 
|
Dunrobin
|
This is from the BBC News site.
The government says that firing Trident does not require permission of any other country and that therefore it is independent. However critics say that Britain is technically so dependent on the United States that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are serviced at a US port in Georgia. The critics also argue that the British warhead design is based on an American one and that warhead components are also from the United States. Depending on the arrangements, the same kind of arguments would probably go on about a replacement system |
|
Mark
 |
Nope...but they might piss off the United Nations Security Council.
Personally...the Brits rock and its awesome working with you guys. |
|
Si R
 |
No. Don't be silly. Did we need the USA's permission to reclaim the Falklands? No.
The US is our closest ally. Friends tell friends what each other is doing, however much that may at times seem to be a one-way street. As Sir Humphrey rightly pointed out the only reason we have a nuclear deterrent is the French. |
|
Shofix
|
It's anti-UK propaganda. You can do what you want, it's just that UK and US interests are so closely aligned that there is probably no reason that the UK wouldn't inform the US, or have joint-planning in place.
The only other reason you'd want ot get "permission" would be so that the US didn't fire at the UK in response...you'd probably need Russia to sign off too. |
|
Hibee
|
No....but we might have difficulty in replacing them. |
|
notoldcrow
|
No, but I imagine that the UK would seek advice before doing so. I think they'd have to have a VERY compelling reason to employ nuclear weapons. |
|
old know all
|
The agreement under which we've bought Trident has all sorts of conditions. These could be interpreted as saying we can only fire the missiles at targets approved by the US. If we ever got to the stage of wanting to use the things, we'd probably shoot first and tell the Yanks afterwards.
We can do what we like with the bombs we send by plane or land based missiles. |
|
taketwo
|
it will be against them, so I don't think so. |
|
mohamed.kapci
 |
If UK decided to destroy a Muslim country with nukes( Iraq or
Iran) America will welcome the Idea so,It doesn't make any difference! |
|
pat.rob00 Chef U.K.
|
yes cause tony blair a*se licks the bush |
|
bugaboo
|
I don't think we're going to call first if we had to actually fire a nuclear missile first.
It'd spoil the surprise.
Lord forbid mind, that any country should ever feel the need to.
Its like when you see drunks get into a fist fight. It starts as just a scuffle, but then one of them has to go too far, and hit the other with a surface to air warhead.
The first world war started over a double assisination. Millions of lives sacrificed for just two. |
|
paul m
|
Not really, however it may be good manners to tell your main ally that you are going to incinerate another country. |
|
Smitty Werben Jegar Man Jensen
|
Would'nt the U.N. have some sort of say in that? |
|
drvshaftdrew
|
dont think so |
|
Xenu.net
|
It's a null point, it's not like we are going to use them...
I would guess the US would fire nukes well before the UK would, and therefore again is a null point.
I don't think the UK needs any for this reason, and we should ditch the cost of maintaining them. The US can keep spending its money instead. |
|
Snowy
|
Its just clap trap propaganda.
Britain has an INDEPENDANT nuclear deterrent and it it at the sole discretion of the British government whether or not to use it.
These days it is confined to submarine based Trident missiles all of which are on British Submarines and any tasking and targeting is defined at Northwood.
Clearly in the modern world Britian would probably consult with a number of other countries and organisations including the EU, NATO, and the USA before obliterating another country but the decision is all ours. |
|
Foo
|
Of course not, were a sovereign power (and were before the US)
Should we ever be at war with the USA, we will be unlikely to call and ask if we can fire first.
Britain doesn't need the US's permission to do anything. |
|
Bob
|
I don't think that there is a written rule on this. But being that the UK belongs to NATO, as well as the US belonging to NATO, I believe that both countries would contact each other prior to launching such a strike. unless of course either country was attacked first with nuclear weapons, then all bets are off. |
|
bob
 |
Noone can fire Nukes. Not even tactical, the whole world would kick off.
The UKs Nuclear defense is pretty poor anyway. Most countries have very few left anyway |
|
GOLDILOCKS
|
No , we don't !
But it wouldn't surprise me if the " brown nosed poodle " would !
As he is used to walking to heel of " Buck fush " ! |
|
HHH
|
No although the Brits did buy their nukes off of the US |
|
PAUL W
|
no if we want to fire them we will. we are not 5 and need some ones permission |
|
♥Robin♥ (Scot,UK)
|
Good question, but I don't know for a fact.
Try asking your local MP in writing, and research your Q using http://www.cnduk.org/ the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - perhaps asking someone there too.
I'll be back to see what Answers u pick up. Nice one:) |
|
Cascade Ranger
|
I don't think so. The U.K. is a sovereign nation. Why would it have to ask for permission in using its nuclear armament? |
|
KU
|
no, it would never happen anyway for 3 reasons.
1./ no nation on the planet dare start a nuclear war due to the inevitable total extinction of every living being on the planet either from the detonation and thermal shock wave of such devices or from the resulting nuclear winter.
2./ the only purpose a nuclear weapon serves is a deterrent to nuclear war thus making them totally obsolete in any war, battle or skirmish.
3./ brain dead squaddies are much cheaper to produce and far easier to program as they are not trained to think only obey and know nothing of how the country they serve is run. |
|
joseph m
|
no Believe it or not if there was a two minute warning even blair does not have the power. |
|
Borealis83
|
Not sure, but I do know that if you buy weapons or aircrafts from the US, they will not allow the buyers to attack certain countries. They some how over ride the system, at least that's what i have heard |
|
Aliyu Y
 |
They don't only need a permission they need to lobby,Blair has to spent time in camp Davids with bush persuading him..great puppet needs to ask there masters.Is not great Britain anymore is Great puppet.Beside the bot tons to fire the Nuke is in Washington dc. |
|
Topshopcitybeachbabe
|
they do and they need xconsent form the un the united nations |
|
amir786
 |
The way things are going at the moment where Mr Blair is incharge we need permission in everything from the U.S in who to arrest? who to name a terrorist? when to lie for them? to let their planes pass through our territory to bomb others in other countries. U.K has become a poodle to the U.S.A foreign policy thanks to Mr. Blair and its supporters. |
|
Rudebox77
|
I wouldn't know. Nor do I care. |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
