British nuclear weapons can protect Canada against Trump, says Chrystia Freeland

telegraph.co.uk

12 points·perihelions··5 comments

Someone should tell her that the US could shut down the UK’s nukes within two years if it wanted.

(We bought them cheap and are reliant on the US for maintenance.)

That seems ridiculous, since the context is a centuries old ally and formerly friendly neighbor that the US has threatened to violently annex for no reason. America could just apologize for its terrible behavior and there's no need for any kind of conflict at all. America unilaterally started this, and can unilaterally end it.

Unfortunately, that won't happen because a group is consciously and intentionally following a program to permanently reduce US soft power and ability to project force globally. They have succeeded, and continue to succeed.

Sounds like a business opportunity for France, to me.

Is this the so-called "Art of the Deal" I hear so much about?

Yes, but it’s difficult because (as I understand it) the French refresh cycle is out of sync with the US/UK refresh cycle.

And even if the UK decided it was ok with spending extra money early, or going without nukes for a transitional period, the French option would be more expensive (not the same economies of scale).

Plus, the UK still wouldn’t have the expertise to maintain the things, so now it would be vulnerable to the French reneging instead.

It would probably be more expensive, but I would wager not too much. As far as I know the Americans are only providing the missiles, not the warheads themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com