Missiles could be placed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk in case of potential war between Nato and Russia
The US is planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years amid a growing threat from Russia, according to a report. Warheads three times as strong as the Hiroshima bomb would be located at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk under the proposals, the Telegraph reported.
The US previously placed nuclear missiles at RAF Lakenheath and removed them in 2008 after the cold war threat from Moscow receded. Pentagon documents seen by the newspaper reveal procurement contracts for a new facility at the airbase.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “It remains a longstanding UK and Nato policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location.”
Yeah we need another nuclear arms race. Turning Europe into your nuclear backyard surely is a good idea
If memory serves me right, this was tried back in the 80s and was met with backlash from some Brits.
No, this goes back further. The first US nuclear weapons arrived in Lakenheath in 1954. There was a continuous presence of American nukes in the UK until 2008.
Thanks for the correction!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The US is planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years amid a growing threat from Russia, according to a report.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “It remains a longstanding UK and Nato policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location.”
Calls have recently come from senior figures on both sides of the Atlantic for the UK to be prepared in case of a potential war between Nato forces and Russia.
Earlier this week, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the outgoing head of the British army, said its 74,000-strong ranks need to be bolstered by at least 45,000 reservists and citizens in order to be better readied for possible conflict.
Carlos Del Toro, the US navy secretary, has urged the UK to “reassess” the size of its armed forces given “the threats that exist today”.
Downing Street defended the UK government’s spending on defence, saying Britain had been Washington’s “partner of choice” in its strikes against Houthi rebels in the Red Sea because of its “military strength”.
The original article contains 258 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 30%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is just posturing, just like putler moving nukes into belarus was
And so the Doomsday clock moves a few ticks closer to midnight. We’re bound to have a nuclear war eventually, maybe even within the next 30 years at some point. It’s like anything else, they don’t make nuclear weapons to just sit around and never be used. If they’re making them, at some point they will use them.
They do make nukes in the hope to never use them. It’s called deterrence.
No they make nukes in order to use them. They deceive themselves that they only make them for deterrence, the way people who buy guns deceive themselves into thinking they’ll only use it for protection, like the guy who shot and killed the high school girl who was in a car that turned into his driveway by accident, and as it was backing out, he fired at them from his window.
Of course he’s now on his way to a life sentence in prison. But I’m sure glad he’s well and truly protected from the incursion of rabid high school girls.
Why are you saying it like it’s a bad thing? Civilization isn’t worth preservation.
I absolutely agree with you. It’s not a bad thing it’s just a comment on the situation. Human civilization is NOT worth a plug nickel. And I’m all for the nuclear war, I just don’t want to wait around for it forever. Get on with it already!!!
Ensuring Freedom’s Future
🤮🤢🤮🧐🤮🤢🤮🧐😂
Fucking fuck off you terrorists
You can’t have freedom from an aggressive warmongering nation with nukes without a nuclear deterrent. Hate the language all you want, there is no alternative to this in today’s world.
But the UK has its own nuclear arsenal? Though I admit that fact goes both ways, nukes are kind of all or nothing so the presence of american nukes makes the situation neither better nor worse in regards to the general presence of nukes. Though in the event of launch I supposed it could lead to a situation where the US launches but the UK doesn’t but the launch location causes the UK to tank a retaliatory strike that was incited by the US.
American nukes in the UK aren’t missiles that can be launched, they are gravity bombs that are loaded onto fighter bombers and would be used tactically as part of a European ground war. This type, to be precise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb
This is not a first strike weapon nor one that can be used immediately if e.g. Russian ICBMs were to be detected en route to the UK or any other NATO country.
The presence of these weapons in the UK serves several purposes: They are part of the overall nuclear deterrent, but they are also an expression of American commitment to their European allies. It’s a signal to Russia that if a European NATO member were to be attacked, they have the ability to deploy this weapon on the battlefield. It’s not just theoretical: A total war started by Russia against NATO is unfortunately increasingly likely in the coming years, so one reason this weapon is being transferred to the UK is that there is the expectation that it might be needed soon.
Note that the UK is not the only European nation where American nuclear weapons are present. There are five NATO member states - Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Turkey - that have an agreement with the US enabling pilots from these countries to deploy American nuclear bombs in case of a war, about 20 of the same B61 type mentioned above. These nations are all threatened by Russian nukes, but have no active nuclear weapons programs of their own, so this is a vital part of their deterrent.
All of these nations, with the exception of Turkey, just recently purchased F-35 jets specifically for this mission, replacing older Tornado jets that had previously fulfilled this role. The bombs are under the full control of American officers until the American President and the heads of the respective nations’ governments have both signed off their use. The US President approves and permits American officers to unlock the weapons. The local head of government has the final word and full control over their use from that point on.
Aggressive warmongering nation
Yes, I was talking about America, thanks 😂
US needs a civil war so bad. Only thing keeping them from trying to go to war somewhere else
You do know Russia invaded Ukraine right? It also has been posturing and threatening other countries AND put nukes in Belarus right?
Two wrongs never made a right tho
So what is “right”? Do nothing then sit back and watch as Russia turns the rest of Europe into smoking rubble like Ukraine?
Also right. I don’t want to agree with the “Two wrongs don’t make a right” comment, but the idea of nuclear escalation doesn’t sit with me, because it eventually leads to M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) not as a deterrent but as a feasible reality.
I want Ukraine to push back these Russian assholes, and I’d love to see Putty suffer… but I don’t know the answer to that perfect outcome. I’m not a military strategist. I just hope that they defeat Russia.
I’m sorry for the week answer
Fair
