- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,494
- Reaction score
- 8,143
The three main factors for me are;
Britain has striven since 1945 to possess nuclear weapons, even if Nassau fails there is little chance of giving up that crown, especially in the face of humiliation if the USA had withdrawn offers of support again after the post-1945 breakdown of cooperation and the very recent resumption of cooperation in 1958. So a national effort would have to be maintained somehow, the US can't get the genie back in the bottle now we have the designs of their warheads to improve our own. It could restart the work on national warheads based on those efforts that led to the Grapple tests but with refinements using US practice. Also, Macmillan wants to join the EEC, CdG isn't about to let Britain join his nuclear programme so to maintain parity with France to prevent them being the only nuclear power in Europe and to be seen to be equal in status, Macmillan would have to press on.
Why would the US let Nassau fail? Kennedy loved the idea of the MLF - the US wants all NATO warheads under its SIOP lists and to tightly control the use of nuclear weapons. They don't want another Suez situation that might lead to an excuse for the Soviet to send their arsenal westwards and across the pole and end up trigging MAD on the USA. Perversely the reverse of that concern drives the UK ambitions, they want their own weapons to make sure the US doesn't withdraw the umbrella to save their own skins and to deter the Soviets from hitting the UK or France if the Americans get liberal with their instant sunshine somewhere else (shades of Macarthur). So the US has every incentive to not only protect their nuclear IP now in UK hands but also to limit their allies freedom of operations, to risk the UK walking away risks loss of control. And has never lost it to this day.
Britain has striven since 1945 to possess nuclear weapons, even if Nassau fails there is little chance of giving up that crown, especially in the face of humiliation if the USA had withdrawn offers of support again after the post-1945 breakdown of cooperation and the very recent resumption of cooperation in 1958. So a national effort would have to be maintained somehow, the US can't get the genie back in the bottle now we have the designs of their warheads to improve our own. It could restart the work on national warheads based on those efforts that led to the Grapple tests but with refinements using US practice. Also, Macmillan wants to join the EEC, CdG isn't about to let Britain join his nuclear programme so to maintain parity with France to prevent them being the only nuclear power in Europe and to be seen to be equal in status, Macmillan would have to press on.
Why would the US let Nassau fail? Kennedy loved the idea of the MLF - the US wants all NATO warheads under its SIOP lists and to tightly control the use of nuclear weapons. They don't want another Suez situation that might lead to an excuse for the Soviet to send their arsenal westwards and across the pole and end up trigging MAD on the USA. Perversely the reverse of that concern drives the UK ambitions, they want their own weapons to make sure the US doesn't withdraw the umbrella to save their own skins and to deter the Soviets from hitting the UK or France if the Americans get liberal with their instant sunshine somewhere else (shades of Macarthur). So the US has every incentive to not only protect their nuclear IP now in UK hands but also to limit their allies freedom of operations, to risk the UK walking away risks loss of control. And has never lost it to this day.