Did Obama Sellout Britain To Russia On Sub Nukes? Nope, Says State Department

[Swede]

As is their habit with just about any report about American-British relations, the Telegraph jumps to the conclusion that this revelation "sheds new light on the so-called 'special relationship,' which is shown often to be a one-sided affair." Perhaps the last part is true, but the U.S. State Department maintains that there is little news behind the breathless headlines. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley emails TIME:

This is bunk. 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 UK, 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 UK's independent nuclear deterrent.



Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/05/did-obama-sellout-britain-to-russia-on-sub-nukes-nope-says-state-department/#ixzz1DIOtciJJ

[Statistical]

1. Not sure why Telegraph is so upset.

If they are that concerned they could just develop their own nuclear weapons.

Of course using the US developed Trident SLBM saved the UK hundreds of billions and gave them a very credible nuclear deterrent with a small number of the most advanced weapons on the planet.

A win-win situation. Since UK and US "boomers" (nuclear ballistic missile launch subs) use the same weapons platform and US under the START treaty is required to advise Russia on changes to our arsenal the whole issue is moot.

UK has two options:
1) secretly develop their own internal SLBM and warheads at huge cost (and likely inferior output)
2) use subsidized US developed Trident missiles and warhead and accept the "costs" (compliance w/ START) that goes along with it.