it shouldn't be our decision whether or not they get to keep secrets: this is an excellent example of information shared "in confidence," and of that confidence being betrayed.

[Shroom Man 777]

I did remember reading somewhere in his memorial or in an interview that Obama dislike the British treatment towards his grandfather. Whether he allows that to affect his political views towards modern day UK is another issue altogether.

It's ironic that the Americans blow this out of proportion. I guess unlike that Queen-hating PM-pooing Obama, real Americans just loved the British treatment towards their forefathers.

[Cecelia5578]

I think this misses the essential point that the US is, by all appearances, making a unilateral decision about what secrets Britain is allowed to keep from potential enemies. This is understandably apt to create a certain amount of suspicion and resentment- heaven knows it should; we would be extremely suspicious and resentful of an ally who did the same to us.

Our motive boils down to "it wouldn't be practical to sign yet another arms reduction treaty without telling the Russians the exact size of your nuclear arsenal, sorry." To which the British can reasonably reply: "It wasn't our idea to write up another arms reduction treaty in the first place. We were quite happy with the status quo, but you didn't give us the option of keeping our part of it, nor did you consult with us ahead of time about your decision to change it."

Even if, in theory, the British don't strictly need to keep the number of missiles they maintain at sea a secret, they still have a right to expect that our knowledge of their missile deterrent will be kept in confidence. The entire British decision to rely on American-supplied SLBMs for their nuclear deterrent hinges largely on their assumption that they can trust us with their nuclear deterrent. We just proved that we are willing to compromise that trust, without warning them, over a relatively minor arms reduction agreement, during a time when tension between the nuclear superpowers is low. They don't have any overriding interest in keeping the secret, perhaps... but we don't have any overriding interest to justify spilling it, either; it's not like anyone held a gun to our heads to get us to tell the Russians this.

So I think it's totally reasonable for the Telegraph to be outraged about this. Sure, someone could make a reasonably good guess as to the size of the British SLBM force even without us giving them an exact count. Sure, it's not as if telling someone how many missiles Britain has means those missiles no longer exist or are no longer a threat to an enemy.

But it shouldn't be our decision whether or not they get to keep secrets: this is an excellent example of information shared "in confidence," and of that confidence being betrayed.

There is a part of me that thinks that since the British are (to use Wikipedia's term on the UK Trdent programme page) leasing the missiles from the Americans, then it really isn't wholly their own program now, is it? Maybe if they want their own totally independent nuclear deterrant with no backstabbing by Uncle Sam, they can either wholly buy their own, or maybe scrap their Trident program alltogether? I tend to take a dim view of military dick wanking on most occasions, and I'm not entirely convinced the UK needs a Trident program( but I'm sure many UK posters, even left wing ones, would disagree with that).

[Simon_Jester]

There is a part of me that thinks that since the British are (to use Wikipedia's term on the UK Trdent programme page) leasing the missiles from the Americans, then it really isn't wholly their own program now, is it? Maybe if they want their own totally independent nuclear deterrant with no backstabbing by Uncle Sam, they can either wholly buy their own, or maybe scrap their Trident program alltogether? I tend to take a dim view of military dick wanking on most occasions, and I'm not entirely convinced the UK needs a Trident program( but I'm sure many UK posters, even left wing ones, would disagree with that).

What I feel this misses is that, once again, the British accepted this cooperative program in confidence. They trusted us with something that, one way or the other, is a big deal: even if the UK shouldn't have the missiles, so long as the missiles exist, they are a big deal, a huge part of the UK's defenses. They trusted us, and we said we'd keep that trust, and now in a significant way we've broken the trust.

It's not so much a question of whether the UK needs the missiles. It's a question of whether the UK can trust us not to unilaterally decide to reveal their secrets for petty gains on our end. That level of backstabbery isn't consistent with any kind of close alliance, in my opinion. Except perhaps for a humiliating and subservient one, in which Britain acts more like an American vassal than an independent country.

And that's what I'm getting at: there's a trust issue here.

[Lonestar]

]I think this misses the essential point that the US is, by all appearances, making a unilateral decision about what secrets Britain is allowed to keep from potential enemies. This is understandably apt to create a certain amount of suspicion and resentment- heaven knows it should; we would be extremely suspicious and resentful of an ally who did the same to us..

Oh, horseshit.

If we sign a arms reduction treaty and part of that treaty means a headcount of delivery systems that are produced at American factories, then, as the blog entry says, are we suppose to just say to the Russians "Oh those Trident missiles? Don't worry about those." Even if we don't explicitly tell them they are going to the UK, wehave given them a pretty good indicator that they are going to the UK.

Or that we are hoarding missiles in violation of treaty.

[Cecelia5578]

There is a part of me that thinks that since the British are (to use Wikipedia's term on the UK Trdent programme page) leasing the missiles from the Americans, then it really isn't wholly their own program now, is it? Maybe if they want their own totally independent nuclear deterrant with no backstabbing by Uncle Sam, they can either wholly buy their own, or maybe scrap their Trident program alltogether? I tend to take a dim view of military dick wanking on most occasions, and I'm not entirely convinced the UK needs a Trident program( but I'm sure many UK posters, even left wing ones, would disagree with that).

What I feel this misses is that, once again, the British accepted this cooperative program in confidence. They trusted us with something that, one way or the other, is a big deal: even if the UK shouldn't have the missiles, so long as the missiles exist, they are a big deal, a huge part of the UK's defenses. They trusted us, and we said we'd keep that trust, and now in a significant way we've broken the trust.

It's not so much a question of whether the UK needs the missiles. It's a question of whether the UK can trust us not to unilaterally decide to reveal their secrets for petty gains on our end. That level of backstabbery isn't consistent with any kind of close alliance, in my opinion. Except perhaps for a humiliating and subservient one, in which Britain acts more like an American vassal than an independent country.

And that's what I'm getting at: there's a trust issue here.

Its not as if the Pentagon hacked into a MOD computer and revealed British secrets to the Russians. The UK Trident program is a *joint* program, and the British are going to have to learn that if they want a truly independent nuclear deterrant, they're gonna have to buy their own, or more likely, acknowledge that they cannot. Its like...renting a car, only to be pissed off and surprised that the rental car agency attaches conditions to your terms of rental.

[Rabid]

I have a suggestion to make to our British friends and Allies :

Buy European. [1] [2]

If this incident can convince the Britons that it is in their own interest to have closer ties with their European partners at the detriment of their so-called "special relationship"... Well, I think that would be a good thing for them : I'm sick of seeing them being humiliated again and again by their Big Buddy.


[tangent]
Seriously, guys ?! What the hell with all this "special relationship" bullshit and all that ? I mean, yeah, at the end of WWII it made some sense, sure. But now ? Can't you see it goes against your own interest to continue hanging with the Big Boy ? Man, you have a serious issue to solve right there !
[/tangent]

[Lonestar]

I wonder(doubt) whether or not France would issue their own restrictions. I seem to recall that the reason why Tridents are loaded at US naval bases is to get around some proliferation treaties.

[Rabid]

I don't know. From what I gather from this wikipedia article on the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty), it seems that it only forbid to sell/transfer/facilitate the acquisition of "Nuclear Explosives". So, by this definition, we could sell them our SLBMs without going against the spirit of the law (as long as we sell them ONLY the rockets, and not the bombs that goes with them).

Otherwise, France and Britain are already cooperating on a number of defense projects (I think our new respective aircraft carrier are part of one of these deals, I'm not sure). It would be only logical for us to cooperate more on a common nuclear deterrent. I think it's where they are (slowly) going : link.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wonder(doubt) whether or not France would issue their own restrictions. I seem to recall that the reason why Tridents are loaded at US naval bases is to get around some proliferation treaties.

It’s simply because it would not be cost effective for the RN to maintain its own maintenance facility. So the RN subs load the Tridents in Georgia, then steam back to the UK where warheads are loaded. IIRC they can make two patrols before unloading warheads and returning the missiles to the US for inspection. Its been said before that while Tridents were produced for RN use, in actual service the submarines are loaded from a joint pool of whatever missiles are ready at that time; which may or may not be true, but if it was it would highlight the reason why Russia wants to know how many.

[Lonestar]

I don't know. From what I gather from this wikipedia article on the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty), it seems that it only forbid to sell/transfer/facilitate the acquisition of "Nuclear Explosives". So, by this definition, we could sell them our SLBMs without going against the spirit of the law (as long as we sell them ONLY the rockets, and not the bombs that goes with them).

I actually seem to recall it being some kind of congressional limitation on missile exports, because when Italy wanted to buy some Predator drones from us there was some kind of rule the US government had that limited the export of missiles that had a range further than x and at the time the legalistic interpretation was that "predator drones are unmanned, therefore they are missiles that are prohibited from sale." It certainly wasn't because of the NPT.

Otherwise, France and Britain are already cooperating on a number of defense projects (I think our new respective aircraft carrier are part of one of these deals, I'm not sure). It would be only logical for us to cooperate more on a common nuclear deterrent. I think it's where they are (slowly) going : link.

Maybe, maybe not. I suspect the second French carrier is going to end up being a replacement for the CdG rather than a supplement.

Of course the UK decision to go all CTOL with their carriers mean FN aircraft will be able to operate off their decks, and vice versa, so that's good.

[Vympel]

Keeping the number of missiles in secret along with technical parameters has been a long-standing method of strategic deception. It is a significant fact.

START benefits nobody, actually, except the nuclear arms reductionists. More nuclear weapons and less conventional weapons mean a safer world.

Bilateral agreements reducing the number of nuclear weapons on both sides reduces the financial burden for both parties whilst maintaining the strategic status quo. In those circumstances, reducing nuclear arms has tangible benefits for all concerned.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, horseshit.

If we sign a arms reduction treaty and part of that treaty means a headcount of delivery systems that are produced at American factories, then, as the blog entry says, are we suppose to just say to the Russians "Oh those Trident missiles? Don't worry about those." Even if we don't explicitly tell them they are going to the UK, wehave given them a pretty good indicator that they are going to the UK. Or that we are hoarding missiles in violation of treaty.

I accept that if we want the arms reduction treaty to work, we wind up telling the Russians something the British don't want Russia to know about the Royal Navy.

That doesn't have anything to do with my point: that the US did this without consulting the British. As long as we talk only about our own nuclear deterrent in an arms reduction treaty, that is our lookout. When we start giving the Russians information on another country's deterrent, without that country's consent, that other country has cause to be pissed.

It wasn't Britain's idea to draft this arms reduction treaty. "We had to tell the Russians this to make the treaty work" is a bullshit excuse as far as they're concerned, because it's not their treaty and they're not a signatory. So when you say "Britain shouldn't be pissed, because we needed to tell the Russians this to make our treaty work," you're saying that Britain's interests are irrelevant: they don't get to decide whether the number of missiles on their submarines is a secret, and we do.

Which is itself something they have cause to be upset, since they've spent the last fifty years working with us and relying on our discretion. For us to turn around and piss on that because of a treaty that there was no obvious need for us to sign for the sake of our own security... not good from Britain's point of view.

Its not as if the Pentagon hacked into a MOD computer and revealed British secrets to the Russians. The UK Trident program is a *joint* program, and the British are going to have to learn that if they want a truly independent nuclear deterrant, they're gonna have to buy their own, or more likely, acknowledge that they cannot. Its like...renting a car, only to be pissed off and surprised that the rental car agency attaches conditions to your terms of rental.

In this case, it's more like renting a car only to learn that the rental agency changed the conditions of your agreement after you'd signed it, so that they could cut a profitable deal with a third party.

It's not just that we're attaching conditions. It's that we're attaching new conditions to a longstanding agreement, purely for our own convenience, and without consulting them ahead of time. The British have every reason not to be willing to put up with that sort of thing. If the moment it stops being convenient for us to honor our word to them, they can no longer trust us to do so, then they'd be well advised to walk out on us.

Which is why this strikes me as an utterly boneheaded move on the State Department's part.

I have a suggestion to make to our British friends and Allies :
Buy European. [1] [2]

If this incident can convince the Britons that it is in their own interest to have closer ties with their European partners at the detriment of their so-called "special relationship"... Well, I think that would be a good thing for them : I'm sick of seeing them being humiliated again and again by their Big Buddy.

Can't blame you, Rabid.

[K. A. Pital]

Bilateral agreements reducing the number of nuclear weapons on both sides reduces the financial burden for both parties whilst maintaining the strategic status quo. In those circumstances, reducing nuclear arms has tangible benefits for all concerned.

Not if said burden is transformed into an expansion of the conventional military complex, which is a far more dangerous instrument of imperialism than nuclear weapons. You can't use nuclear weapons to crush small nations or start wars in the Middle East. You can do so with conventional weapons. In fact, without a financial drain which supports nuclear deterrent the military might be even more bold about ordering more conventional weapons.

What I love about the current crisis is that it gutted so many conventional weapon programs. I hope it stays that way.

[Vympel]

Not if said burden is transformed into an expansion of the conventional military complex, which is a far more dangerous instrument of imperialism than nuclear weapons. You can't use nuclear weapons to crush small nations or start wars in the Middle East. You can do so with conventional weapons. In fact, without a financial drain which supports nuclear deterrent the military might be even more bold about ordering more conventional weapons.

What I love about the current crisis is that it gutted so many conventional weapon programs. I hope it stays that way.

Well unfortunately the United States already has enough conventional military capability to indulge in imperialist pretensions crisis or no crisis, so New START changes little in that regard. As for Russia, they've exhibited no tendencies or aspirations in that regard, but they certainly don't have that sort of conventional capability either now or for the foreseeable future. The only small nation they crushed (and in a quite restrained manner, all things considered) had it coming.

[Todeswind]

Are you referring to Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Lord Woodlouse]

Are you referring to Iraq or Afghanistan?

*blink* I'm thinking Georgia.