Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"shonen" wrote in message
...

The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear
capability to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US,
who had demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security
for their own.

No, [...] Note that the UK also developed its own independent
nuclear force

Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far
from independant from the US...

Lets see.

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 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 ;-)
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.