In a moment of growing threat, especially originating in Russiathe West reviews what it has to face the new and unstable times. , is the fine-tuning of what is in the reserva. There are those who are experiencing disappointment, because their arsenal does not live up to expectations.
This is what is happening to the United Kingdom, which, according to experts, has problems with its submarines prepared with Triden nuclear systemst, which remain a key defense weapon but are hugely dependent on the United Stateswhich limits its operability.
This is what activists Lynn Jamieson and Samuel Rafanell-Williams say in an analysis published in the Scottish newspaper .
We have to go back to July 2015. The PAIC, specialists remember, forced Iran to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium and imposed restrictions on its nuclear facilities. In exchange, the US and the European Union agreed let the sanctions expirewhich would allow Iran to recover billions of dollars in frozen assets.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed in early 2018 that Iran was fulfilling its commitments to the nuclear deal. However, “just a few weeks later,” ignoring the world.
U.S. sanctions on Iran were resumed later that year, and shortly thereafter, Iran announced that it would no longer comply with the restrictions imposed on its nuclear development. “Trump’s sabotage of one of the most effective efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation in the 21st century is only an example of his volatile foreign policyalthough the Democratic administration since 2020 has not proven to be more successful on this frontas demonstrated by Joe Biden’s support for genocide Israeli and regional incursions,” indicates the forum.
“Both the UK’s complicity in the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza and Trump’s imminent inauguration for a second term as president They should make us examine the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the United Kingdom and the United States“, state the president of the CND, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the head of communications from the same organization.
“Mythologically, it is considered to be the legacy of the collaboration of our two nations to defeat fascism during the Second World War,” they insist. In this century, the special relationship “has meant that UK leaders often agree on tuning with American superpower logic, most catastrophically in Iraq, no matter how devastating be the consequences.” Tony Blair and the photo of the Azores is in everyone’s memory.
“An important and easily overlooked reason why Westminster is so willing to do what Washington tells it to do is the dependence on our nuclear weapons capability supposedly independent of US military infrastructure and technology“, they indicate.
And here come the nuclear weapons based on the west coast of Scotland that are, “without a doubt”, “more of an American technology than a British one”. The submarines, although built in Barrow-in-Furness (England), “are assembled according to American plans and with American components. The Trident missiles fired by the submarines are built, supplied and maintained in the United States“.
“These missiles, eight per submarine, each carry around five independent warheads, each of them ten times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomba payload that could destroy habitable life in the northern hemisphere and put enough soot in the atmosphere to trigger a nuclear winter,” they contextualize. Thus, “the mere threat of using these weapons as part of a strategy of deterrence is a moral travesty in itself,” to your understanding.
“It is significant that the Trident targeting system rely heavily on software and satellites operated by US personnel“, they delve. The detailed and extensive research of specialist John Ainslie showed, they say, “that the Trident could not be considered operationally independentsince the US military would have every ability to prevent the autonomous use of this capability.”
“You could argue that the kind of political adversity that could lead the United States to intervene in the United Kingdom using its nuclear capabilities is so unlikely as to be irrelevant“But there is another way of looking at “the special relationship”: perhaps London’s security strategy, “founded on the threat of the apocalypse, It depends so much on the consent of the United States that our leaders consider any diplomatic adversity with Washington a threat to our security.“.
From this perspective, Britain’s nuclear weapons “would be a key reason why the country has so often acted as the lapdog for US geopolitical interests as part of the so-called special relationship.” Despite proclamations that he intends to, “his record shows that he is not an advocate of peace, especially in West Asia.” “In addition to withdrawing from the Iran Deal, In 2020, Trump authorized the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, which dramatically increased tensions with Iran,” they recall.
More: billionaire Miriam Adelson donated 100 million dollars to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and there are reports suggesting that his condition for the major donation was that an elected Trump would allow the annexation of by Israeldenouncing.
What does a second Trump term mean for the UK’s own security and its actions abroad? “If we want to defend a truly independent and humane foreign policy, The first step is to recognize that nuclear weapons, interpreted as the very basis of our national security apparatus, are a false promise of security. that links the United Kingdom to the United States,” they point out emphatically.
“An agreement of this type makes it increasingly UK more likely to follow US in any military misadventures an erratic Trump administration may undertakeeven if British politicians publicly express skepticism about the incoming president,” they conclude.
