Home | About | Donate

Theresa May Would be Okay Authorizing Deadly Nuclear Strike


#1

Theresa May Would be Okay Authorizing Deadly Nuclear Strike

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Newly installed U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May is prepared to authorize a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

So she said before Parliament on Monday, as the body debated whether to renew Trident, Britain's aging nuclear weapons system.


#3

In line with a long tradition of British Imperialism.

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas,I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. It would spread a lively terror.”

Winston Churchill commenting on using poison gas on Iraqis in 1922.


#5

More like the secret love-child of Maggie-Ayn Thatcher and Ronnie Raygun....


#6

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

At least the UK seems to have some kind of organized opposition to trident subs and nuclear weapons. Here it is the rare story an 80 year-old nun hammering on a minuteman silo lid, otherwise, crickets...

No one even questions the US president's prerogative to push the button.


#9

Another ludicrous right-wing POS. And, like here, if it's not her, it'll be someone just as odious.


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

Exactly. Trump and the Republicans he will fill his White House with have promised to dismantle all of the US's nuclear weapons, right?


#12

The UK prime minister cannot authorise anything. The US has the final say and access codes. TM may huff and puff all she likes, the control she wields on Trident is zero.

Furthermore, if the US decides to launch, she can't stop it.

So all this machismo is bullshit!


#13

The "It would spread a lively terror" part of that quote is new to me.


#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#15

"Donald Trump, are you prepared to authorize a nuclear strike that could kill two billion innocent people?"

"These are Trump steaks."

"Hillary Clinton, are you prepared to authorize a nuclear strike that could kill two billion innocent people?"

"Let me get back to you on that."


#16

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#18

Not true. Why don't you check your facts?

"The final decision on firing the missiles is the responsibility of the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Upon taking office, the prime minister writes four identical letters of last resort, each of which is locked in a safe on board the Vanguard submarines.....Under the terms of a missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently."


#21

Not true. Hillary supports the Iran agreement. Trump has called the Iran Agreement "The worst deal ever" expressing a belief that the $billions in frozen Iranian assets was the US's money to keep and the US was crazy to give it back to them. He has expressed a desire to either tear the agreement up or find a pretext to attack Iran.

And while you might think that Hillary is too hawkish, a majority of USAns, including almost all of those in your own state, starting on the east slopes of those nearby mountains, regard Hillary as not hawkish enough - and a "socialist" to boot. Those are the people that Hillary is (unwisely) modifying her message to.


#22

And I thought Donald Trump was crazy.


#23

All these creatures coming up from the netherworld...has humanity created the perfect climate for these monsters to inhabit, thrive, and reproduce with intent to destroy humankind? Trump, May, Al Baghdadi, Salman Saud, Kim, and any other number of petty dictators with a penchant for torture, war-mongering, and empire-building are apparently sadistic, hegemonic sociopaths full of blood-lust. Not a one has demonstrated a concern for people, the environment, or the planet Earth nor a sense of urgency to make vital changes to any and all behaviors that adversely impact all life.


#25

That being your stand, May then you should not hesitate to launch the first attack and then be made to personally account for the loss of life, injury, environmental destruction, and long term after affects by spending the rest of your life chained to the wall in any number of dungeons that remain throughout the UK...the closer to the North Sea, the better.


#27

I beg to differ

Is a British Prime Minister really free to strike any target he/she chooses in this world with nuclear weapons, at a time of his choosing, using US-supplied missiles? I doubt that the US would sell any foreign power – even a close ally – a weapons system with which the foreign power is free to do catastrophic damage to US allies, not to mention the US itself. Surely, the US must have a mechanism, under its explicit control, to prevent the targeting of states that it doesn’t want targeted?

Unlike other states, Britain is dependent on the US to manufacture an essential element of its only nuclear weapons system - the Trident missiles that are supposed to carry Britain’s weapons to target.

And Britain’s dependence on the US doesn’t end with the purchase of the missiles - Britain depends on the US Navy to service the missiles as well. A common pool of missiles is maintained at the US Strategic Weapons facility at King’s Bay, Georgia, USA, from which the US itself and Britain draw serviced missiles as required.

There is some doubt about the degree of “operational” independence that Britain enjoys in respect of its nuclear weapons system. But there is no doubt that Britain is dependent on the US for the manufacture and maintenance of a key element of the system.

The plain truth is that, if Britain doesn’t maintain friendly relations with the US, then it won’t have a functional nuclear weapons system, despite having spent billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on it - because the US would simply cease providing Britain with serviceable Trident missiles.