PDA

View Full Version : The regime betrays yet another US ally.



LWW
02-04-2011, 04:54 PM
Until today I have rejected the talk of impeaching dear leader.

I have believed his actions to be misguided but within the law in most all instances.

Now, I feel that he has crossed the Rubicon ... his actions are threatening the security of the nation, and at this point these actions can only be seen as intentional.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.</span>

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website. ...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.</span>

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.</span>

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles. </div></div>

-TREASONOUS- (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#)

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 05:01 PM
This threatens the security of the US-- how, exactly?

I think you must think he's the leader of Great Britain, with your claim. It MIGHT harm GB's security (although it probably doesn't), but what is the case it harms OURS?

BTW, harming US security is not particularly an impeachable crime, or else any change in security posture would occasion talks of impeachment and treason, when most refuse to go that far for good reason.

LWW
02-04-2011, 05:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This threatens the security of the US-- how, exactly?</div></div>

Are you seriously that foolish?

1 - It breaks the trust of our most loyal ally, from whose ground much of our intelligence, reconnaissance, and air power is based.

2 - It sets a precedent for the UK to sell/trade whatever US secrets it may have.

3 - It displays to other nations, again, that the word of the US means absolutely nothing to this regime.

4 - It puts the very existence of NATO at risk.

I could go on ... but you are so intent upon defending the regime that you are completely blind to what is happening.

LWW

LWW
02-04-2011, 05:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, harming US security is not particularly an impeachable crime, or else any change in security posture would occasion talks of impeachment and treason, when most refuse to go that far for good reason.

</div></div>

We aren't talking about a decision believed to be correct that turned out wrong ... although you will convince yourself that it is.

What we are talking about is a violation of treaties with US allies ... which is a violation of US law.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 05:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, harming US security is not particularly an impeachable crime, or else any change in security posture would occasion talks of impeachment and treason, when most refuse to go that far for good reason.

</div></div>

We aren't talking about a decision believed to be correct that turned out wrong ... although you will convince yourself that it is.

What we are talking about is a violation of treaties with US allies ... which is a violation of US law.

LWW </div></div>

Which treaty is that? None was mentioned as violated in the piece you link to.

LWW
02-05-2011, 04:12 AM
NATO, Article 4:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. </div></div>

LWW

LWW
02-05-2011, 04:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which treaty is that? None was mentioned as violated in the piece you link to. </div></div>

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement which allowed for the sharing of, but not dissemination of same, classified nuclear weapons information.

OH DEAR! (http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/1958_US-UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement)

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-05-2011, 12:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which treaty is that? None was mentioned as violated in the piece you link to. </div></div>

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement which allowed for the sharing of, but not dissemination of same, classified nuclear weapons information.

OH DEAR! (http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/1958_US-UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement)

LWW </div></div>

By the link you provide, plenty of details about transfers of fissionable material, swaps of materiel, are evidently in the public domain at this time. The idea that everything about all of this is secret and cannot be disclosed because of the treaty language seems disproved already by what is known about many such details.

The Russians have an interest and a need to know where our Tridents are and where they've gone. This is also the subject of ratified treaties. We are telling them the NUMBER of missiles sent to GB, and their serial numbers, so that we can't play a pea under the shell game, tell them we're agreeing to binding limited numbers, and then putting more than we say we have over to GB (quite a bit closer to Russia than our placements).

Our national interest is far greater in gaining verifiable decreases in nukes with Russian than protecting a vague GB policy to never say what THEIR inventory is, to slightly better protect its deterrent effect. GB's true deterrent is their NATO membership, that all NATO members will defend all others if attacked, and obviously, the US nuclear deterrent backing up everything.

LWW
02-05-2011, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
By the link you provide, plenty of details about transfers of fissionable material, swaps of materiel, are evidently in the public domain at this time. The idea that everything about all of this is secret and cannot be disclosed because of the treaty language seems disproved already by what is known about many such details.
</div></div>

Oh please.

If it was already known in detail, what value would it have in negotiations?

LWW

LWW
02-05-2011, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Russians have an interest and a need to know where our Tridents are and where they've gone. This is also the subject of ratified treaties. We are telling them the NUMBER of missiles sent to GB, and their serial numbers, so that we can't play a pea under the shell game, tell them we're agreeing to binding limited numbers, and then putting more than we say we have over to GB (quite a bit closer to Russia than our placements).</div></div>

That's ridiculous.

1 - A prior treaty with the UK precludes us from legally releasing this info, which you just claimed was readily known BTW.

2 - The UK was asked if it was OK to release the data and they refuesed us.

3 - The UK's Tridents missiles are not necessarily any closer to the USSR than ours.

LWW

LWW
02-05-2011, 01:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Our national interest is far greater in gaining verifiable decreases in nukes with Russian than protecting a vague GB policy to never say what THEIR inventory is, to slightly better protect its deterrent effect. GB's true deterrent is their NATO membership, that all NATO members will defend all others if attacked, and obviously, the US nuclear deterrent backing up everything. </div></div>

1 - Why?

2 - Irrelevant as a treaty is a binding contract between nations.

3 - Violating that contract is a crime.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-05-2011, 05:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Russians have an interest and a need to know where our Tridents are and where they've gone. This is also the subject of ratified treaties. We are telling them the NUMBER of missiles sent to GB, and their serial numbers, so that we can't play a pea under the shell game, tell them we're agreeing to binding limited numbers, and then putting more than we say we have over to GB (quite a bit closer to Russia than our placements).</div></div>

That's ridiculous.

1 - A prior treaty with the UK precludes us from legally releasing this info, which you just claimed was readily known BTW.

2 - The UK was asked if it was OK to release the data and they refuesed us.

3 - The UK's Tridents missiles are not necessarily any closer to the USSR than ours.

LWW </div></div>

There appears to be little mystery here, if the Russians can access the internet.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Britain's Nuclear Weapons

The Current British Arsenal

Last changed 30 April 2001

A comprehensive Strategic Defense Review was completed by the Labor government in March 1998 that resulted in a major revision in Britain's strategic nuclear posture in July. Effective immediately all WE177 bombs were removed from service, and all of them (175 WE 177 A and B bombs - with yields of 200 and 400 kt) were dismantled by the end of August. This left only a single nuclear weapon system in service - the Trident submarine.

Trident
Trident Missile
This system too was significantly scaled back. The final seven Trident II missiles that had been planned were cancelled (saving 50 million pounds and writing off another 40 million), leaving the UK with a total missile inventory of 58. The number of submarines on patrol at any given time was reduced to one, and the number of warheads deployed on a submarine was reduced to 48 (half of what had been planned, and identical to the force loading on its previous Polaris fleet). The SDR also announced that Britain would hold its arsenal to "a stockpile of fewer than 200 operationally available warheads". The UK was already believed to have fewer than 200 Trident warheads, although the number could have eventually gone as high as 248 under previous MoD directives. In the fall of 1998 the Trident warhead was still apparently in production but probably ended early in 1999.

The first batch of British Trident warheads were completed in September 1992. They were designed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston, and are assembled at Aldermaston and Burghfield. The warheads are though to have similar characteristics to the U.S. W-76 now on U.S. Trident I and II missiles. The British Trident warheads are capable of selective yield, ranging from under a kiloton up to the full yield of 100 kt or so (this appears to differ from U.S. SLBM warheads). Yields are probably 0.3 kt, 5-10 kt and 100 kt.

In keeping with the reduced operational tempo, only a single crew for each submarine will be maintained. Furthermore the missiles are kept in a de-targeted state. The SDR further declares that "the submarines will routinely be at a 'notice to fire' measured in days rather than the few minutes quick reaction alert that we sustained throughout the Cold War."

The SDR points out that the implied maximum arsenal of 192 warheads "is a reduction of a third from the maximum of 300 announced by the previous government and represents a reduction of more than 70% in the potential explosive power of the deterrent since the end of the Cold War". It is quite possible that the actual warhead stockpile is somewhat smaller than the maximum figure of 192. Only 174 warheads are required to fully equip the entire missile inventory at the specified force loading, but some additional ones would be kept as spares putting the number near 192. However previous practice with the Polaris fleet was to produce only enough warheads for three boats, with more for spares. This would make the stockpile 144 plus 10-15 percent extras, or 160-165.

HMS Vanguard
267x3733, 16 K HMS Vanguard
500x376, 24 K
HMS Vanguard HMS Vanguard
HMS Victorious HMS Vengeance
HMS Victorious HMS HMS Vengeance
HMS Vengeance HMS Vengeance
HMS Victorious HMS HMS Vengeance
The SDR confirmed plans for the Royal Navy to complete the construction of four Vanguard-class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The first submarine of the class, the HMS Vanguard, went on its first patrol in December 1994. The second, the Victorious, entered service in December 1995. The Vigilant was launched in October 1995 and entered service in the autumn of 1998. The final sub, the Vengeance, was launched on 19 September 1998 at Barrow-in-Furness, andwas commissioned 27 November 1999. The Vengeance completed shakedown trials and entered operational service 12 February 2001. It is expected to go on patrol as part of the First Submarine Squadron in early 2001. The SDR anticipates keeping this force in service for at least 30 years. The current estimated program cost for the Vanguard SSBN program is US$18.8 billion.

The 58 missile bodies being procured are fewer than the 64 required to completely equip all four boats, so rotating missiles between submarines will be required. But since only one Trident submarine will be kept on patrol, it will be easy to have one submarine out of service - undergoing refitting and maintenance - at any given time, requiring only 48 missiles for the three active boats. This is similar to the practice the UK followed with its previous submarine fleet, the Resolution class Polaris missile subs. The UK produced only enough warheads for three of the four boats, so that warheads were rotated from boats in port to ones that were setting out on patrol. Typically two Trident submarines may actually be at sea at any given time, one going or coming back from patrol while the other is on duty. In a crisis three boats could be put to sea fairly quickly with up 144 warheads (120 or so is a more likely figure).

The Trident II missiles are not actually owned outright by the UK. Instead the Trident II missiles belong to a pool of missiles managed by the United States and stored at Kings Bay, Georgia. British boats pick up their load of missiles at Kings bay when they are commissioned and exchange them there when missiles need servicing. The Trident warheads are mated to the missiles on-board the submarine at the Royal naval Armament Depot at Coulport.

Although the average number of warheads per missile will be 48, the actual distribution of warheads on missiles is uncertain. Beginning in 1996 the UK adopted the strategy of "sub-strategic deterrence". This is basically the same idea as the U.S. policy of "flexible response". It entails having a range of nuclear options, especially limited ones. Some Trident missiles are thus downloaded to a single warhead so that it is possible to launch a strike without using multiple warheads, others will thus have a higher loading. The Trident warheads also offer multiple yields - probably 0.3 kt, 5-10 kt and 100 kt - by choosing to fire the unboosted primary, the boosted primary, or the entire "physics package". According to the 1996 Defence White Paper this policy became fully operational when the Vigilant entered service.

With the entry into service of this last SSBN, barring changes in policy with this or future Administrations, the UK nuclear deterrent has entered a state of stability with no planned changess that may last for decades.</div></div>

Soflasnapper
02-05-2011, 05:39 PM
The link is here (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKArsenalRecent.html)

LWW
02-05-2011, 05:52 PM
What is it that you think this shows?

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-06-2011, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is it that you think this shows?

LWW </div></div>

It shows virtually the entire order of battle for the nuclear weaponry in the GB arsenal.

The number of launchers is set, and the only thing in doubt is that they under-deploy MIRVs below the maximum payload the missiles could handle, for various strategic reasons and war-gamed scenarios.

So, the only ambiguity in this that GB can maintain is whether they have a MAX number (which is knowable), or a little less, and how much less.

Which isn't much of a secret of a critical nature. And probably why the Wikileaks' piece does not reflect any over-riding of a GB refusal to agree, or a GB protest, on THIS part of the info turned over to Russia.

Soflasnapper
02-07-2011, 08:42 PM
Report: Both US and British officials deny reports of unapproved transfer of British nuclear secrets

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tapper Reports Crowley And U.K. Official Both Dismissed Accusations. In a February 5 post on ABC News' Political Punch blog, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper wrote that "[b]oth the U.S. and British governments disputed on Saturday a London Telegraph report asserting that the 'U.S. secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain's nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty.' " Tapper further noted:

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the report "nonsense," saying the information sharing about U.S. transfers of nuclear weapons to the U.K. dates back to the original START treaty, an assertion backed up by the White House and British government officials.

[...]

Crowley emailed ABC News that "Under the 1991 START Treaty, the U.S. agreed to notify Russia of specific nuclear cooperation with the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of SLBM's to the U.K., or their maintenance or modernization. This is under an existing pattern of cooperation throughout that treaty and is expected to continue under New START. We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the U.K.'s independent nuclear deterrent."

A knowledgeable source with the British government, speaking anonymously because his government has a policy of not commenting on Wikileaks, says his understanding of the policy conforms with that asserted by the State Department. [ABC News, Political Punch, 2/5/11]
</div></div>

British official denied Telegraph reporting (http://mediamatters.org/research/201102070025)