Skip navigation

John Chuckman


Well said.

Nuclear weapons are indeed unusable weapons, until such time as pretty much all human civilization is at an end.

In that event, who would care?

The fact is that nuclear missiles for a country like Britain are pretty much gigantic penis-envy toys, extremely costly toys.

Britain could make little difference in a full nuclear exchange with something like several hundred warheads versus many thousands – and in many modes of deployment – for Russia.

Russia requires its atomic forces to offset those of the United States, the most aggressive country on the planet which in the absence of Russia’s countervailing force would become the world’s dictator. Only Russia can respond to the ultimate aggression by America.

In case you think that unthinkable, go read some history. The United States had a fully developed plan for massively nuking Russia in the early 1950s. We were only saved by a miracle.


Response to another comment:

Protect you from what?

You are the one who is naive here.

The United States does not seriously protect anyone.

Being under “the nuclear umbrella” is only another means of control, much like some of free-trade agreements America has with economically insignificant countries.

Control is the American objective.


The point has been made below that Britain would not dare to launch a single missile without American permission, else the launch would quickly call down an attack on Britain by the United States.

I believe that that is a completely accurate statement of the situation in the modern world. Former Soviet countries like Ukraine were quietly told after the collapse of the Soviet Union that they would be targeted by American missiles if they refused to give up their stocks of Soviet nuclear weapons, and they did give them up.

The hard truth is that a country such as Britain with Trident submarines is rather like being a carrier boy for the big game hunter.

In effect, in allowing Britain to have a system like Trident, the United States is having your treasury subsidize a costly weapons system for them. You get the pride and penis-envy value out of it while America gets some costly armaments paid for by British taxpayers.

Such a system will never, never in fact be Britain’s to use according to its own judgment and for its own purposes.

The situation somewhat resembles that of the F-35 fighter jet which America is trying to foist off on every “ally.”

The F-35 is an unbelievably expensive dog of a plane, poorly designed to try doing everything and ending doing none of them well. The U.S. is pouring billions into it to try to get it half right. All the allies buying some of them, as they have been very much pressured to do, provide a huge subsidy to this effort for the Pentagon.

These are some of the most wasteful ways possible to spend British money, essentially shoveling it over to the Pentagon. And they do nothing for Britain’s defense needs or technological advance. In Trident, you have an effective but literally unusable weapon. In the F-35 you have an ineffective but usable weapon. In both cases you literally are billions poorer.

%d bloggers like this: