Talk:Polaris Sales Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force United States military history task force

[edit] Assurances

Any info on what the assurances given were? The MOD reference is dead. If no info is available, I guess it's something like we won't nuke the US or Israel or anything the US cares about. Probably... Nil Einne 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

******* MOD!!! I have never known a more unreliable site to link to, they always seem to change things. I'll look into it. Mark83 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Finding the updated link would be helpful and timely, considering the current debate about whether Trident should be upgraded. Many opponents in Britain cite "control" by the US as a reason to scrap it, but that is evidently based on a false assumption. 168.215.132.137 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've written one dissertation on this topic and am about to write another. The US "control" on the UK is multifaceted. on one level the UK can't piss of the US or it won't in the long term get the next generation, and in the medium term receive the right parts (Polaris A3's was serviced in the UK, Trident D5's are serviced at Kings Bay, Georgia), etc. Guidance of the warheads is frequently mentioned, some sources say that the UK lacks the guidance satellites, software, (or something) to guide the warheads (thus the UK doesn't have an independent deterrent), others sources say this isn't true (GPS could be turned off by the US but INS would still give a reasonable CEP). PSA says the UK deterrent will be committed to NATO except for in (something like) matters of "extreme national interest). Thats open to a highly subjective interpretation by both sides so .... I'll have some source in my dissertation that i can dig up if the MOD link can't be found. Pickle 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first point - that suggests the UK is basing all its decisions on whether its deterrent will be supported in the future. However it is of course much more than that - the UK has massive business interests in the US (and vice versa) and arguably reaps large political capital from its status as one of (if not the) closest allies of the US. If Britain lost its access to Trident missiles and/or support it would be a huge event, however not in the long term terribly detrimental to the UK (at the very least it could deploy its warheads in hastily developed free fall bombs and possibly in a Storm Shadow variant). In contrast if the UK lost its business interests in the US it would be devastating to the UK economy, meaning either the abandonment of much of the UK's current conventional military capability or massive cuts in government services. Mark83 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the control issue I found: Letter from Archie Hamilton, Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The Times January 31, 1992:

"Sir, Lord Kennet (letter, January 28) questions the independence of our Trident deterrent on four counts. He is wrong on all four.

1. Trident missiles will be available to us. The Polaris sales agreement, as amended for Trident, has the status of an international treaty and is lodged with the UN.
2. The missiles are not beyond our control. Once Trident has fully entered service the majority of our missiles will be aboard our submarines: they require processing only oce every seven or eight years.
3. While we have undertaken that the British Trident fleet will be operated in defence of the Western Alliance (as with Polaris) we have reserved the right to use it independently of that role if supreme national interests so require.
4. We have our own national targeting capability.

In short, the British minimum deterrent is, and will remain, operationally independent and under the absolute control of Her Majesty's government..." Mark83 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)