"Phil" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with missiles
bought from the US that carry UK designed and built warheads.
It seems to me that the missiles are simply "anglicised" after they
arrive in UK, and not really designed/built. I don't know what
"anglicised" really means, but it seems far from developped, designed
and built. What is certain is that the Trident warheads are assembled in
UK (AWE - Burghfield). I don't know what kind of rocket is used and what
kind of re-entry module is attached. Are they really "made in UK"? Or
simply assembled there?


The missiles are bought from the USA, the rentry system is
developed in the UK with technical support form Lockheed Martin

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles is subject
to UK control
Yes. I was mistaken with the NATO theatre weapons that were double
keyed.(id.)

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?
Historical relationship between US and UK ;-)


History wouldnt stop a British retaliation for a nuclear attack
no matter how much the US disapproved.


I'd be interrested in any doc about the discussions that took place
during the Falklands war arround the subject of the possible use of the
UK submarines... I already know the US administration was very worried,
to say the least, about a possible dramatic event that would encourage
the Prime Minister to retaliate with nukes.


Its hard to imagine what sort of event could cause
a nuclear response in that war, more to the point was
the British warning to Iraq in Gulf War 1 that any Iraqi
use of WMD against British forces could prompt a
nuclear response.

Keith