• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

I don't know the original price, but the Trident renewal that is currently awaiting signatures is for $54 billion. Go check. I have.

I looked and all mentions of these figures seem to be just estimates on the overall cost and no mention of how much, if any, goes to the U.S.
 
Demon, if we really tried to kill civilization with nukes, we could do it now. If we focused the world's energy on building just nukes, in 30-40 years we'd have enough to knock the moon off its orbit and into earth.

Yes I saw Space: 1999 also on TV. It was fiction.
 
Britain doesn't need nuclear weapons. It can rely on the American nuclear umbrella.:)

It's time for Britain to disarm. Brits can rely on Americans.
 
Knowing how many the enemy has helps you account for them.

Oh knock it off. This won't help Russia one bit. It's not like they can round each one of now that they know how many there are. And it doesn't make Russia any safer or have a strategic advantage to know this.

You're just looking for another thing to bash Obama with. Give it a ****ing rest.

An one more thing... How do you know the numbers are accurate? It would be easy to fudge the numbers with no way to verify them while GB pretends to be outraged. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened. The ol' man was attending an intelligence school in Europe. He said they purposely left out false documents for the janitor that was collecting information for the Russians.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps... the whole "We'll tell you the serial #'s" was a red herring, as the U.S. knew the U.K. wouldn't renew but just used it as a bargaining chip with the Russians to get what we wanted? That would be pretty shrewd.

Do you think the US making it clear it will happily give away its "allies" military secrets when they specifically said "no thanks, that's a rubbish idea" is going to go down well with other US allies?

Doesn't sound like "shrewd" to me I'm afraid.

-- If the Brits wanna keep it hush hush they should build their own damn missiles and stop leeching off us.

I just hope our UK leaders think along your lines too next time you guys come knocking looking for allies to die alongside your boys.
 
I just hope our UK leaders think along your lines too next time you guys come knocking looking for allies to die alongside your boys.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned the Brits were doing what was required of them by NATO membership.
 
As far as Afghanistan is concerned the Brits were doing what was required of them by NATO membership.

The Brits could have done the same thing as the Germans. Keep their heads down and drink imported beer. Only the Brits, Canadians and Dutch have been effective allies in combat in Afghanistan. The rest of the NATO members avoid combat.
 
Seriously, has anyone read the actual cable that supposedly said this? Anyone? I'd love a link to it. I can't really discuss or debate the issue if I haven't even read the document that formed it AS an issue.
 
As far as Afghanistan is concerned the Brits were doing what was required of them by NATO membership.

A large number of Brits died on 9/11, we also felt the threat in Afghanistan was a serious one that merited our response. There are other theatres however where we did not have to go in and I hope any future UK PM has a serious think about future partnerships with such an ally.

Interesting however that if you go back to the original State Dept response to Wikileaks when Clinton said she'd warned your "allies" of what to expect - that same month we signed a nuclear development and co-operation deal with France so our Govt must have had forewarning about your betrayal of us.
 
The Brits could have done the same thing as the Germans. Keep their heads down and drink imported beer. Only the Brits, Canadians and Dutch have been effective allies in combat in Afghanistan. The rest of the NATO members avoid combat.

Because it was not the freaking mandate to fight the Taliban. The NATO mandate was to help the Afghans in training and maintaining the peace.

The US LIED when it handed over the south to NATO, and put the Brits, Canadians, Danes, Dutch and so on in the firing line. The US said the Taliban was defeated... yea right, tell that to the dead.
 
Seriously, has anyone read the actual cable that supposedly said this? Anyone? I'd love a link to it. I can't really discuss or debate the issue if I haven't even read the document that formed it AS an issue.

Good point. Some here may be getting their partisan panties in a wad over something that is not really the case. Funny I'm not seeing it in credible news sources.
 
Good point. Some here may be getting their partisan panties in a wad over something that is not really the case. Funny I'm not seeing it in credible news sources.

Thank you. That's exactly my point. I went to the OP's link, and could not find the actual cable or even a link to it. I can't find it covered anywhere else by any other legitimate global media, and I CANNOT FIND THE CABLE THAT SUPPOSEDLY SAYS THIS.

Now if someone can link me to the cable, and it says what it is purported to say, then I shall gnash my teeth dramatically and decry the stupidity of my government. As long as I hear *crickets* every time I ask for a link to the cable, I'm thinking it doesn't freaking exist. Not like the Daily Mail is considered high-caliber journalism by the Brits themselves, after all.
 
Thank you. That's exactly my point. I went to the OP's link, and could not find the actual cable or even a link to it. I can't find it covered anywhere else by any other legitimate global media, and I CANNOT FIND THE CABLE THAT SUPPOSEDLY SAYS THIS.

Now if someone can link me to the cable, and it says what it is purported to say, then I shall gnash my teeth dramatically and decry the stupidity of my government. As long as I hear *crickets* every time I ask for a link to the cable, I'm thinking it doesn't freaking exist. Not like the Daily Mail is considered high-caliber journalism by the Brits themselves, after all.

It was reported by The Daily Telegraph, who have jumped into bed with Wikileaks to do their PR. I was not widely reported elsewhere. I was looking around the weekend press for discussion, but ti didn't seem to be a hot topic. That doesn't mean it's NOT true, though. I'm sure the government's press officers have been trying to squish too much discussion on the matter.
 
It was reported by The Daily Telegraph, who have jumped into bed with Wikileaks to do their PR. I was not widely reported elsewhere. I was looking around the weekend press for discussion, but ti didn't seem to be a hot topic. That doesn't mean it's NOT true, though. I'm sure the government's press officers have been trying to squish too much discussion on the matter.

Yea but... if true, then there has to be a link somewhere to the cable(s) themselves. As pointed out, no one has provided these links.. either from the Mail (HAHAHHAHA), Daily Telegraph or Wikileaks website. And ALL released cables are on the Wikileaks website.
 
Yea but... if true, then there has to be a link somewhere to the cable(s) themselves. As pointed out, no one has provided these links.. either from the Mail (HAHAHHAHA), Daily Telegraph or Wikileaks website. And ALL released cables are on the Wikileaks website.

Have you tried accessing wikileaks archive? I couldn't do it. Have a go and tell me what you find.
 
Nothing to see here, folks. Just another debunked fake conservative conspiracy.

Did Obama Sellout Britain To Russia On Sub Nukes? Nope, Says State Department - Swampland - TIME.com

Conservative blogs and the British press are agog over a report in London's Daily Telegraph that the U.S. provided certain information about the United Kingdom's submarine-based nuclear missile stockpile to Russia as part of recent arms negotiations. Matt Drudge nearly blew a siren on the "Secret Deal" report, which includes no quotes from either U.S. or British government sources confirming, denying or adding any context to the claim, which was apparently gleaned from a leaked document provided by Wikileaks.

As is their habit with just about any report about American-British relations, the Telegraph jumps to the conclusion that this revelation "sheds new light on the so-called 'special relationship,' which is shown often to be a one-sided affair." Perhaps the last part is true, but the U.S. State Department maintains that there is little news behind the breathless headlines. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley emails TIME:

This is bunk. Under the 1991 START Treaty, the U.S. agreed to notify Russia of specific nuclear cooperation with the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of SLBM's [submarine launch ballistic missiles] to the UK, or their maintenance or modernization. This is under an existing pattern of cooperation throughout that treaty and is expected to continue under New START. We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent.
 
Have you tried accessing wikileaks archive? I couldn't do it. Have a go and tell me what you find.

The State Dept. has not posted the Feb 2nd 2011 document updates. They have the 2010 documents listed only. The only posting I've found about this is at the following:

GENEVA: AGREED STATEMENTS MEETING - Telegraph

Specifically #13 which states:
Geneva START Agreement - U.K. Telegraph said:
13. (S) The second was an agreed statement on the transfer of Tridents II SLBMs to the United Kingdom. Begin text: Document of the Russian side February 9, 2010 Agreed Statement On the movement of SLBM "Trident-II" missiles, transferred by the US to equip the Navy of Great Britain The Parties agree that, in order to increase transparency in relation to the use of "Trident-II" SLBMs, transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America shall provide notification to the Russian Federation about the time of such transfer, as well as the unique identifier and the location of each of the transferred missiles. The Parties agree that, upon conclusion of the life cycle of "Trident-II" SLBMs transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America will send notification to the Russian Federation about the time and method of elimination, as well as the unique identifier for each of the transferred missiles. End text.

If this text is authentic, it identifies not only the transfer from the U.S. to the U.K. of new purchases, but also the missiles retired, presumably to keep an accurate account of the number of missiles in active service.
 
i wonder what the Telegraph thought of trading oil for a known, convicted terrorist.
 
The State Dept. has not posted the Feb 2nd 2011 document updates. They have the 2010 documents listed only. The only posting I've found about this is at the following:

GENEVA: AGREED STATEMENTS MEETING - Telegraph

Specifically #13 which states:


If this text is authentic, it identifies not only the transfer from the U.S. to the U.K. of new purchases, but also the missiles retired, presumably to keep an accurate account of the number of missiles in active service.

Wow! Thank you so much for that. I appreciate your taking the time.
 
Oh that is some wonderful logic there....US leaks secret information and gets busted doing so, then says through the State Dept. they didn't and all good eh....More Kool Aid?


j-mac

What's that? You might want to wipe away your own koolaid mustache before accusing me. You also might want to read the quote a little more carefully.

This is bunk. Under the 1991 START Treaty, the U.S. agreed to notify Russia of specific nuclear cooperation with the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of SLBM's [submarine launch ballistic missiles] to the UK, or their maintenance or modernization. This is under an existing pattern of cooperation throughout that treaty and is expected to continue under New START. We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent.

Since your Glenn Beck Decoder Ring TM didn't enable you to properly decipher that quote, let me explain it to you. The agreement was already in the original 1991 START Treaty. It was simply continued in the New START Treaty. So, if you want to bitch, then do so at Bush Sr, because it was his administration that negotiated the 1991 START Treaty. DO you understand now, or do you need sock puppets to better explain it to you? How does that koolaid taste?
 
Last edited:
What's that? You might want to wipe away your own koolaid mustache before accusing me. You also might want to read the quote a little more carefully.



Since your Glenn Beck Decoder Ring TM didn't enable you to properly decipher that quote, let me explain it to you. The agreement was already in the original 1991 START Treaty. It was simply continued in the New START Treaty. So, if you want to bitch, then do so at Bush Sr, because it was his administration that negotiated the 1991 START Treaty. DO you understand now, or do you need sock puppets to better explain it to you? How's that koolaid taste?


So who says Bush Sr was anything but a progressive? He did speak about the 'New World Order' did he not?

I just find it fascinating that you think that because Hillary's stooge P.J. Crowley says 'no we didn't' you take that at face value. If this were a conservative administration you'd be all up in their grill....And you know it.


j-mac
 
So who says Bush Sr was anything but a progressive? He did speak about the 'New World Order' did he not?

Now Bush Sr is considered a progressive?
crying.gif


Only in cuckoo-con-land....

I just find it fascinating that you think that because Hillary's stooge P.J. Crowley says 'no we didn't' you take that at face value. If this were a conservative administration you'd be all up in their grill....And you know it.


j-mac

I might be if somebody had actual proof. But you don't have that, do you? No source, no quotes. Just fake outrage over an unsubstantiated story. :yawn:
 
Last edited:
I might be if somebody had actual proof. But you don't have that, do you? No source, no quotes. Just fake outrage over an unsubstantiated story. :yawn:


Yeah what ever dude. Tell yourself anything.


j-mac
 
Yeah what ever dude. Tell yourself anything.


j-mac

You're the one who seems willing to believe anything. Show me some actual proof, then we can talk. An unsubstantiated story is not proof.
 
Back
Top Bottom