Posted on 09/13/2014 8:36:49 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
BRITAIN’S independent nuclear deterrent should be moved to the Unites States if Scotland gains its independence next week, senior military figures have said.
Speaking to the Sunday Express they said the plan would ensure that our four Trident missile-carrying Vanguard submarines would not remain in the hands of a Non-Nato foreign country and deprive Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of any “leverage” in post -independence negotiations.
The call, which one senior US politician last night said would be “overwhelmingly supported” in Congress, comes only two days after Ministry of Defence chiefs finally green-lighted an impact assessment study on Britain’s defence in the event of a Yes vote on Thursday.
Last night Whitehall sources confirmed they were “very alive” to the US option, though, officially, the Ministry of Defence refused to confirm it was making any provisions for independence.
Speaking last night, Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, now attached to the UK National Defence Association, said: “The great leverage that Alex Salmond currently has over the British Government is the location of our nuclear defence base at Faslane. If the vote is Yes, we should move heaven and earth to move all our submarines out of Faslane as quickly as possible.
“We must decide how important, in the short term, the word independence is in terms of our nuclear deterrent. After all, we rely on the US for our missiles and for an awful lot of intelligence. Would it make a huge amount of difference if we asked the US if we could use a base to place our nuclear deterrent there as a temporary measure?
“We could easily run Trident from the US for ten years, and prepare the rest of the UK for whatever the follow on might be.”
The Clyde naval base is currently the largest single employment site in Scotland, currently responsible for 6,700 jobs though this is set to increase to 8,200 jobs.
A recent report by the Royal United Services Institute think tank estimated that recreating the facilities to house Britain’s nuclear deterrent south of the border would cost around £3bn and take up to ten years. But the costs of “renting space” in the US would be relatively small.
Last night Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, chair of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security said the move would command overwhelming support in the United States.
“I emphatically think this is a good idea,’ he said.
“The US and UK have developed a Special Relationship through two World Wars and the Cold War, and our nations have helped each other out when we have run into strategic or military difficulties.
“Obviously what is left of the UK, if Scotland does become independent, would not want to have a significant part of its nuclear deterrent housed in a non-Nato country.
“I believe that basing the UK nuclear deterrent in the US until such time as the rest of the UK was able to build the appropriate basis would be very welcome here.
It would have very strong Republican support in Congress. If the President did request any type of legislation in Congress, it would probably pass by a margin of three to one in the House of Representatives, and I could see it being overwhelmingly approved by the Senate when the vote comes up.”
The obvious location, experts say, would be the US Naval Submarine Base at Kings Bay, Georgia, which already hosts the US’ Atlantic submarine fleet and a major Trident refit centre, the largest drydock in the world.
Air Cmdre Lambert’s views were echoed by other senior military figures and defence analysts.
“This would present an entirely sensible solution as a temporary measure,’ said former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West, last night.
“We must remember that getting rid of Trident has always been a core plank for the SNP.
"The fact that they say they want to join Nato was actually a close run thing at the Assembly conference – an awful lot of them don’t even want to be in Nato.”
Former head of the British Army Gen Mike Jackson added: “Salmond’s position on Trident is clear and it will need some tricky negotiation in the event of a Yes vote.
"Britain must remain a nuclear weapon state not only over the remainder of the life of our current system, but also in terms of a replacement.
"Scotland will be a realm problem.
"Moving the fleet to the US would be an interesting and practicable proposition.
"The US are keen that we remain a nuclear state and I suspect they would be understanding.”
Luke Coffey, a former MoD aid to Dr Liam Fox and now with Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation said:”In the chance that the vote is Yes, the first policy paper I will be writing is to recommend that the United States Government does allow the hosting of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
"It is an idea that has already been discussed in Whitehall.
“Our Special Relationship is based around nuclear cooperation - this goes back to the 1950s.
"It’s the nuclear cooperation that makes our Special Relationship special.
“The US would make much more sense than, say, France which is less dependable over this kind of issue.
“There is zero debate here about nuclear weapons and the idea of having an extra four submarines would not be an issue.
"It’s a practical short-term solution and there’s a precedent – the US has nuclear weapons in other countries.”
They should be transferred to Texas.
I understand the sentiment for separation but think Scotland will be the worse for it.
Great Idea, Then Texas secedes and becomes the worlds newest nuclear superpower.
CC
The world would be better for it, for sure.
Oh, no, that would never work. Dang crazy Texans would only nuke Mecca and Tehran and...
Well, I mean, that would be just awf...
Hmm...
It worked for the Russians, so why not?
With the other article, "Immigrant Vote Crucial To Scotland Independence", someone should be concerned about Scotland become a staging area for Sharia law.
William Wallace is pleased as hell.
send them to the US and 0failure will dismantle them just as he’s done with our own
England and Scotland would both have to be raving morons to do that
I don’t know if I want missiles that fly on the wrong side of the sky. :-P
That’s it, just think about it some more. The idea just starts to grow on you after awhile.
LOL
CC
Why should England provide airbases and army bases for US forces (where US law over-rides UK law) at minimal to no cost?
Favors work both ways. We’d not be giving you the subs or missiles, just borrowing a couple of slips and some accommodations until we can upgrade a port (probably Barrow, it already handles subs) to cope with the Trident systems.
My thoughts exactly.
Sorry, the state of Georgia has first dibs.
The UK should just retain ownership of the base,or take a long term lease like we did at Guantanamo Bay.
The Scots are not going to want to lose 6,700 good jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.