Britain without nuclear weapons

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,052
Reaction score
6,153
The fall of the Macmillan government in 1963 has been summed up in the words of Chancellor Maudling to his successor
Jim Callaghan "Good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in such a mess".
1962 had seen Britain told in no uncertain terms by President Kennedy and his Defense Secretary that Britain would not be offered Polaris and all US warheads in Europe would receive electronic locks.
Public protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had reached new highs after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Macmillan like his predecessor Eden was in poor health. Why he decided to call a snap general election in 1963 has been debated ever since. Divisions in the government over the future of the nuclear deterrent and the mismanagenent of the economy seemed to drive Macmillan to reach for his old slogan "You never had it so good".
The dynamic and charismatic leader of the Labour Party Harold Wilson derided Supermac as a tired old man who had been humiliated at Nassau by the young, modern US President.
The Labour Party were returned to power with a majority of 32 seats.
Denis Healey its Defence Secretary announced a thorough review of Britain's defence policy. At its heart would be the high cost of nuclear weapons and related systems like the TSR2 bomber. But it would also ask if Britain still needed to maintain forces outside the NATO area.
By 1964 the Review had been completed.
From 1966 nuclear weapons would be phased out of RAF and BAOR and replaced by improved conventional weapons. BAOR would be increased to three full strength Armoured Divisions by 1970 while RAF Germany would receive much needed new combat aircraft.
At the same time UK forces would be withdrawn from East of Suez.
The Royal Navy would continue to receive nuclear powered but not nuclear armed submarines up to a total of 16 units by 1975. The surface fleet would move to missile equipped gas turbine powered escorts. The case for a new aircraft carrier (CVA01) would be reviewed with NATO.
 
Why keep the BAOR?
Seriously the UK just got humiliated by the US and it's the US that wants UK forces in Germany to lend it 'international' credibility.

Cutting the Deterrent raises the question "for what instead?" and an answer that is "for The Army on the Rhine and NATO" is going to go down like a lead balloon in circumstances of "we are no longer a Great Power" ideological justification for retreat EoS.

Conservative figures (Gateskillites) will be asking why we aren't copying DeGaulle on the one hand and Liberal figures will be asking why we aren't reconfiguring along Swedish lines of armed neutrality (reversing Sandys professionalisation of thearmy) and a strong Wealthfare state.
While the Left wingers will be taking up Tito's Yugoslavian model and pointing out we should withdraw from what they will characterise as an American version of the Delian League. "The BAOR is just a tax on a subjugated UK", they will say.

The only strong point is funding the Navy here and the only thing everyone can agree on.
 
An interesting assessment. I took my inspiration for the thread from opposition to nuclear weapons by Field Marshal Carver amongst other serving soldiers.
In the early 60s (hard to believe these days) it was generally agreed that West Germany was a success story and Britain should join the Common Market (The EEC which gave way to the EC and EU).
Wilson shared this goal with Macmillan.
De Gaulle while critical of NATO would have welcomed the strengthening of Rhine Army and RAFG which were commitments under the Western European Union (WEU).
Increased production of the Chieftain tank, FV432 APC and Abbot self propelled gun would have created more jobs as would speeding up the building of the Scorpion family
 
We should also consider that this humiliation strengthens the Coup Plotters. Ironic really considering their relationship with the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom