General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
WTF?
Things this castrofuck clown car of a government cannot pay for: junior doctors, nurses, school lunches for hungry children, council homes, roofs for schools, 40 new hospitals, keeping shite out of the rivers . . .
Things it can pay for: 2 largely broken aircraft carriers (but not enough planes for them) . . and new, home built nuclear weapons.
I, for one, am so proud our glorious MoD can defend our food banks with British made nuclear weapons! /s
It's the tight coupling between the government and arms manufacturers. I used to work at UKTrade and nearly every decision there was rooted in how we can give more money to arms companies.
Ok I looked it up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
We signed an agreement to disarm in 1952. This is another international treaty the UK is breaking.
It's really an agreement to work towards disarmament, not to just unilaterally disarm regardless of what everyone else is doing.
Article VI: Each party "undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
I can't see how for example Russia could be disarmed under strict and effective international control in the current climate.
We're not increasing the number of our warheads in service, just replacing old ones with a new design.
No they haven't. Did you even read what that treaty is about? Countries that already have nuclear weapons get to keep having nuclear weapons, and countries that don't have nuclear weapons will agree not to develop them in exchange for receiving peaceful nuclear technology. Aside from that, countries must "pursue" disarmament, but the treaty does not actually require it to happen.
Given the recent stirrings of Russia, and our proximity to their main path to the Atlantic (where most of the world's undersea internet fibres are), disarming would be incredibly foolish.
I think this is supposed to be good news.
Also "mated"? We may need a new term for that.
Given recent trends over the pond, it's probably good to have our main deterrent independent from Washington.
The delivery system, the Trident missiles, are still made by the US.
We haven’t had a nuclear-capable missile program since the 1970s.
Oh, you're right, I misinterpreted the article. Well, this seems pretty pointless then, who cares if the explodey bit is 'sovereign' if we can't get it where we need it.
We could always tie the warheads to donkeys and shoo them in the right direction.
Also Trident is a multi-stage rocket, they haven't even got the first stage working right in the last two tests, let alone the final delivery stage.