#juan said:
Blackleaf
France built her own nuclear weapons and has more than twice as many as Britain, who use American built nukes. France probably have a larger military than Britain as well.
So? Russia has more nukes than the United States. Means nothing.
France's cash-strapped economy means that it cannot keep its nuclear deterrent for much longer (unless it does what it normally does - gets Britain and Germany to payfor it).
Britain CAN afford its nuclear deterrent and, not only that, the British Government is gonna upgrade Britain's nuclear weapons, making them more advanced and building new, world-class submarines (probably the best in the world) to house them in. Soon, Britain will be the only nuclear power in Western Europe.
Aldermaston, Britain's nuclear-bomb making facility, has seen an increase in arrivals of physicists and mathematicians recently, so something big is happening there. Also, the world's most powerful laser is being built at Aldermaston, which mimics nuclear explosion, which means that Britain has an advantage over most other nuclear powers in that we can test our nuclear bombs (by using lasers to mimic them) even though the live testing of nukes is now illegal.
PM secretly signs up to new deterrent as UN tries to cut global threat
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor, 02 May 2005
Tony Blair has secretly decided that
Britain will build a new generation of nuclear deterrent to replace the ageing Trident submarine fleet at a cost of more than £10bn - a move certain to dismay thousands of Labour Party loyalists in the approach to polling day.
The disclosure that the decision has already been taken will expose Mr Blair - who has struggled throughout the election campaign to fend off accusations that he lied over the Iraq war - to fresh allegations of deception. He said last week that the decision would be taken after 5 May.
But The Independent has learnt that he has already decided to give the go ahead for a replacement for Trident to stop Britain surrendering its status as a nuclear power when the Trident fleet is decommissioned. The choice over the type of nuclear missile system that Britain will deploy is yet to be made. One Labour candidate described the new deterrent as "Blair's weapons of mass destruction".
The revelation comes as the United Nations hosts a five-yearly review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Britain is a signatory. The five nuclear powers in the treaty promise to work towards global nuclear disarmament. Mr Blair will therefore face accusations of hypocrisy, for pressing other states, such as Iran and North Korea, to renounce their suspect nuclear weapons programmes while planning a new British deterrent.
The Independent can also reveal that Britain is involved in a plan to build a uranium enrichment facility in the New Mexico desert, with British Nuclear Fuels involved in a consortium to develop a $1.2bn (?630m) plant. The UN's nuclear watchdog wants a five-year moratorium on such facilities.
Critics argue that the twin developments make it more difficult for Britain to take a principled stance against states accused of building nuclear weapons in breach of the treaty. Fuelling those concerns, the White House said yesterday that it believed North Korea had test-fired a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan.
A senior defence source said: "The decision [to replace Trident] has been taken in principle very recently. US law does not allow the US to build bombs for us. We have to build our own."
Although Trident is not due to be decommissioned until 2024, "there is a very long lead time," the source said. "That is why the decision in principle had to be taken now."
Aldermaston, Britain's nuclear bomb-making facility, has been hiring physicists and mathematicians for the past year to retain the capability to build a new nuclear weapon when a new system is agreed. The source explained: "If you looked at the scientific press over the past year you would have seen an increase in advertisements for everything. It's mostly physicists and mathematicians, but it's a sign we are gearing up."
A small group of ministers including Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is understood to be involved. Mr Hoon recently began studying papers on the options for a replacement.
Defence experts said the replacement for Trident would still be based on submarines, which are less vulnerable to counter measures.
New submarines could be built in British yards, saving thousands of jobs. Britain could buy the missiles "off the shelf" from the US. The front-runner is a new generation of cruise missiles, based on the RAF's air-launched weapon, Storm Shadow, with its range increased.
But nuclear non-proliferation agreements forbid Britain from exchanging nuclear technology with the US, and so they would have to be equipped with British-made nuclear warheads. Britain supplies its own weapons-grade plutonium from the nuclear power plant at Sellafield.
Mr Blair hinted at the decision when he said on BBC Newsnight last week: "We have got to retain our nuclear deterrent. That decision is for another time. But I believe that is the right thing."
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Tories support the retention of a nuclear deterrent, but Mr Blair will face a battle with his own party. Rows over the British nuclear deterrent split the Labour Party in the 1980s and made it unelectable, until Mr Blair took over as leader and finally ditched any lingering support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
But since the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, the nature of the threat has dramatically changed. Many Labour members believe Britain faces a greater threat from terrorists with a "dirty" nuclear bomb than a rogue state firing sophisticated nuclear weapons.
Trident is virtually useless against such a terrorist threat, because the enemy does not present a target. The US is converting some of its Trident missile submarines to fire conventional cruise missiles, armed with tactical warheads, instead of the unwieldy ballistic nuclear missiles.
The US is also developing a new range of nuclear bombs, including smaller devices that could be used on the battlefield. This is controversial because it could lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons.
Clare Short, the former cabinet minister, said before the general election campaign began that she was "astonished" by the "quietness" of the party on the issue. "This will wake up the party," she said.
"It's just a symbol saying that Britain is in the big league, but if you need nuclear weapons to be in the big league, it's no wonder India and others want them."
Replacing Trident is one of several issues the Government has been keen to keep out of the political spotlight during the election campaign. Others are pensions, council tax and nuclear power, all of which have been kicked into the political long grass after reviews were ordered.
