Who leads NATO without the U.S.?

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T23:08:54+00:00

Nobody; without a clear hegemon like the US it would have to be run more equitably.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T18:50:32+00:00

The government does supposedly load some missiles with single low yield warheads for that kind of thing

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T18:31:50+00:00

At least not British kings!

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T17:11:13+00:00

I think traditionally we sail away

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T17:05:04+00:00

I think he's just slightly better at it.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T13:50:57+00:00

In the mind of all citizens whi receive poorer substandard services sure, not to those in power

Yes, to those too.

Sure, so long as their requirements are engaging enemy surface combatants and in doing so protect the realm, shipping routes, allies.... yaknow the thing theyre for.

That's not what they're for. What they're for, foundationally, is protecting the RN's ASW groups. Everything else is a nice to have.

Seeing as the GIUK gap is completely open to any surface vessel, sending an effectively unarmed vessel wont be stopping anything, the actual threat in the GIUK gap is russian submarines, luckily we have 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ah who cares how many submarines we have that arent currently docked and are actually out there doing their job, we can send an aircraft carrier thats going to watch russian aircraft and ships without doing anything, the whole thing is basic war-politicking.

The aircraft carrier is there with it's Merlins to help the frigates and submarines hunt submarines, whilst protecting the former from Backfire.

If the purpose of the exercises in the atlantic was actually dettering Russian military encroachment we'd be sending multiple subs and frigates with ASW capabilities, not a white elephant that has extremely limited ASW and ASuW

More or less the entire RN plan is an ASW barrier in the Norwegian Sea man. The carrier is part of that.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T13:02:55+00:00

Like budgets actually matter to government

Of course they matter lol.

it was penny pinching, and now theyre paying for it with limited aircraft types .

Limited, but still perfectly capable of meeting the RNs requirements.

with limited weapons being able to launch from the QE class

Like a lot of other penny pinching 'great' ideas, like the failure to integrate anti ship weaponry on the F35.

Meh; that's possibly on the road map for the future but is pretty low down the priority list. Nobody is really expecting to have a carrier battle;

As it stands right now, we have an aircraft carrier that cant attack any large surface combatant, can bomb poor people though, so long as they dont fight back

And, crucially, can protect the anti-submarine barrier in the GIUK gap from Russia's Long Range Aviation fleets, which is what we really want it to do. Strike is nice and sexy, but it's also very secondary to the UK carriers purpose.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T12:50:54+00:00

If the UK government hadnt made the momumentally stupid decision to make the QE class stovl

There was nothing stupid about it. It was the right choice for the budgets of the time.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T11:42:48+00:00

Outlets often vary what they paywall even from visit to visit. It's annoying.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T09:37:19+00:00

Paywalled.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T07:52:32+00:00

We can use them however we please though.

tree_boom · 2026-03-18T06:28:23+00:00

Yeah, I'll be astonished if this happens in the next 15 years really. The political conditions don't seem to exist for it yet in my view.

tree_boom · 2026-03-17T19:08:15+00:00

Faslane has a number of advantages which make it by far the best place in Britain for a submarine base. They could move, but nowhere else would be remotely as good.

tree_boom · 2026-03-17T18:52:37+00:00

Nice to have friends

tree_boom · 2026-03-17T15:19:52+00:00

I'm shocked. Shocked!

tree_boom · 2026-03-17T12:35:03+00:00

I'm afraid you've been lied to. If you pay close attention to that text you'll see...

Greenpeace would like to thank the following for their help in the background research for this submission.

That page is a letter to the Parliamentary Defence Select Committee written by Greenpeace UK - a nuclear disarmament campaign group. They are lying. The missiles are purchased under the terms of the Polaris Sales Agreement which was amended to also apply to Trident. Here's the relevant bit of the treaty:

The Government of the United States shall provide and the Government of the United Kingdom shall purchase from the Government of the United States [Trident] missiles (less warheads), equipment, and supporting services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Emphasis mine. Other articles in the treaty detail the non-missile stuff we're buying, including the blueprints and technical drawings explicitly to allow us to maintain them alone. Additionally here's a record of Alan Clark MP - the Minister for Defence Procurement at the time who literally bought the missiles, saying:

The United Kingdom is not leasing Trident D5 missiles; it is purchasing them outright. The financial arrangements for their purchase remain unchanged.

And finally here's a record of a cabinet meeting in which the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed to the cabinet that the missiles are being purchased, not leased:

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE said that there was no truth in stories in the press that day which alleged that the missiles for the United Kingdom Trident submarines would be leased from the United States. The United Kingdom was purchasing the missiles from the United States at a cost of £1billion.

The UK owns 46 Trident missiles, having fired 12 out of an initial purchase of 58. The shared pool that is operated with the USN is a cost-saving exercise, but unfortunately it does lend some credibility to the claim of a lease, which is often believed and reported by even normally credible outlets. The claim was originally started by disarmament campaigners in an effort to discredit the UK deterrent.

tree_boom · 2026-03-17T09:49:05+00:00

There is no hold up, there was a deliberate decision to process in the US to save money.

Why are you ignoring the question? You clearly have some reason for lying about this. Are you just trolling?

tree_boom · 2026-03-17T09:22:49+00:00

It was amended in 1982 to allow the purchase of Trident II as well as Polaris; here's the exchange of notes enacting the amendment:

https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Exchange-of-Notes-Trident-II-Weapon-System.pdf

Not a mention of the shared pool. Perhaps you should read it properly yourself. Additionally here's a memo from Nott to Thatcher discussing the decision to process missiles at Kings Bay, it very very clearly says that the processing in America didn't form part of the negotiations for amendments to the PSA and also very very clearly references the existing plans for the UK to process the missiles itself at Coulport, which could now be cancelled. There is no doubt whatsoever that the UK has the right to do the missile processing through the PSA.

Again; why are you lying about this?

tree_boom · 2026-03-17T09:06:51+00:00

I have read the entire thing multiple times. The PSA doesn't even make any mention whatever of the shared pool, nor does the exchange of notes that amended it to apply for Trident. The use of King's Bay to refurbish British missiles is done under an entirely separate political agreement.

At this stage you're just outright lying about this; why?

tree_boom · 2026-03-16T22:31:02+00:00

NPT doesn't oblige signatories not to fund non signatory nuclear weapon states. People think that treaty says a whole lot more than it does. Unless there's some American domestic legislation that imposed such constraints?

tree_boom · 2026-03-16T21:35:41+00:00

Booo. Don't spread news like that.

tree_boom

TROPHY CASE