Overall, public sentiment is predominantly negative regarding the US's deployment of nuclear weapons in the UK. Concerns include the potential for escalating tensions, lack of public consultation, and mistrust towards US intentions. While some commenters express a belief in the necessity of these measures for security, the majority view this deployment as provocative and risky, calling for the UK to assert its sovereignty and prioritize peace over military posturing.

US Government

UK Government

NATO

Russia

The article picture is just like "Oops! Dropped one."

ToffeeAppleCider

Note that despite the recent news announcing F-35A for the RAF we have not yet ordered those aircraft, let alone received them. If the US has sent weapons then this can only be for deployment in their own fighters for now. Preparations for the move have been afoot for a while; the weapons vaults at RAF Lakenheath were refurbished to hold the weapons.

tree_boom

What I wonder is, what depths of depravity will Trump and his ghouls have to reach until our government have no choice but to cut ties, if that's even possible.

A few months ago discussion seemed to mostly be about quietly moving away from them, forming closer economic and military ties with European nations, commonwealth nations. Y'know, places with leaderships more on our wavelength with similar moral and political values.

Feels to me like that's all been abandoned and now we're handcuffed to the worst incarnation of the USA in history, come what may.

catman_dave

[deleted]

If the Americans want their nuclear weapons in the UK. Then we want a better trade  deal. One that gives more access to American markets.

Unusual-Art2288

I think that's a good thing? I don't like the US, but keeping their assets here means they're more likely to go to war to protect us, I assume

RemarkableFormal4635

There should be a Tariff on the storing of nuclear weapons from America!!!

Roscop19288

wait, who actually has access to the trigger of these nukes? the UK or the USA?

ga1actic_muffin

Once again the U.K. goes out of its way to be under the boot of the U.S.

Who-Goes-When

Well that's an attention grabbing start to a headline.

h00dman

If the Cold War playbook is back, someone forgot to update it for the 21st century. Strategic deterrence or geopolitical signaling? Either way, it's a major shift in NATO posture.

actually-shawn

Why are we still collaborating with a fascist regime?

Livelih00d

I was kind of hoping I wouldn't be at risk of dying in a nuclear Holocaust after 1991. Apparently I was wrong, and death by nuclear weapons is back on the table in 2025. Fuck this world, fuck the US for demanding this, and fuck this country and government for saying "Yes", bending over and grabbing their ankles. This is not making us safer, it's pushing the Doomsday Clock nearer to midnight, and no-one should be happy about that, especially anyone alive during any part of the Cold War.

Balseraph666

There should be no US weapons, bases or troops in our country. Those bases need to be shut down.

lebennaia


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be polite and civil, curious not judgmental
    * Link to the article or source you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what your opinion is vs. what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters nor make it personal,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment. Those belong in the MegaThread

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

1) Yes and No:

“Independent” is not an accurate enough term to apply or not apply. The Trident missiles are operationally dependent- that is, once they are in UK hands, they are owned by and the responsibility of the UK, without any restrictions as part of the deal. The area they lack independence is structural. They use a US design, US parts, even US maintenance, which brings us to 

2) A truly independent nuclear programme is not only possible but almost certainly planned for. Reliance on the US should not be mistaken for weakness, but is instead both a mutually useful political tool and a cost saving measure. The UK maintains both technological and manufacturing expertise sufficient to maintain the currently possessed stocks of Trident for about a decade, enough time to develop a replacement. Obviously the limitation here is the money needed to fund that, but that’s a limitation craftily neutralized by the nature of the deal. The US is not going to cancel the Trident deal without also withdrawing from NATO, as that makes no sense, and such an event would cause the remaining members, UK included, to increase defense spending massively, enough to fund such a programme and then some. 

3) Depends what you mean by “benefit”. The UK could benefit by cutting its military entirely and being like Iceland, to the tune of tens of billions… assuming war doesn’t come. Equally, cutting Trident is a benefit only if the US does not withdraw from NATO, which recent days has proven is not so far fetched (while France remains, there’s no reason they wouldn’t leave too some time in the future, or use its unique status as leverage). So any benefits cutting Trident are purely speculative, it’s just that the best case for cutting it just saves a couple billion and the worst case is… pretty bad.

WTGIsaac

(Also UK) From general knowledge and from books such as "The Silent Deep" I believe that the current UK capability is that we could successfully destroy hardened command bunkers in Moscow. This second strike capability is thought to make a first strike on the UK by Russia a poor bargain in their eyes, assuming that all they gain by striking or threatening a strike is to decapitate or overawe the UK. The nuclear bomb itself is entirely UK designed, built, etc., but getting it to its target in a second strike requires a great deal more than that, such as the missile, and we currently get access to that via the USA. The UK has an independent capability, in the sense that somewhere under the sea at this moment there is a UK submarine captain who could nuke Moscow tonight, if he wanted to and if he had the co-operation of his crew, but if the USA withdrew support, we would pretty quickly find that we could not get the spare parts and technical assistance needed to maintain the boats and missiles.

As long as the US comes through with the spare parts, the ability to launch under UK control gives the UK a more credible detererent than if we were relying on the US to respond with nuclear weapons to a Russian attack limited to the UK, or the the UK and part or all of Western Europe. To that extent we have an independent nuclear deterrent.

Part of the discussion described in "The Silent Deep" is the idea that the UK could use e.g. a cruise missile instead of Trident. The existence of e.g. Storm Shadow suggests that the UK might be able to source more of the technology in this way (But note that Storm Shadow is Anglo-French). Even at the time of that discussion, it was noted that such a capability would not guarantee the destruction of hardened bunkers. Those backing this alternative suggested that the destruction of perhaps 30 cities not protected by anti-ballistic missile defences would be a good enough alternative. Given modern drone vs drone defences and the success of the US anti-drone and anti-missile systems in the Red Sea, such a system seems even less credible today.

The extent to which both Biden and Trump have been deterred from supplying more support to Ukraine, both talking about the danger of starting WWIII, suggests to me that the ability to launch what sounds to me like a decapitating second strike on our enemies is a much more effective deterrent than anything we are likely to afford with conventional weapons. The conflict in Ukraine shows that a very bloody conventional war is not a deterrent.

Dominic Cummings claims that he studied the UK special forces and nuclear deterrent during his time in government; he is complimentary about the first and not about the second. This suggests to me that a more thoroughly UK deterrent would be less technically credible, even if it was more politically credible.

mcdowellag

&gt;If so, is it at all feasible for the UK to decouple from the Americans and create a truly independent nuclear weapons programme?

  
Yes... and no.  I mean it's not impossible for the UK to develop all the needed expertise\* and a new industry or two from scratch\*\*...  But it's going to be a very expensive proposition and will take a number of years.

\* People talk about the missiles, but in reality it's practically the entire strategic weapons systems outside of the physics package and (likely) the re-entry body.  The launcher system, the fire control system, and the navigation system are all of US design.  Even the parts "built" in the UK are built to US designs and US specifications.  That will all have to be replaced with domestically designed and built systems.

\*\* For example, the UK has approximately zero experience building big solids.

DerekL1963

Yes it is accurate, the USA owns and maintains the UK's Trident D-5's, the UK pays a leasing for them to be held inside the UK's submarines.  
Yes, the USA would possess the capability to disable the UK's Trident D-5's in some area, making them inoperable, whether that be the guidance system or some other component, that it being disabled or cut off would render the entire weapon inoperable.

The reality is that the UK has been a deteriorating power ever since the end of WW2, and the USA effectively has a lot of control over the UK today.

The only "allies" of the USA that aren't under any form of US control, are basically France and India.  
It isn't in the US's interest if its allies have nukes, it just deteriorates the USA's own power and reduces the need for these countries to desperately have a security alliance with the USA, when Taiwan had a secret program developing a nuke in the 70's, the USA panicked and rushed there and forced them to close that program down. The USA doesn't want these countries to have their own independent defense, the USA needs to be the "required ally and security partner" in order to maintain its position in the world.

The majority of the public in South Korea actually support South Korea having its own nuclear arsenal, huge state wide polls confirmed this, but you will never see the US media pass this information on to the US public as that is something the USA is terrified of, and the USA actively oppose South Korea having its own nuclear arsenal. For example president Yoon actually stated he wants South Korea to have its own nuclear arsenal, and following that statement is when the USA turned against him and all US media started a huge smear campaign against him, and then it isn't a shocker that following this he was impeached and imprisoned and removed from power (claimed to be as a result of other things, they can't admit it was because he wanted SK to have nukes, they can't say the quiet part out loud).

Germany a few months ago, were vaguely talking as if Germany should be independent, and have its own nuclear deterrence, again the public there even support this, which is why the public didn't go against the German leader. However many in the US media and US people like John Bolton told Germany to be careful with what they are saying, a thinly veiled threat. Make no mistake, if the German leader enacted a new policy for Germany to develop its own nuclear weapons, you would instantly see a huge smear campaign against the German leader by the US media and US government, and US influence within German politics to get rid of him.

If any country like Japan, SK, Taiwan etc managed to change policy quickly to building a nuke, and the USA failed to get rid of their leader, and they managed to quickly build a working nuke, these countries would instantly join the rank of North Korea, meaning the USA would put pressure on all other US allies to treat this nation as a pariah state, other US allies wouldn't have a choice but to go along with what is demanded.

Longjumping_Ebb_3635

&gt;The [deterent costs 6%](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8166/CBP-8166.pdf) of the defence budget, is there a better way to have an independant capability other than a single sub hiding in the ocean ?

  
Absolutely not.

The UK has four Vanguard SSBNs which have done multiple patrols recently that are 5 months long, and one that was six. Although I know about the "one boat continually at sea" statement I wonder if that really means "at least one boat continually on patrol", which if not literally true could mean that it would not be the case that three boats are continually in port. With five month patrols it would really surprise me that boats are spending 15 months in port between 5 month patrols.

As I understand U.S. procedure in addition to subs actually on patrol, there are often boats returning from patrol or leaving for patrol, or are at sea for reasons other than being on patrol. Perhaps much of the time there are really only two boats in port with one always on patrol, and another going out to patrol, returning from patrol, or at sea for other reasons.

If "only one boat at sea" is literally true then it is at a time of course when there are no elevated tensions, and an attack to take out the British deterrent would be out of (deep) blue (sea) and which would likely result in the immediate launch of all sea capable Vanguards, and making ones that are not sea capable ready to fire at port.

A bit like retiring SAC's Chrome Dome (but at sea) in peacetime and without a Cold War it may not make sense to operate the strategic force to keep lots of weapons in a doctrinal deployed-to-fire state, when that could be changed on short notice.

Regarding the missile and warhead loading two factors to consider:
1) The size of the Trident II was a decision made by the U.S., not the UK, and it was made 50 years ago, and the results of that decision will remain in effect until at least the end of the future Dreadnought class service life which will likely round that out to a full century. Britain has to work with missiles of this size since it does not want to develop and maintain its own missile class. So the very large size is forced upon them and there is no logical reason to load them to the max simply because the U.S. designed them that way. 
2) As already mentioned, the extremely long time lines of modern strategic programs mean that the deployed capacity cannot be closely tailored to the planned warhead inventory which changes on a much shorter time scale. The future Dreadnoughts will have fewer tubes than the Vanguard, but still more than they are expected to carry right now. But the fleet decisions being made right now will control the tubes that are deployable 50 years from now.

A benefit of carrying many fewer warheads than the missile can accommodate translates into much greater range - which at full loadout is already at ICBM range. Given that the UK is already closer to the likely target areas than the US it has a ridiculously large excess missile range that it can utilize in various ways.

careysub

One sub carries more destructive power than has ever been inflicted on a nation. You would assume that in a pure deterrence role, those warheads are meant for counter-value (cities and industry) rather than counter-force (military and strategic). So even with 12 missiles and 3-4 warheads each, you’re talking about destroying dozens of cities along with all of the nearby infrastructure, industrial/logistical capacity, hospitals, etc. Even with civil defense measures, the target is set back for generations, if not completely ceasing to function as an organized nation.

Also, the UK is part of NATO. The use of force, let alone nuclear weapons, would trigger a response from the US and all allied nations. Those subs would be 1 small fraction of the combined force. This also speaks to your point about their vulnerability. Even if somebody finds the UK sub, the US has more subs plus the other 2 legs of the triad. A true incapacitating first strike is extremely unlikely. The major powers have spent 75 years and untold resources ensuring MAD.

I guess there is risk that relations and treaties fade over time (as our previous president likes to threaten), which would leave the UK alone in a conflict. But I don’t think there are the will or resources for the UK to develop their own triad (or even diad).

frigginjensen

&gt;I found this document publsihed by the University of Bradford, it states that UK govenment policy is for UK SSBNs to carry 12 D5's while on patrol. If this doc is correct the Vanguard class can carry upto 16 D5's, Why not go out fully loaded ?

That’s out of date (it’s from 2008). The missile cap was actually lowered to 8, but then [eliminated in 2021](https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/m6ie4y/global_britain_in_a_competitive_age_the/) as the UK no longer reports the number of deployed missiles or warheads.

Regarding less than full loads, in addition to the range issue, it isn’t really possible to load them fully: the UK only has up to 260 warheads and the *Vanguard*-class submarines can hold 192 each (16 missiles, 12 MIRVs each). My wild guess is that the plan couldn’t be to have more than a third of that aboard any one sub. The replacement *Dreadnaught*-class submarines will only have 12 tubes.

As to why there aren’t more: Cost, and appeasing the arms control crowd.

Of note, France also has four ballistic missile submarines, but has a policy of keeping at least *two* at sea. I would assume that by “at sea” the UK really means on station, and doesn’t count boats in transit to/from the patrol area.

WulfTheSaxon

Regarding your 3rd point, there is a payload:range trade-off where adding more warheads decreases the maximum range of the missile due to added weight.  The US normally only carries 4-5 warheads per missile, partly because of arms control limitations but also because of weight reduction/range increase.  In the case of the W88 warhead for example, going from 8 to 4 warheads would be a roughly 50% increase in range; see page 43 here 
https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/1994/08/nuclear_weapons_safety_the_cas.html

NuclearHeterodoxy

When the trident program was started, it was projected that the chance a single ssbn on patrol could be taken out in the 1990s was low but not negligible. Cost concerns for the trident program foreclosed any possibility that a fifth submarine would be added that could ensure two submarines were always on patrol. 

The UK government doesn't fully load its missiles and submarines for the same reason it canceled the fifth boat: cost. The trident D5 missile is simply way too large for UK requirements. The Ohio class and trident D5 were designed to make each deployed SLBM warhead as capable as possible to comply with arms limitation treaties that limited deployed missiles.  The massive range of the D5 was also designed to allow strikes from the pacific ocean that would bypass the Russian early warning radars aimed at missiles traveling over the north pole; the UK obviously has no use for this capability.  The submarine missile compartment is also too large for uk requirements.  Only 12 missile tubes would have been ideal but political concerns about operating a force that had only half the missile tubes of the Ohio-class made this option a non-starter.

The 6% cost completely excludes the capital costs of building the submarines in the first place; the vanguard class cost 16-18% of the entire national defense budget when under construction and that was with the boats being designed to minimize construction costs and negotiations that led to the uk getting a discount on joining the trident d5 program.

There probably isn't a viable alternative if the UK wants to maintain a credible deterrent, however. Realistically, the possibility of cancelling any follow on program to polaris was understood to mean the end of a nuclear deterrent. The only alternative would be nuclear capable cruise missiles deployed by existing nuclear submarines but this would also be expensive and doesn't come close to matching a dedicated slbm force.

Kaidera233

The UK deterrent is solely based on Trident. Therefore it must do the strategic and sub-strategic role. 

In short,  one might not want a full load of MIRVs to retaliate for a single use of a nuclear, biological,  or chemical weapon. 

All based around cost, effectively.

Careless_Cucumber_30

Regarding question 3.

It's not been discussed much here, but it's highly likely that at least one of the missiles is only equipped with one warhead. For purposes such as destroying a single location that doesn't require throwing more than one MIRV.

ManInTheDarkSuit

1) Countries with a large population who don't strongly want nuclear weapons tend to either not develop them (most of the world), maintain a turnkey option (Japan, South Korea, etc) that allows them to sprint to nuclear weapons without the domestic and international backlash of having them, have nuclear sharing where they can domestically pretend the nuclear weapons are a foreign powers (Germany, Belgium, etc.), or flat out get rid of their nuclear weapons due to domestic or international backlash (South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.)

2. The UK establishment and right-wing wants nuclear weapons and so developed them. The left-wing section of the Labour party hasn't won an election in decades, and this contains most of the anti-nuclear types. They aren't particularly popular but they are loud. Next are the Scottish nationalists, who are a majority in Scotland but a minority in the UK. It comes to only [23%](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/trackers/what-should-happen-to-trident-at-the-end-of-its-useful-life) of Britons wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons...[while 25% either don't know or think the UK doesn't have any nuclear weapons.](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/06/18/a9715/3) Basically it isn't that controversial domestically in the UK.

3. China and North Korea do not brook internal dissent, nor does Russia.  India, Pakistan, Israel, and the US are quite nationalistic and also have clear use cases for why they'd want nukes. France has a long history of nuclear power and views them as a key to being strategically independent "from the Anglos", a concept popular amongst the French electorate. The UK is not very nationalistic nor is there a clear use case where it would need nuclear weapons not covered by NATO/US nuclear umbrella. Being strategically independent from the US has been much less of a driving imperative for the UK, arguably for cultural and historical reasons.

Maitai_Haier

Because Delusional Anti-Nuclear protestors seem to think get of nuclear weapons equal happiness except it doesn't work that way 

The SSBN Submarine act as a deterrent to Britian's enemies

A444SQ

It often comes down to three arguments, especially on social media. Firstly, cost. Our CASD fleet is incredibly expensive and soaks up a lot of money, which annoys those individuals who think that because we've never used our nukes, that money has been wasted.

Secondly, the location. A small but vocal opposition to our nukes complain that they're located in Scotland because Westminster doesn't care if Russia nukes Scotland in the event of WW3. They'd rather the subs be based in England. 

Third, there are those who equate us having Trident with the UK being some sort of vassal state of the US.

Obviously in all of this, there is more nuance, but it's late and this is just a quick summary of some of the key points that come up.

(Edit: formatting)

The UK left was founded on pacifist Christian traditions of the non conformist protestant churches. The old joke was Labour owed more to Methodism than Marx. Its a lost world to todays party and people but pre WWI they were still having overs from the Puritan era and deeply religious. 

Labour only ditched pacifism officially in 1935 when Attlee and co kicked out George Landsbury and joined Churchill as vocal re-armers. 

Post WW2 the Christianity of the party evaporated but large parts of the left remained deeply pacifist in outlook, while the Marxist left always opposed anything that would harm the USSRs interests. 

After decades of pounding the anti nuclear stance it has been ingrained as one of ideology rather than for any practical reason though being anti nuclear is hardly the dumbest position in the world. 

In theory nuclear states are legally obligated to be seeking a nuclear free world.

You got any sources to say Pakistan Israel North Korea and India posses nucleur arms? Because I highly doubt said source.

Odd-Horse9393

Are they going to thank us for allowing them to do so?

Making ourselves even more dependent in the US is such a bad move considering we have seen that they are not going to be a reliable ally.

Brilliant idea. Tell the US we'll look after all their Nukes and then tell them to fuck off and play in Russia because they can't be trusted to have them anymore 👍

How about "fuck off"?

They haven't thanked us for our help in Iraq yet.

Baslifico

Right, now tell them to fuck off and take their toys with them, as well as all their people. Might make the fucking roads a bit safer into the bargain

Crittsy

Unhappy about this. The US is a global extortion racket with a fascist toddler in charge, how can we put US nukes this close to our European alllies when that imbecile has such a problem with the EU.

cksully

Erm, if the US housed nuclear weapons here, could they be used as a threat against us if relations keep going south? Just a thought.

badger_7_4

The people who deliver them better be wearing suits

lukehebb

Given that the US is rapidly aligning itself with Russia, this seems unwise. We might as well let Russia allow themselves to home their nuclear weapons here. Which I am sure they would love to do.

Tell America to fuck off and come back when they have a decent president we can't and shouldn't work with that orange tart.

added_value_nachos

Refuse until they get back on board with Ukraine.

About time to start saying no to America.

Alacrityneeded

This seeems like a stupid idea given the fact that they are aligning them selves with Russian interests.

MrPloppyHead

House nukes that intentionally don't work or are unsafe no thanks. We have no way to know if these can be tampered with or not launch therefore no MAD.

Scousehauler

We need to tell them to fuck off. After all we are just some random country.

One_Reality_5600

Why would they want to put their nukes in some random country?

cdp181

No thanks! Start working on trade agreements with our actual allies (like CANZUK).

Areashi

We have our own nukes, nothing good will come from letting American put there own here again.

Bite-32

USA: Fire our nukes!

UK: Your nukes? Nah, \*we\* have some nuke that you kindly gave us.

MarcusSuperbuz

Kick them out and confiscate their weapons of mass destruction.  

DaddaMongo

No way. Tariffs are an unfriendly act - treat them like quasi Russian

Next-Phase-1710

I'll save you all the time and effort:

"The report also suggested there were “no known public indications that nuclear weapons have been deployed to Lakenheath” yet."

FunParsnip4567

Thank you greatest ally 😆 we're all bark and no bite

adonWPV

If Trump is looking at pulling from NATO he has no business having anything in Allied countries...they should stop it !!!

Separate-Jeweler-296

Once we have them we can give them back to the Ukraine

Glad_Buffalo_5037

Saves having to fire them at us next time trump has a tantrum

Haunting-Elk-8058

What?!?

Some random country that hasn't fought a war for 30 years can't be hosting nuclear weapons..

Jensen1994

Erm… could we, not have an actively hostile nation stationing nukes here, this seems like a bad idea

Hyperbolicalpaca

Don't have to launch them, if they are already there. Speaking of... anybody want to hold my live hand grenade, "guaranteed not to have a remote detonator", by the way, George the Hand Slapper, will be over to collect his money. Just don't drop the grenade and make sure George doesn't slap your hands.

Icy-Ice2362

2 issues. They turned up last week. 
Uk gov never confirmed with evidence the drones were russian

Far-Designer-4672

The Mrs is getting out the camping gear &amp; heading to Greenham Common in an attempt to relive her youth. I don't have the heart to tell her....

LifeFeckinBrilliant

Europe’s got enough trouble from the US without using their nuclear arsenal inside the UK threatening them as well. The UK isn’t the 52nd state (assuming Trump follows through on his threat to invade Canada).

ionetic

I would prefer it if they gave us some of those cards trump keeps going on about.

Competitive_Mix3627

Does that mean if the US launch any of those nukes from our country, we could be blamed?

The current US administration are a threat to national security, this shouldn't be allowed

InMyLiverpoolHome

This is all moving so fast. Every morning my stress spikes.

I don’t love nuclear weapons or having to live in a world where military posturing is necessary, but in the context of Russia, I welcome this. 

So much for the people saying we should cut America off lmao. Thank god they aren’t in charge of our national security.

Do we need to defeat the US nuclear program again by having some woman chain themselves to the airbase fences and run across the runways to have picnics?

MiddleAgeCool

Now Trumps gonna find out, it probably won’t happen!

lassmonkey

But did he say thank you to us? Or is he expecting us to suck him off for this security guarantee?

Own_Weakness_1771

We want 500 gazzilion bazzilion in Americas rare earths in compensation though

Wild-Individual6876

&gt;Another document seen by the BBC, which has since been removed from the internet, stated there was related work at the base in preparation for its "upcoming nuclear mission".

Soooo....anybody managed to grab a copy of that in the past?

AbraxasKadabra

The US has long stored Nukes at RNAD Coulport, this is nothing new at all

TheRumBarron

The US stores nuclear weapons in several allied countries, Germany etc, it's just part of its nuclear deterrent plan, being that much harder to target it's nuclear arsenal in a first strike.

xenoborg007

A lot of people are reacting like this is today's decision. It goes back to *at least* 2021, and they're probably having discussions about what to do about it now...


A headline tells you literally nothing. If people just read the article, we might be able to pull in the same direction once in a while. 🤦‍♂️

Ok-Ambassador4679

EU countries should ask for all US troops and military equipment to be removed from European shores. 


Russia isn't going to invade and with France and and the UK as nuclear powers - Europe has its own nuclear umbrella.

Bunkerlala

Very concerned why suddenly the absolute batshit leaders of the USA want to do this now.
Donald the peace maker. Puts nukes in uk?
Or am I mistaken is this a plan from Biden era?

Nervous_Book_4375

Where abouts in the UK are these nuclear weapons being stored, wouldn’t surprise me if it was in armament sites in Scotland

VendettaBarreta

A) Why would Russia use drones that have lights on them? 

B) Why would Russia use drones halfway across the world with impunity when their most advanced drone currently in use in Ukraine literally uses a fibre optic wire in order to evade jamming?

Dangerous_Dac

Now we should ask to house some of ours over there.

King_Chad_The_69th

How much is this costing us? 

It’s impossible that America is doing anything for free. So can we afford this?

Whipit-Whipitgood

Id rather they didnt actually. They'd only want us to bootlick and be grateful to the orange turd

Dry_Professional_440

We should do it then when America asks for them back we can be like "nukes? What nukes?"

Davey_McDaveface

It’s probably best they are here in safe hands considering recent events across the pond.

Savage-September

Wait, now that America is aligned with Russia, why are we letting them house nukes here?

Jeffuk88

Shouldn't be difficult to find some young chap with a skateboard and hoodie who can reprogram the codes.

Lumpy-Mountain-2597

As long as they are wearing suits when they bring them over

Dizzy-Hotel-2626

Thought we were just some random country? Fuck off.

TakeuchiTakao

The United States has reportedly deployed nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time since 2008, as part of a strategy to reinforce European security amidst growing tensions with Russia.

US Nuclear Weapons Deployment in the UK

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want