The United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons arsenal is crucially dependent on U.S. actions, as a key bilateral agreement is up for renewal, reports the London Guardian.
At issue is the so-called Mutual Defense Agreement, first signed in 1958. Work on the latest extension of the pact was ongoing on both sides of the Atlantic as of earlier this year, according to the newspaper’s Defence and Security Blog. The agreement is key because it enables the British military to take advantage of nuclear-weapons work conducted in the United States, including the sharing of data, test results and the use of U.S. test facilities.
British politicians have previously assured the public that the country’s stockpile of Trident warheads is reliable for another two decades or so. However, the blog quotes a Royal United Services Institute report concluding that “a limited understanding of warhead aging” makes precise estimates difficult.
In essence, the U.K. arsenal “will depend more upon external rather than internal factors,” the London-based think tank’s analysis concludes.
“Chief amongst these external factors will be the U.S. warhead program, which provides many key components of the U.K. arsenal,” according to the think tank.
In other words, how the U.S. nuclear complex proceeds in maintaining and modernizing Washington’s arsenal could affect the U.K. deterrent force.
“The U.K. may have no more luck predicting the future of the U.S. program than it does the reliability of its own arsenal,” the think tank report reads. “The U.S. program is currently in flux, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.”
Replacing the warheads would take roughly 17 years and cost the equivalent of approximately $6.65 billion at today’s prices, according to the Guardian article. Britain plans to reduce its stockpile of 225 Trident warheads to 180 or less, with up to 120 operationally available for the country’s Vanguard submarine fleet, the blog quotes a 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review as saying.
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."
Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.
Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."
Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."