International The US/UK H-Bomb MDA Is Set To Expire

[Deorum]

Originally signed on the eve of the 4th of July 1958 and hailed as "the great prize" by Super-Mac, this particular Mutual Defence* Agreement is arguably the most exclusive and significant bilateral treaty in existence. A rather brazen violation of international law and in contravention of the NPT, it deals specifically with the direct collaboration between the two countries (read: AWE & NNSA) on the design, development, deployment, maintenance, and exchange of materials for thermonuclear weapons. It is set to expire again at the end of the year. Is this a partnership that the United Kingdom's general public and political establishment wishes to continue?

The USA is in the process of a massive, simultaneous modernization and overhaul across its entire triad of sea, land, and air based thermonuclear weapon delivery systems expected to take it up through 2080. As a small island nation, the UK has never possessed a triad but the Royal Navy does maintain four nuclear powered submarines fitted with 16 SLBMs apiece which are identical to those found on America's globe-spanning fleet of SSBN black death machines. LANL (Los Alamos) - the fucking legend - is currently engineering a new warhead (the W93) that will be fully compatible with Great Britain's Trident D5 ballistic missiles manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

It seems like a no-brainer, but the MDA needs to be formally renewed.

 

[Deorum]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760393776260927892

It's supposed to look like this.

 

[HeLLMuTT]

Weeeeeeeeeeee!!!

But seriously, that missile landed real darn close to the sub that launched it.

 

[Deorum]

Weeeeeeeeeeee!!!

But seriously, that missile landed real darn close to the sub that launched it.

I scoped some British blokes trying to throw shade at the United States and Lockheed for that failure. Bruh, I'm sorry, but the fault rests entirely on the UK Ministry of Defence and Royal Navy. The Trident D5 has 191 successful test launches at sea on its record with less than a half-dozen failures since 1989; it's been an incredibly reliable system and is a deadly accurate SLBM to boot.

 

[Deorum]

It's not only arguably the most exclusive MDA but also amongst the most disproportionate and privileged. The UK reaps the enormous benefit of direct access to cutting-edge R&D that America spends tens of billions annually on.

I'm just thankful the US nuclear weapons program falls under a semi-autonomous agency within the DOE and is kept separate from the Department of Defense and the clusterfuck labyrinth of excessive waste that it is. It's incredibly lean and worth every penny.

 

[Gutter Chris]

It's not only arguably the most exclusive MDA but also amongst the most disproportionate and privileged. The UK reaps the enormous benefit of direct access to cutting-edge R&D that America spends tens of billions annually on.

I'm just thankful the US nuclear weapons program falls under a semi-autonomous agency within the DOE and is kept separate from the Department of Defense and the clusterfuck labyrinth of excessive waste that it is. It's incredibly lean and worth every penny.

It's kind of crazy to me that England's navy is in the state that it's in and that most bits don't seem to give a shit about their military and seem to have an oh America's got it if it needs handling kind of attitude.

 

[Deorum]

It's kind of crazy to me that England's navy is in the state that it's in and that most bits don't seem to give a shit about their military and seem to have an oh America's got it if it needs handling kind of attitude.

Yeah, seems like a whole lot of fuckery and ineptitude. I'm just so perpetually preoccupied with American interests to give it any real attention. What's the deal, @KnightTemplar?

 

[BigDeadFreak]

The shameful thing for me is that most of us Brits and Europeans have this snooty attitude towards Americans. We see you as backwards, uncivilised retards but as soon as we are militarily threatened we come running to you for help.

Look at us with our NHS and welfare state and look at those dumb rednecks with their guns and ammo.

Oh shit, here comes Putin. Won't somebody help us, please?!

 

[650lb Sumo]

The British military is very small and underfunded now, I don't think it could do much. Maybe capture the Faroes?

Anyway I agree with George Galloway, leader of the Worker's Party of Britain's policy: the UK should leave NATO (and not renew the MDA).



Also all US forces and intelligence agents should be expelled.

 

[Deorum]

The British military is very small and underfunded now, I don't think it could do much. Maybe capture the Faroes?

Anyway I agree with George Galloway, leader of the Worker's Party of Britain's policy: the UK should leave NATO (and not renew the MDA).



Also all US forces and intelligence agents should be expelled.

I appreciate the input and contribution, Sumo. Intriguing. I know discussions about nuclear weapons aren't as hot as they used to be (?), but I was beginning to wonder if people were even aware of the MDA's existence. I don't actually believe the renewal is in any sort of doubt at this juncture, though. The last guy to serve as UK Defence Sec (Wallace, IIRC) was allegedly directly lobbying and sending letters to Congress urging them to fund development of the aforementioned W93 warhead. It was very bizarre.

 

[Deorum]

The shameful thing for me is that most of us Brits and Europeans have this snooty attitude towards Americans. We see you as backwards, uncivilised retards but as soon as we are militarily threatened we come running to you for help.

Look at us with our NHS and welfare state and look at those dumb rednecks with their guns and ammo.

Oh shit, here comes Putin. Won't somebody help us, please?!

A thermonuclear deterrent is a stronger form of national security than any amount of equipment or manpower but it has to be credible and maintained. The UK hasn't had a successful test launch since 2012. Meanwhile, the US has conducted dozens of them using the same SLBMs pooled from literally the exact same physical location and assembly plant. This is largely because UK tests are conducted so infrequently, but again...

 

[650lb Sumo]

A thermonuclear deterrent is a stronger form of national security than any amount of equipment or manpower but it has to be credible and maintained. The UK hasn't had a successful test launch since 2012. Meanwhile, the US has conducted dozens of them using the same SLBMs pooled from literally the exact same physical location and assembly plant. This is largely because UK tests are conducted so infrequently, but again...

The British armed forces aren't worth much nowadays and the Navy seems to be particularly bad. Maybe because it requires more advanced technology and qualified people to keep warships going than the Army or Air Force use. As we deteriorate into a shithole Third World country those functions go first. I don't follow military news but there's been a string of embarrassing failures in the Navy which I've heard accidentally. Apart from the missile failures:

Officers having sex with lower ranks, at sea, and behaving unprofessionally (both male officers with female sailors and female officers with male sailors); people being drunk on duty, including in the boomer submarines; people being kicked out for using cocaine, including boomer submarine crew (who obviously are more carefully vetted than the crews of other ships); ships running aground; warfare officers (the ones who control the boat/ship's movement and are in overall charge) being about to crush the submarine by sending it too deep, but engineers noticing and stopping them; fires on board; only one of the two aircraft carriers works; ships can't sail in water that is too warm; most of the marine officers' specialisations have been removed; something in an F-35 failed during take off at sea and it drove off the bow and went to the bottom, and the pilot ejected (an F-35 costs over £100 million, figures vary); this is just what I remember, a search would turn up more.

I watched a Navy series filmed in maybe 2022 set on one of the boomers and one thing after another was breaking, they had a fire, then in an unrelated incident one of the two scrubbers failed and everyone was nervously doing their jobs in masks until they fixed it, then something in the plumbing broke and no one could use any toilet for a few hours, then a rating burnt his hand and they decided it was too serious for him to just be treated on board, so they surfaced to send him over to a surface ship, meaning everyone now knew where the sub was when it's supposed to be secret. All on one mission. It was pathetic.

The Navy has four boomers (Vanguard class) but the last I heard only two of them are seaworthy, and they don't go to sea at the same time, so if someone sunk the one at sea there would be no eggs in another basket, for a while at least.

Edit:

Size of Royal Navy's warship fleet is pathetic, says chairman of defence select committee

At a time of tension around the world, the Royal Navy is thinly spread in meeting its commitments, experts tell Sky News.

news.sky.com

In 1982 the UK had 43 frigates and 12 destroyers; it now [2019] has 13 and six respectively.

There were 160,000 regular troops in the Army in 1982, now there are 75,000. So you could fit the Army in Wembley Stadium.

 

[Deorum]

There's genuine doubt circulating that the UK could even produce its own next-gen warhead if necessary at this point, whether down to a matter of funding, engineering, assembly -- or all three. It would partially explain why Wallace was petitioning and urging on US Congress. I reckon it's mostly a funding issue, but the present "Holbrook" warheads on British subs are essentially a direct copycat of the Los Alamos W76 with a union jack sticker.

 

[Rob Battisti]

There's genuine doubt circulating that the UK could even produce its own next-gen warhead if necessary at this point, whether down to a matter of funding, engineering, assembly -- or all three. It would partially explain why Wallace was petitioning and urging on US Congress. I reckon it's mostly a funding issue, but the present "Holbrook" warheads on British subs are essentially a direct copycat of the Los Alamos W76 with a union jack sticker.

I suppose I would side with the Brits in that it’s nearly irrelevant for them to even have nukes let alone next generation war heads.

I just read Annie Jacobsons TERRIFYING book on nuclear war. If an ICBM is launched anywhere in the world, the US has a launch on warning policy. We’d have 6 minutes to retaliate and we certainly would retaliate.

There seems to be no real point for the UK to have nukes given that if they were ever attacked, the US would launch anyway because we wouldn’t risk the idea that only the UK was about to be hit.

It was a terrifying book and makes you realize how utterly scary it is that we have octogenarians with the nuclear football.

 

[Deorum]

I suppose I would side with the Brits in that it’s nearly irrelevant for them to even have nukes let alone next generation war heads.

I just read Annie Jacobsons TERRIFYING book on nuclear war. If an ICBM is launched anywhere in the world, the US has a launch on warning policy. We’d have 6 minutes to retaliate and we certainly would retaliate.

There seems to be no real point for the UK to have nukes given that if they were ever attacked, the US would launch anyway because we wouldn’t risk the idea that only the UK was about to be hit.

It was a terrifying book and makes you realize how utterly scary it is that we have octogenarians with the nuclear football.

How do you feel about maintaining our own deterrent and capabilities? As someone who utterly deplores the excessive waste that goes into annual defense spending, the triad is the one area where no cost is too great. I'm generally pretty content with the streamlined approach being taken to the next generation of delivery systems and don't feel the need to maintain a non-strategic stockpile, i.e. Russia. The order for 12 SSBNs, 100 B21s, and 400 silo-based ICBMs looks really aesthetic to me on paper.

Our domestic warhead "industry" is already incredibly narrow and minimalist. It could essentially be summed up by three national laboratories for R&D (LANL, LLNL, Sandia) and three facilities for assembly, components, and materials (Y-12, Pantex, KCNSC) under the umbrella of the NNSA. That's literally it. I feel like having so few locations and facilities makes it easier to prevent security leaks (it definitely does), but that comes with other risks. Pantex damn near burned to the ground earlier this year from an approaching wildfire burning near Amarillo, FFS.

 

[Rob Battisti]

How do you feel about maintaining our own deterrent and capabilities? As someone who utterly deplores the excessive waste that goes into annual defense spending, the triad is the one area where no cost is too great. I'm generally pretty content with the streamlined approach being taken to the next generation of delivery systems and don't feel the need to maintain a non-strategic stockpile, i.e. Russia. The order for 12 SSBNs, 100 B21s, and 400 silo-based ICBMs looks really aesthetic to me on paper.

Our domestic warhead "industry" is already incredibly narrow and minimalist. It could essentially be summed up by three national laboratories for R&D (LANL, LLNL, Sandia) and three facilities for assembly, components, and materials (Y-12, Pantex, KCNSC) under the umbrella of the NNSA. That's literally it. I feel like having so few locations and facilities makes it easier to prevent security leaks (it definitely does), but that comes with other risks. Pantex damn near burned to the ground earlier this year from an approaching wildfire burning near Amarillo, FFS.

At a certain point, we’re already so far ahead on the satellite technology that there isn’t really a strategic need to be “more capable” on the warhead or delivery system technology.

If an ICBM is coming our way, the world is destroyed. That would have happened the same way over the last 40 years.

The scary thing is that the Russian and Chinese satellite tech is far behind ours so the chances that there is some kind of a mistake that they misinterpret is way higher on there end.

Needless to say, so long as we maintain the current tech we have on our delivery systems, there is no real point to make them more effective. First strike is the same as second strike because of our satellites. We all lose either way.

Funnily enough, I hire Los Lunas and Sandia. Overall, pretty smart people.

 

[Rob Battisti]

That is to say, I believe keeping the labs limited is better from a leak standpoint and we should only maintain our current capability and don’t feel there is any strategic advantage to be more capable in our delivery systems. I’d much rather any spending be put toward cyber security defense and hardening our infrastructure.

I can’t even fathom what the world looks like after a nuclear attack which is why I believe we will never see one. However, NK is the wild card. They may just go lunatic on the world which sets the whole thing off.

If they launch, and we retaliate, the chances that China or Russia doesn’t launch during our retaliation is practically zero.

 

[Deorum]

At a certain point, we’re already so far ahead on the satellite technology that there isn’t really a strategic need to be “more capable” on the warhead or delivery system technology.

If an ICBM is coming our way, the world is destroyed. That would have happened the same way over the last 40 years.

The scary thing is that the Russian and Chinese satellite tech is far behind ours so the chances that there is some kind of a mistake that they misinterpret is way higher on there end.

Needless to say, so long as we maintain the current tech we have on our delivery systems, there is no real point to make them more effective. First strike is the same as second strike because of our satellites. We all lose either way.

Funnily enough, I hire Los Lunas and Sandia. Overall, pretty smart people.

That is to say, I believe keeping the labs limited is better from a leak standpoint and we should only maintain our current capability and don’t feel there is any strategic advantage to be more capable in our delivery systems. I’d much rather any spending be put toward cyber security defense and hardening our infrastructure.

I can’t even fathom what the world looks like after a nuclear attack which is why I believe we will never see one. However, NK is the wild card. They may just go lunatic on the world which sets the whole thing off.

If they launch, and we retaliate, the chances that China or Russia doesn’t launch during our retaliation is practically zero.

This is a great point. The disparity is so large that China isn't even really trying to directly compete on satellite tech so much as they are investing in counterspace and cyberattack capabilities.

I don't feel like the W93 warhead or B-21 Raider (which is actually on budget and on time) are necessarily immediate needs. The Ohio-class submarines have been prowling the oceans since the early 1980s though and I feel like the stealth upgrades will be worth it, especially considering they're going to comprise the SLBM arm of the triad up into the 2080s. Stuff gets old, and anti-stealth technologies advance. They need to remain undetectable or survivability drops towards the ocean floor. Just look at the Brits Vanguard subs literally falling apart. As far as land based deterrent, we've had the same ICBM (LGM-30) in service since 1970. These aren't excessive upgrades, IMO.

 

[Deorum]

I will discuss this with you, my friend. As soon as I am smart enough to discuss this with you. I like the cut of your jib. Is there a thread? I’ll look for a thread. I love nuclear by the way.

Back when VICE actually dropped cool content a decade or so ago. Edward Teller wasn't a particularly good man, but no doubt a Great American. A significant figure, to be certain. One of our premier national laboratories (LLNL) was built at his behest and urging.

 

[Cid]

A thermonuclear deterrent is a stronger form of national security than any amount of equipment or manpower but it has to be credible and maintained.

Nukes are mediocre at best for national security. For most countries a massive negative.

They're very expensive.

There's no real credible military target for them so using one now would turn your state into a pariah even to allies.

Nuclear use can only ever be justified in the most extreme of situations and you'd prefer outside intervention to use.

They're useless in countering the 99% of national security threats a country faces all of which would precede the near destruction of the state as being so OP limits their use to only the most extreme threats.

Can hardly use them in response to a cyber warfare campaign for example, a propaganda campaign, outside interference in electoral processes and the dozen other ways states can interfere with another without going to war.

Then even in instances of war you have to be losing real badly.

Also retaliatory strikes from subs are scary easy.



Having nuclear weapons exponentially increases the probability of nuclear strikes on your country should shit hit the fan even if you're not involved as well.

Or interference from foreign states if you try to acquire them. Or worse. America openly states it will only ever use nuclear weapons on other nuclear states or those trying to acquire them.



That's some of the negatives.




This isn't a response to whether US and UK should modernize delivery systems (they should) as they should be able to adequately fund more important areas as well.

Just a general response around how nuclear weapons are an incredibly bad allocation of resources for the vast majority of countries from a national security perspective.