Why did Britain develop nuclear weapons?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2022
- The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been developed by American and British scientists working together, but soon after the Second World War, Britain found itself out of the loop with the US no longer willing to collaborate. The Soviet Union tested their own nuclear weapon in 1949. And the United States was on its way to testing the first H- bomb, 1000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Britain was desperate to enter the arms race. And by 1952 it succeeded with Operation Hurricane, becoming the third nuclear power in the world.
But why? Why did Britain want nuclear weapons when already part of NATO and close allies with the US? And why do they still have them today?
View and licence the film clips used in this video on the IWM Film website: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
Check out V-bomber items in the IWM Duxford Shop:
shop.iwm.org.uk/p/28150/V-for...
shop.iwm.org.uk/p/28117/V-for...
CREDITS:
Photo of William Penney, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls and John Cockcroft © Los Alamos National Laboratory
Nuclear radiation sign on the Montebello Islands © Brian Gordon Bush via Research Gate
Ted Rollo on Trimouille Island reading the radiation level at ship debris via xnatmap.org
Explosion of the first Soviet nuclear bomb. (Photo: U.S. Department of Energy
CND marches from the 1960s © cnduk.org
Because of the French, of course!
Its always to do with the French 😂
France cannot have nice things!
-- The British Gov't probably
you've been watching too much Yes Minister.
I know you’re being facetious, but this time it’s because the Americans found themselves with a weapon they didn’t want to entrust to the same British allies who helped them to develop them in the first place.
The french will be happy when the brits nuke the banliues😂
My Dad was at the Dominic nuclear tests on Christmas Island. He was part of a British contingent of troops there to support American tests. He died of a rare cancer associated with exposure to nuclear radiation. He was still very proud of his service and so am I. Our countries should recognise those that died as a result of these tests.
If your country is anything like ours, they will deny that any sort of sacrifice like that was made, because they don't want to have to pay the families for killing servicemen with radiation. I know my government is scummy enough to cover something like that up, 100% for sure.
My uncles Barry and Paul chuckle used to transport the warheads between facilities.
My grand uncle's wife's friend of a friend worked on the British Prostitution Fallout, a secret project of King Charles to create a stripclub with Armageddon as the theme.
My grandfather was also on Christmas Island during two of the nuclear bomb test. Fortunately he never got cancer, but as a result he was almost deaf and blind.
My grandpa was in the Royal Navy commanding a small battle ship that was also supposed to be near the Christmas Island for the Dominic nuclear test, but he already inhaled too much radiation, asbestos, lead, and good old horse glue while in the service for 15 years, so his dumbass showed up at the Easter Island instead and just sat there wondering wondering "where in the fuck was everyone else".He was forgiven and given a full Royal pardon by Her Majesty the Queen herself few years later when he drove some ungreateful stupid Indjans to a detterment camp while giving them a best seat in the house (or ship technically) so they can see a gigantic thermonuclear bomb being dropped on their homes in their native Cook Islands. Rule Britannia!
As an Aussie I can say, I am proud we helped the Commonwealth in its development of nuclear weapons, and I am glad Britain still stands today at our side armed with the results of those tests. We live in peace because of these efforts.
Commonwealth? Which other countries did Australia help in making nukes? Not India for sure, the largest country in the group.
@@mvjoshi no you are right, India got nuke tech from the russians
@@mvjoshi they helped the most important country out of the bunch lol
@@mvjoshi when he says commonwealth he meant britain i guess
Until we don't
Maybe until a bit of Russian kit goes wrong and they think we are attacking them.
From what I've read, the "Tsar" bomb was designed to yield 100 MT. But Sakharov did some calculations, and determined that if it were exploded with that yield, it's fall-out would have landed in populated areas. So, he "de-tuned" it. I think he was aiming at a 50 MT yield, a bit less than the actual 57 MT.
Yes. So powerful that its too dangerous to test
Yea and they made 100mt for reserve it means they can use that if needed
His decision to lower the yield saved the life's of the Pilot and servicemen on the plan that dropped it, I think that was one of his main concerns,
The Zohar Bomba was one of the cleanest detonations of a Megaton Bomb ever made
@@giggoty4926 that's not what it's for lol
Thank You!
For this informative video!
High Explosive Research, and a talent for understatement!
Unbelievably High Explosive Research seems better.
Originally it was Tube Alloy Research and the MAUD committee (named after the housekeeper of Niels Bohr).
Technically that is what a nuclear bomb is.
It can be answered in a few words "So we do not have to depend on the whims of other nations to defend ourselves - political or economical".
But we do. That is why we are in NATO. There is no way America would let the UK trigger a nuclear war. They would nuke us themselves before they would allow that to happen. We are along for the ride. That is all. If they stopped selling us Trident missiles we would have to develope our own and that is simply beyond our rersources to do.
@@Makeyourselfbig Nonsense.
@@alphashavingworks Don't read much do you.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent. We can't fire our nukes without American agreement.
@@Poliss95 utter nonsense.
My recently deceased uncle helped install Thor missiles in the UK in the fifties. He and my aunt had wonderful, lifelong memories of your fine country. They were installed there because they were the first ballistic missiles, with a 700 mile range, and it was either that, or leave Europe defenseless at a time when The Korean Conflict and upcoming trouble in SE Asia had spread the West pretty thin.
Lived 3 miles from RAF Driffield and Catfoss Thor sites for several years .Exciting times!
My grandfather was stationed on Christmas Island. He described fire as far as eye can see. A light so bright, he could still see it, with his eyes closed and hands over his eyes.
I met a kiwi who was in op grapple he is one of only 2-3 left of his contingent,
He said fallout got a lot, A lot of cancer deaths,
He said there plotter got them to close to the drop zone
poor protection equipment and other factors contributed to the deaths of many in the long term
He went on into the SAS for both nz and england and had some gruesome tales to tell
Anyway these guys are heros in my eyes may the rest in peace with honor and digintiny
We have nuclear weapons in order NOT to use them.I am not being cynical,I am serious.
You don't hit me with that stick I won't hit you with mine
Agreed, I'm 75 and still here.
That's deterrence baby. Just wish more people understood that.
Damn Sherlock how did you figure that out? All on your own too?
@JZ's BFF Mutually NOT Agreed Destruction
If Ukraine had kept their Soviet era nukes instead of giving them to Russia in exchange for a U.S.-U.K.-Russia signed agreement to keep Ukraine’s borders, would they be invaded now? Nukes are frightening, but nuclear power is very useful, and having nuclear weapons probably mean a country will never be invaded.
they had the nukes, but not the launch codes. and the russians knew this. it's unclear if it would have worked as a deterrent.
Perhaps even more reason to invade, RU nuclear capability is in doubt because corruption may have potentially siphoned off funding to maintain their own arsenal They're buying rockets from North Korea currently so this almost confirms that they were not maintaining their own weaponry correctly.
@@dnltbrca So you replace those parts with new electronics if you are unable just to rework it and change the code (no magic, we talk about old technology so it would be probably doable). People should stop looking at the launch code as some Harry-Potter-like magic able to stop everything.
Also Ukraine was broke after the breakup. Maintaining a bunch of ageing nukes wasn't a priority.
@@mungo7136 obviously it wasn’t seen as doable or worth it compared to just handing them over smh
A few points:
Why does developing our own atomic weapons make the UK 'stand as an aggressor on the world stage'? As far as I know UK nuclear weapons policy has never, ever, envisioned first use.
Britain didn't actually rely just on Blue Steel until Polaris took over in 1970; the unreliability of the Blue Steel motor had already brought about the deployment of the WE177 gravity weapon which would be released from a low level toss manoeuvre. The 177 then continued in service with Buccs and Tornados pretty much to the end of the century.
I think you got a little mixed up over Trident. Each of the current boats can carry 16 missiles, not 8, each missile having up to 8 MIRVs. This would make the maximum load-out 128 warheads, although in practice this has been reduced to 40 spread across 8 missiles to meet arms reduction targets. Perhaps this is where your number of 8 came from?
For a more balanced approach to the CND activities in the 1980s, it might be worth mentioning that the US deployment of cruise missiles was a response to the Soviet forward deployment of SS-20 nuclear-armed IRBMs. I would of course never suggest any link with KGB support for Western anti-nuclear movements and CND's vociferous and highly one-sided actions at the time.
But the main thing is that this piece doesn't answer the question in the title; it's just a, slightly inaccurate, summary of UK nuclear weapons systems. The actual answer is that in any sane world nuclear weapons do not make sense. We should not have them. One can argue that they would only be used when there is no other way of winning a war of national survival, but on the other hand their use is likely to end in the obliteration of civilisation for both one's own nation, the enemy, and a whole bunch of other nations that happen to be sharing the planet too. But the world isn't sane. For nuclear weapons to be a deterrent there has to be credibility of capability (ie you have nukes and they'll work as advertised) and credibility of use (in extremis you will press the button). Back in the 1940s when not much was known about nuclear weapons and there were very few of them about it sort of made sense that they would be used again if the Soviets or Chinese got any more territorially ambitious, a policy known as Tripwire. They became a routine part of political and military policy. And that was the trap, they could not be un-invented and they proliferated wildly. Now we have to live with them and rely on potential enemies not being totally sure we won't press the button, however unlikely that may seem. It truly is a MAD world.
Past imperialism idiocracy,
Incorrect. Backin the 70/80's We exercised every year training for the Soviet invasion of W.Germany. The exercises involved all NATO forces and took place throught Germany not just on training areas. They lasted arounf 4-5 weeks om average. After much to-ing and fro-ing the end conclusion was always that NATO would be forced to go nuclear by the third week of any conflict to prevent a Russian/Soviet breakthrough. So NATO / UK would have used them first.
@@georgerobert4709 It's more likely that was just an exercise planning condition to allow things to go into the next phase. We went through the same thing in RAFG but it was not a reflection of actual policy.
@@georgerobert4709 So it would be a defensive launch and not an aggressive launch.....
>A few points:
Why does developing our own atomic weapons make the UK 'stand as an aggressor on the world stage'?
Would you say the same for Pakistan or North Korea?
The UK still builds its own nuclear warheads at Aldermaston. The Polaris rocket bus was common, as is Trident, but the warhead is all home grown....
By that I mean that the US builds trident rockets. These are solid rocket motors with sophisticated guidance and navigation systems. At the top is a mounting system, normally a ring or something similar. Onto this can be fitted warheads.
The US also builds and maintains its own warheads. These are the re-entry vehicles, which are independently guided to their own targets. These are the MIRVs. The UK builds its own MIRVs and mounts them on the rockets. They're then covered with an aerodynamic shroud and loaded into the submarines.
"The UK builds its own MIRVs" Hardly, the warheads are a US W76 design, and all four UK submarines were built to an American design at Barrow-‐in Furness. France has an indigenous nuclear deterrent, we don't. We did, but as usual the cowardly British little local politicians sold the country out to the Americans.
I was part of an underground utility surveying team doing some works a mile or two away from the AWE. Even though we'd heavily communicated with them and put in the reams of paperwork, within 5 minutes of starting, we had a land rover full of armed police turn up and challenge us. They were polite etc but still a little scary lol.
We were actually planning the route for an additional 33kV cable but they would only give us a rough guide of where the cable was to finish in the highway along one of the side fences. And then only a few select engineers that did the installation for SSE would know where it actually crossed into the property. Then AWE themselves would take it across their land and into their substation.
Very interesting job.
The Mk-4A Reentry body used by British D5s is manufactured in the US.
Very cool bit of information! I've wondered about the production process myself. So, you're saying that the U.S. builds the rocket but Britain enriches and installs its own uranium? I suppose 'common' sense would tell me that the bigger the payload, the longer the delivery as well as other things like weight change the type of rocket needed? A few years back, I ordered and built one of those models of both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. ICBMs. When I stood back and looked at them, the first thing I noticed was that the U.S. "stockpile" looked smaller than the Russian display. I suppose all of that becomes irrelevant once that button gets pushed, doesn't it. According to my research, at the moment and due to government secrecy, there's no real accuracy as to a 'head count's on who's got more. Apparently, Russia holds about 6,500 while the U.S. holds around 5,500. Sound about right? I've also been looking into the "Satan II" also, which is said to be the largest missile ever made - pointed right at the Pentagon, I'm sure. I heard about that one a few years back also but then it kind of went quiet. That's a bit concerning when you think of all those ex KGB's out there who are now jobless but still carrying documents, for sale to the highest bidder. In the 20th century, the world feared these things and it still does but..this is the 'digital' age and no longer the 'industrial' age. That being said, what new weapons lay in wait? One doesn't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know that, that keyboard IS a weapon! And, a deadly one. It has the capability to not only turn one's life into a living hell, but from there, it will literally starve that same person with pinpoint accuracy. Personally..give me back my 20th century. This place sucks now! Technology is supposed to make life easier, not more complicated. Just getting a job now has become a monumental task. Thanks for the info. I have an entire playlist just on nuclear war itself and there's enough out there to fill it up.
@@duanemcclure8324 For the current warheads, Britain takes American designs, modifies them and then manufactures that new design themselves. They manufacture their own physics packages using UK sourced materials. The US supplies the reentry vehicles and some other non-nuclear components such as fuzes and tritium reservoirs.
There's much more to it than installing domestic uranium.
The US is believed to have around 5428 warheads vs 5977 for Russia.
“Bigger bomb=more peace” is kinda counterintuitive, but it’s hard to argue with the results.
It has been since the dawn of man.
So how many years of peace have the US or UK had since 1945?
@@stephen4121 How many world wars since 1945 ?
If there was a better answer we'd do it I'm sure.
Add to that a reliable/effective method of delivery and your argument is complete sir.
Excellent video, as alway.
Impressive and terrifying , all at the same time .
The greatest benefit was aesthetic--the V bombers had to be the most beautiful fleet of Armageddon ushers ever built. Pretty expensive artwork, though.
Nuclear Art Deco.......
I thought this was a really good and balanced video. There’s a small error where you say that Polaris missiles were developed at Aldermaston. Presumably you mean the Polaris warheads. The missiles were of course US developed and produced.
Great video!
We have a nuclear deterrent as we can be trusted not to go nuclear till absolutely necessary!
Nuclear weapons is one thing, but Nuclear power is something that the world should invest in more. France is a leader in this and we all should follow them including the UK and US.
The 'Green' lobby has done more harm the their cause of 'saving the planet' than good.
The war in Ukraine should tell you that nuclear power stations are far too dangerous for anyone to have. Nuclear power is a very short-term solution that will leave long term problems. Nobody can guarantee the stability of countries for 100,000 years and that's how long the deadly radiation is going to be around for.
@@Poliss95 the opposite, everyone should have nuclear energy as it is a clean and safe long term solution
@@Poliss95 Your just wrong, here are Three videos from Kyle Hill a former SCI/COMM advisor to the White House. First one is on Nuclear power as a whole. 1. th-cam.com/video/J3znG6_vla0/w-d-xo.html
Second is on Nuclear waste. 2. th-cam.com/video/4aUODXeAM-k/w-d-xo.html
Third is on the Three Miles Island incident. 3. th-cam.com/video/cL9PsCLJpAA/w-d-xo.html
Please watch these videos they are incredibly detailed and explain away a lot of the myths about Nuclear energy.
@@ryanhasmanners9997 Rasayan bhai
My father worked on constructing the Blue Streak site at Spadeadam back in the late 1950s.
I've been there a couple of times on the guided tour, courtesy of the RAF, who use Spadeadam as an electronic warfare range.
2:15 "... to stand as an aggressor on the world stage" is a very curious choice of words.
This seems to be a description of what nuclear weapons the UK has held not why the UK has nuclear weapons
Maybe if they ammended the title to "How does Britain..." rather than "Why..."
@@sergarlantyrell7847 YES! This video is basically is a history of uk relationship with nuclear weapon, not analysing the reason why uk chose to develop, test, and keep a nuclear weapon in the first place
@@renebaebae0600 uk has at sea deterrant, its a good idea as any country launching on us would get wiped out. i dont agree with nukes but in an unsafe world i feel that at sea is best
Personally I entirely agree with the UK keeping nuclear weapons, I don't belive we need to expand our traditional military, air force or navy, but keeping nuclear weapons present deters agression on a world war level and restricts the world to proxy wars rather than all out direct conflict.
Yes it's all good when it's the middle eastern countries that's killing each other on our behalf.
We absolutely do need expand our armed forces it would be daft not to
Is it Okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons too?
@@shakanawao5950 I've been reading your other comments and your such a melt hahaha
@@Giantist it is ALWAYS the player with nuclear weapons who advocates disarmament. Those who don't have the ultimate defence against invasion would love to be able to shield themselves so
Excellent curator…🤯👍👍👍
Very interesting video. Lots of interesting information which is genuinely new to me. It exhibit really seems worth a visit.
There was and still is a reason why CND was opposed to nuclear weapons and NATO.
‘As for Soviet funding of CND, it was proven in November 1991 that the KGB bankrolled the British Communist Party throughout the 1970s - the very period when (as Bruce Kent repeatedly acknowledged) only the support of the Communist Party and of the Quakers enabled CND to survive.’
Of course they did, all these clowns protesting against NATO are all on the bank roll of Russia. Take one look at the average staff levels in a Russian embassy versus every other country. Full of spies and agents.
NATO wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Russia and it would have died out if Russia didn't invade ukraine.
That doesn’t invalidate their basic argument that no-one should have these weapons. All it does prove is that the CND were the Soviets’ “useful idiots” in the West, at a point of particular tension during the Cold War, whose purpose was to try to divide and weaken the NATO nuclear alliance.
@@feliscorax like Russia or China would give up their nukes? Yeah never…
@@feliscorax The term 'useful idiots' originates in the USA and has no connection to Russia at all. Neither Lenin nor Stalin said it.
The term was first coined by the San Fransisco Examiner in 1948.
Neil Kinnock that tried to start a union level rebellion was trained in the Karl Marx University. Yet the media would never talk about this.
So many commonwealth countries and the resources of scientists from Britain were involved in the Manhattan Project, that they could be thought of as instrumental in the development of the first fissile bombs of WWII. I knew a physicist, who was heavily involved in the development. He was an Australian who held deep regrets over his participation in the research. It could be said that he was haunted by this.
Wikipedia; 35 year Doctor Louis Slotin died 30th May 1946.
Yes, and Britain also supplied the key Russian spy, Klaus Fuchs. Then there was Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, etc. So, Britain not only supplied some important scientists but also important spies.
It is better to be haunted than dead!
Kept the world safe ultimately.
WWIII hasn't happened simply because of nuclear weapons, they've collectively saved billions of lives.
Great history lesson. 👍
Great Video Paris 🔥
Strange, that she doesn't mention the WE177, it predesessor and she could have expanded on Skybolt? Ok the last one never made it into service but they would have been inpressive on a Vulcan B3, if they had ever built it? We used to load a single 28lb practice bomb to the Vulcans, it looked ridiculous in that bomb bay. But it had similar balistic characteristics to the above so I suppose it was useful?
so we don't get Ukraine'd
Interesting.. thank you 👍
Excellent video 📹 👏
Pretty crazy that the US actually sold the Polaris and tridents to the UK. Special relationship indeed
@MR Blaze Pukka The 'father of nuclear physics' and first to split the atom, was actually a New Zealand citizen named Ernest Rutherford, who moved to England after graduating from university in NZ.
US industry is private meaning they are owned by people. Hence why they sell their products. And the UK got a very special deal out of it. No other country got that deal.
@MR Blaze Pukka The Americans had the first atomic pile. Chicago-1.
Yep. The special relationship that only liars can have.
The Americans still worried about an attack from the UK coming through Canada until the 1970s, and it's purely a case of "never bite the hand that feeds you". In joint training we have nuked the USA TWICE. (not really obviously but the Americans were a bit shocked to find out a Vulcan bomber from Canada could Nuke the white House)
Vanguard-class are able to carry up to 16 SLBMs just like the Resolution-class.
they enter service soon aswell
The presentation is in error is stating that the Trident boats carry eight missiles. They carry sixteen missiles, as do most missile submarines (US, French).Each missile has multiple warheads which are independently guided (MIRVs) so that 16 missiles can deliver weapons to up to 100 targets; though some of these are dummies. The Royal Navy missiles have been fitted with forms of MIRV since Chevaline, the British modification to Polaris which was undertaken by Aldermaston - rather than buy the US Poseidon missile. Trident has replaced that generation of missiles.
@@marc21091 The US Ohio class can carry 24 but are now limited to 22 because of treaties.
The Launch systems electronics are from the 1980’s though. Does it work?
I live in South Africa. That's in the Southern Hemisphere .
By next year it will be called earth's only hemisphere .
My grandmother talked about seeing the montebello island test. My grandfather was the Broome postmaster at the time.
Why does Britain have nuclear weapons? The same reason USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, etc. etc. Because they can.
Because they can? No. They can only claim to have nuclear weapons and their gullible citizens will believe it.
Apart from the fully armed Vanguard submarine on patrol at sea, another one is maintained at Faslane fully armed ready to replace the sub on patrol. If the Vanguard submarine at Faslane survived a first strike, then it could also launch its 16 Trident missiles. It is presumed that the sub on patrol would target Moscow and the one at Faslane would target the greater Murmansk area, home to the Russian Northern Fleet.
My Dad was RAF based on Christmas Island, he was a sparky on the runway, he loved it there, still alive at 87, he saw 6 nukes in his time there.
Very interesting
My mom's cousin, who worked as an engineer for General Electric in Pittsfield, Massachuesetts, was a lead engineer on the guidance system for the Polaris missile system.
that's awfully specific from someone with the name anonymous. I hope you have life lock friend.
Canada was also involved in the Manhattan Project with the Chalk river project , that was where the uranium was mined and first processed before being shipped to Los Alamos.
A few weeks ago I was out in the middle of the desert in Australia on a dirt bike. I stopped off for a moment at the remains of the Blue Streak Rocket. Launched in 1964, not found until 1980, in the sand 50k SE of Giles in the Western Australian wilderness.
Delta-Winged Avro Vulcan bomber, what an incredible aircraft, one still on view by Rayleigh Wier Essex. Its part on the recapture of the Falklands is boys own British bollocking rollocks too. God Save the Bream.
The bombs the Vulcan's dropped on the airfield didn't even manage to close it. The main effect was on the morale of the Argentine's.
@@Poliss95 …. Therefore a success 👍🏻👍🏻
@@Poliss95 Yes, well, Bomber Command was hardly going to win the Second World War on its own, either, and yet it remains absolutely pivotal in the story of Nazi Germany’s eventual defeat.
@@Poliss95 One bomb hit the runway. One. It was an absolute waste of resources.
@@Hartley_Hare That one bomb stopped the possible use of A4 skyhawks and Mirages from the Islands.
I know it was a different political era, but 7 ground-atmosphere nuclear tests (with fission bombs) were conducted at Emu Field and Maralinga in the South Australian side of the Great Victoria Desert in the early to mid 1950s (Operation Buffalo and Operation Antler). Despite being about 800km from the city of Adelaide, the fallout from the early bombs tests there were significantly detected at very high levels of radiation in rainwater at Adelaide (using Geiger counters) by an Australian scientist named Hedley Marson. ASIO got wind of Marsden's experiment and aggressively silenced him by confiscating his equipment and threatening him with the Secrets Act and no employment as a scientist if he published. Despite Pig Iron Bob (Bob Menzies, the PM) allowing the British to use outback Australia as a nuclear test site, no plutonium (except scattered in the soil at the contaminated test sites) or significantly shared results of the tests or bomb design were allowed to Australian nuclear scientists as quid pro quo for irradiating and poisoning our land, and causing cancer in many servicemen and women (on the Australian side) assisting with these nuclear tests, or the neglect of Indigeous Australians by allowing them fatal exposure to fallout at short range and associated radiation sickness and cancers of these people from fallout dust and contaminated food and water in their environment. Little or no compensation was paid out by any British governments for injuries and deaths caused by the British nuclear tests in Australia to any Australian victims of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, including my mother.
They left plutonium scattered across the ground at Maralinga.
Twas criminal, and yet to be accounted for properly.
Amazing
Great commentary by Paris Agar, very clear grammar and an enthusiastic presentation 👍🏻
Interesting story on the history of nuclear weapons and their deployment in the service of the UK. A program note: At 9:06 the script discusses submarine-launched ballistic missiles calling them "Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles". Submarine-launched missiles are in fact called "Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles" or SLBMs, not ICBMs (their long-range, land-based counterparts).
You are right however SLBM's are about the same range as ICBM's nowadays. Range of 3000+ miles.
Thank You for not glossing over the environmental and human impact British Nuclear testing had on Australia. 👍
There should have been a specific mention of Maralinga.
@@mikemontagne2703 The UK would like to regain Australia like they have Canada, whereas the rest of us say bring on the republic and screw the UK. The UK wants to pretend they committed no atrocities in Australia, hahaha pull the other one. Lets get an Australian prime minister with balls who brings the UK to its knees in a world court.
It ensures that the likes of Australia is safe from Russia.
@@bighands69 yeah cos Russia is really a threat to Australia....
How many countries has Russia invaded the last 25 years? How many countries has the UK or US invaded?
Great video, but I would have ended it with a wider conclusion and not so abruptly.
The Vanguard class were built with 16 missile tubes. Load-out and warheads per missile can be reduced in peace time for a sub-strategic role.
Britain without nuclear weapons is like the USA having a Major Allies cut to the knees, but by having thermonuclear weapons,the UK could present both fear and deterrence to it's enemies.
Britain is a small country and it should behave like a small country.
Whether we have nuclear weapons or not that's not for Uncle Sam to worry about..
You have your own toys to play with.
@@Dave-hu5hr Counterpoint,it is,your nation is a vital Global Allie of the USA,with The UK having nuclear weapons,it helps the USA secure Western and Central Europe.you have no idea how vital is A USA UK ALLIANCE.
@@junpinedajr.8699 it's certainly not vital to the US. They can operate fine without the UK. It is essential for the UK if it wishes to pretend it matters.
@@junpinedajr.8699 Yes we know just more wars - talk of peace before a war not after
The idea of nuclear weapons is not to use them ,a bit like airbags in your car
I'd say a better analogy would be a four-inch spike in the middle of your steering wheel.
Which makes it ridiculous when people criticize North Korea for having them.
@@gabork5055 not really.... When cars have airbags that can go off uncontrollably , they get recalled. Loose cannon countries should not have them.
@@shaneward6689 Double standards.
As far as i know Korea never invaded anyone, Korea was however invaded before so who's really the loose cannon here?
I don't think it's North Korea.
@@gabork5055 Kim Jong un is a loose cannon, a dictator has complete control over a country, there is no override , same with Russia , that's what makes it a loose cannon situation
Scary stuff
Should have picked the Great Barrier Reef.
Would have been a more memorable lesson one might assume.🤔
The balance of power
Interesting how popular history has written Britain's contribution out of the manhatten project.
Not really. Anyone who has done a cursory study on it knows the British involvement.
@james brooks not true… we learned about it in middle school…
Interesting how Britain writes out the significant role the Australian scientist Mark Oliphant played in the Tube Alloys and Manhattan programs and portrays Australia's contribution as nothing more than a testing ground...
@@Poliss95 “Popular history” ≠ “a cursory study”. Therefore, yes, the British contribution to the success of the Manhattan Project has been written out of the picture - just like the US was reluctant to use British Lancaster bombers for the attacks on Japan, being fortunate that the B-29 became available when it did to permit the two nuclear strikes to be an “all-American” affair.
@@StuSaville True; although Australian Citizenship came into existence in 1948, in constitutional matters, Australia was still technically a self-governing dominion rather than a sovereign state in its own right (that status would not be achieved until the 1984 Australia Act came into force), so this was still very much seen in the historical context as “the British Empire’s bomb”. You can hear this in the commentary and reportage on the subject via British Pathé, for example.
Do the UK launch system electronics work as it’s from the 1980’s?
9:02 I can't get over how cool that looks. God help us.
To this day, the weapon preparation area at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base Edinburgh in South Australia is called “blue steel”. The airside area (where the V-bombers were frequent visitors) is called the “tech area”. This is a throwback to the ‘50’s to differentiate it from the Weapons Research Establishment (WRE) at Salisbury, a few kilometres away. The now obsolete Orion aircraft technician training facility was opened by Leonard Cheshire, ex RAF 617SQN CO.
Reminders of the ties between Britain and Australia throughout the decades of weapons development at Woomera, Salisbury, Edinburgh and Elizabeth are everywhere. I mean...just look at the names of these places! Australia, however, never accepted nuclear weapons.
yet
In the 50's Sweden's parliament was told by the engineers that had long been working on the nuclear program they had all the materials to start assembling a nuclear bomb, but the parliament voted against it. For all kinds of reason. Not wanting to make things worse, and hoping that they wouldn't become a target if they didn't build and use them. I would assume that that's what's happend. I guess it also saves money since these things requiers maintenance and reloading to keep working etz. It is however unfortunate that the world has as many Nuclear weapons as it's got, but it could have been far worse, a lot of countries could have gotten them and they only spell the end of humanity, and have very little good to offer. Nuclear power however was a welcome addition to the energy mix.
You don't need a lot of them just a small number that can be mounted on subs and you have an effective deterrent. A large number is extremely expensive to maintain, a handful is not.
IMHO it is a pity Sweden did not, "Go it alone". Maybe a collaboration with Britain and France may have give Europe a completely independent nuclear deterrence in no way reliant on the US and only to be used in the interests of the US if that interest coincided with European interests. An opportunity lost.
Britain only has 200 and it costs billions a year, that's after the costs of developing and testing (it'll be into the hundreds of billions spent all in). I doubt Sweden could afford it, Sweden isn't a poor country at all but there's far far less people there paying tax to fund it
@@mrcaboosevg6089 North Korea has them and their estimated GDP is 5% of Swedens.
The GDP percapita of Sweden is 25% higher than the UK's. In theory having just 10-20 well maintained ready to fire would probably be enough to serve as a deterrent on top of more conventional arms and resources. Russia has been buying parts and tools for their nuclear programs from Sweden for a very long time, that has been put on hold now however. There seems there is a lot of dangerous tech that's sold that probably shouldn't but when the customer gets a not a lot of them seems to have a problem with it, Bush came personally on an unannounced visit when they got a no on certain stuff. The world would have been better off without some of that stuff out there. Sweden cracked the Germans Enigma and it's big brother long before the Brits did back in WW2. Doing that however is understandable, knowing whats happening helps keep you safe.
@@mrcaboosevg6089 The cost becomes irrelevant at the point when the nation needing to use the weapons has to gain permission from the nation supplying them first! The word no at that juncture has cost what? What if the supplying nation's requirements at that juncture do no coincide with the nation requiring to use the weapon for defence purposes. Not having a completely independent weapon system does not make any sense whatsoever. We've already witness how the US can bully its closest allies into abandoning a path which the US did not wish to happen - Suez!
Had Sweden/France/UK and who knows who else in Europe had manufactured their own weaponry they would not be so dependent upon the goodwill of the US which will always only ever act when it is in the interest of the US to do so.
The 60s have seen it all, from the nuclear test to the first man steps on the moon
America naming their nuclear program "Project Manhattan", and Britain just naming it "High Explosive Research" is just the most British thing ever.
And the "Atomic Weapons Establishment" , existing to this day, was set up to carry out the project.
M.A.D is a good solid concept that has thus far prevented all out nuclear war. I believe i've heard that the UK also has some subs very close if not inside enemy waters occasionally where it can launch a devastating initial salvo against critical infrastructure.. the other powers know this and can't predict where they are so i guess thats also useful from a psychological warfare standpoint. Id imagine theres a range of other scenarios like being invaded and somehow no one honours the NATO mutual defence pact.. or maybe there is no one else left. Who knows tbh. Id figure it's a - better to have them than not to have them just incase type of situation. No one knows the future for sure afterall.
The UK Is very difficult to invade and the only country that could do it would be the US and the US is not going to be invading the UK.
The real purpose of the UK having nuclear weapons is to ensure that any country that would intend using them against the UK would get them in return.
Look up how many nuclear near misses there have been and you'll be a lot more doubtful that owning nuclear weapons is safe as long as we abide by mutually assured destruction. The US has literally lost a plutonium warhead when the plane carrying it crashed over the US, and the USSR once almost launched their nukes because their early warning satellite mistook the light reflected off a cloud for a nuclear strike.
MAD is only a good policy, when your adversary also adheres to it. Russia; believes nuclear war can be won.
The British nuclear deterrent is terrifying for a few reasons the icbm split into 16 or 32 separate warheads each devastating even the largest country’s would suffer horrifically but the biggest deterrent for any nation is the way in which British authorises its use of nukes each sub captain has a safe with a letter of which is written by the prime minster when first taking office if britian was to go down a sub captain then opens the letter which has one of four things on it the basic be all of it is is the captain can deem to fire. Unlike other nations where it has to go through a big chain of command also Britain’s weapons are probably off its enemy’s coast line stopping one is all but impossible
Don't any of you modern generations of so-called British people, today, ever ask yourself the obvious big questions? If you did, you'd all be horrified at what you'd see and learn!
For a start you'd all be questioning today, why Britain, the country to have invented more than any other in this world, and has invented more military hardware than any other in this world is one of the few countries in this world today, without any sort or kind of defence at all?
The reality really is, that this country, an Island nation, should easily be the best protected country on earth today? But are we? Don't make me laugh, our defences for this country consist of a couple of Type 45 destroyers that can't even shoot down unmanned aircraft or any modern missiles, let alone trying to defend against an ICBM attack.
We have NOTHING at all. And why do you really think that is? Could it be because the USA could not allow us our own ability to defend our airspace?, because that would mean we could simply lock our airspace down if we ever needed or wanted too? The truth is, the USA could not allow us our own ability to lock down our own airspace, as it would mean we could also lock it down to the USA? And they would simply not allow that, this is our REALITY.
Now you only need to think, who would the country be that either Russia or China would attack and destroy as a warning to the USA to back right off without having to target the USA?
Us of course, we are perfect for the USA, as we are their alarm clock, If we get struck and wiped out, the USA then knows they've gone too far, we'll be wiped out, and only then it will see the USA back off, and come to an agreement, but far too late for any of us?
We'll just be history, and another FACT hardly any understand about our real relationship with the USA is, should that happen, you'd see the USA claim it as a public holiday every year, (to celebrate the day the USA fooled her real enemy, the UK, to commit suicide).
But read our own superbly educated crop of people today? They all see some kind of GREAT ALLY?
The US hadn't really shown their hand to the Soviets by using the atom bombs. The Russians already knew of the nuclear research by 1943. In July 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, Truman informed Stalin of the existence of the Bomb. Stalin of course didn't know the technicalities by this stage but, time would change that.
Stalin knew of the bomb development and he knew of the Trinity test. What he didn't know is if the Allied forces would use the bomb or not. One could easily make the argument that the use of the bomb sped up the Soviet entry into the Pacific War as without participation they would not have a rationale to claim compensation. This is why Stalin continued military action in the Kurils until the surrender agreement was signed on September 2, 1945. He wanted to occupy as much area as possible before the War officially ended.
Thanks to the Cambridge Five and a few other Commies.
@@Johnnycdrums Aye I get annoyed a little over those guys. I wasn;t even born lol
they looks good in photos with the cogris?
The captioning is completely off and not showing toward the end, making it unwatchable sadly, can you fixed it please?
Because they don't expect anyone else to protect threm
Friends of mine have dived the lagoon at Montebello. Its still radioactive far above background levels. Divers are restricted to short periods of exposure over the site. The Maralinga tests never cleared the human population from the western desert, condemning these innocents to death, shortened lives, and continued marginalisation
USA: Hey man, can I copy your homework?
Britain: Of course man! We're friends!
Britain: Hey man, can I copy your homework?
USA: Nah man, that's cheating...
Never should have retired those planes. A perfect platform for a huge hypersonic missile
What about the WE177?
Tactical weapon assigned to NATO SACEUR nuclear force. Not part of British only Deterrent force.
That's hardly Britain deciding to become an aggressor on the world stage.Its what's known as building yourself a defensive insurance policy.
And I'm always very cagy about ideas of unilateral disarmament because even if the U.S U.K and France stuck to their word and got rid of all their nukes,it doesn't mean that Russia would,even if they said they would.Russia by their very nature are a very devious,untrusting people.They would never believe our promises(even if they were genuine), because they would judge us by their own standards and so would NEVER fully disarm.Unfortunately this is a situation we are going to be stuck in forever.
And my last point,Britain is a small country in comparison to Russia,the only thing stopping Russia from coming over and steamrolling right through us is our independent nuclear deterrent,so(even though a lot of Scots disagree)we would be absolute idiots to get rid of our nukes.
I believe polticians TALK about defence but the reality is different. For example anyone thinking of going to war with the UK, will immediately think of the nukes, and back down. Its like one-upmanship... Also, Thatcher talked about nuking Iraq in the Gulf War when Iraq was goint to attack Saudi Arabia. So politicians saying its defence only is B/S
Stop spreading such nonsence. To fully guaranteed nuclear retaliation nuclear triad is needed. Otherwise country nuclear capability can be destroyed in first strike. UK doesnt have nuclear triad. Futhermore, they dont have enough amount of nuclear rockets to effectevily strike back. Its all about political points.
Nuclear weapons could be neutralized by technology at some point. Who really knows were and what will be developed or may have already been developed.
@@ztashed6366 250 nukes seems like enough to me!
@@bighands69 I suppose the problem is How do you Uninvent Something?
Anyone who's against nuclear power is just special. It's the safest and most effective energy source out there. Wind and Solar can't provide energy at all times, and battery storage just isn't ready. For a greener future, nuclear is the backbone we need for the energy grid.
The British atom bomb was first tested in Australia, because the Aussies finally managed to convince the Brits of the true scale of emu threat.
Short answer: they were already working on one, and had made progress, when the USA joined WW2. The two agreed to work together a,d share the results, while promising never to use them against each other. Ever.
after WW2 for a period the US did stop sharing nuclear secrets with Britain - but after a couple of years they continued to share results and stuff
That is not even close to being true. The Manhattan project was completely a US project.
@@bighands69 not true lok
@@caspian5964 The United States and Britain had the Quebec Agreement to share nuclear information. After the War ended, the US declined to provide additional information to Britain as they had an agreement with France to supply France with defense information. When the US asked Britain if they would give US information to France, the answer was "Yes," because they had to honor the agreement with France. The US refused to provide information that would be given to France as France had no involvement with the atomic bomb development and the US could see no reason to give the French free information.
@@bighands69 That is a complete lie.
Nuclear weapons today primarily exist to deter their use by others using them with impunity. You may ask who would be mad enough to start a thermonuclear; the answer is it hasn't been tried yet and we shall see.
The more nuanced answer is that there isnt a scientific consensus on the severity of nuclear war or nuclear winter, but none of the scenarios are good. It is possible that another nuclear power may conclude that a limited use is possible and that effects are acceptable to them if they are desperate enough, or that they gamble that their enemies will defer retaliation out of fear of escalation.
This is why it is important not to back Putin into an inescapable diplomatic corner, as distasteful as that is.
I agree of course that the human race would be far better off without the bloody things. And they are militarily useless except for deterrence. They do not permit you to project power at all and cost a fortune. In many respects a strong navy and long range conventional aviation and ground forces are far more persuasive in the real world. But one thing history can show us is that even a democracy will use nuclear weapons to achieve its political objectives if it has no fear of retaliation. That is fact.
I think we still have to assume that Putin, with all his flaws, is not a crazy cartoon villain. Using nukes would have consequences for him, which I'm sure he's aware of, and I don't mean retaliation by nato. For start he'd most likely lose China as an ally upon using nukes in Ukraine, there's no way China would support that. Secondly, Russia, Belarus and Crimea border Ukraine on 3 sides, plus Putin has many troops inside Ukraine, so any use of nukes would risk friendly-fallout. Thirdly, it would be a huge escalation, and most likely drag nato directly into the war. Putin needs to be humiliated imo.
@@FriedEgg101 absolutely. It's more of an empire / economic war going on. USA wants to destroy them economically. Russia is trying to do same through their military paranoia & overspending of them. BUT. America doesn't care about that anymore. They'll carry on printing (military) money into another great depression. That means, both sides are backed into a corner. Personally I believe America is desperately trying to goad Russia into launching nukes; but Russia knows this. However, if a global economic collapse comes, we already have the lying, deceitful, shameless & totally jaded leaders, here in the West. They will be the ones to lose patience first. Ghouls, the lot of them. The richest people have no concept of happiness or being alive. Which is deeply concerning.
The Z midget in Rush hour!😮
did nobody catch the "Bomber Harris " quote?........nice!
The real lesson is that the H/A bomb series of weapons have only ever been used against a country which had none. Threats aplenty from and to those who do have then and harbour a desire to have them but as yet not used against somebody who can punch back - long may it remain that way.
Cool
When do we get the part that even begins to address the question that you yourself posed?
OK, this is an interesting look at *how* Britain has nuclear weapons, but you didn't really delve much into *why* Britain has nuclear weapons.
There was one omission : in the late '50s, the only reason the USA was amenable to once again collaborating with the UK on nuclear weapons development was because the UK was the first nation to come up with a "one ton - one megaton" device (i.e., a device weighing only 1 ton but with an explosive yield of 1 megaton).
Apparently also most of uranium was found in the British Empire, and not much else where. Another reason they were happy (forced) to work with us
@@DavidL1986 and you would be wrong, as there is an abundance of Uranium in Germany, Russia, and MOST of Central Europe; just like the Brits were when they claimed to have detonated their first Nuke that was nothing but a "Dirty Bomb" that did not achieve criticality...
They should have remembered how the Yanks stiffed us on research in the 40s.
"Oh, you want to share now do you? Tell you what, write off all war debt, and we'll make a deal. If not, go do your own homework!"
@@the_once-and-future_king. It's adorable/funny how you Limey's actually believe that the U.S. somehow owed you this research; I personally think the Brits should have been told to "kick rocks".
@@ligmasack9038 Well considering that the whole deal was the research had to go both ways, a deal you bloody Yanks reneged on, yes, we _we're_ entitled to it!
The Brits helped in the Manhattan project so they’ve been there since day 1 essentially, it was just after the war, we shut off access to all nuclear fission research (which sounds unfair but it was for security reasons) as we didn’t expect Russia to be able to detonate a fission Bomb as quickly as they did (mostly because of espionage) so they had to develop their bomb from scratch essentially. They had their experts that were in the U.S. during the development and detonation of Trinity though,
Yes indeed. I do cringe when certain Americans maintain that Britain was gifted nukes by the US, when in fact it was the other way around-the likes of Tizard and Hinton-regards expertise from our scientists and engineers. And then the US does not reciprocate their best friends. Not cool.
@@nuntana2 to be fair a lot of the people who try passing that off as fact ate usually either high on weed or are simply too patriotic to believe they arent the only people on earth.
@@Smithy779 And have a grasp of the way in which Britain was screwed over. The major release of information to the Russians from the Manhatten project came from scientists (not all of US origin but working for the US) Britain had its own problem with Russian infiltrated spies but proved to be useful whipping boy when the excuse leakage of information to Russia was use to freeze British (and Commonwealth) experts out of the programme. They were not even allowed to leave the establishment with the fruits of the research notes they had amassed through their own cognitions and sweat. Special relationship my arse!
Britain gave years of research to the Americans under the promise that Britain would get the research back. The Americans then just said no after Britain had spent so much money on the project and supplied scientists... The Americans did everything they could so that only would have the bomb, i'm glad we had a government back then with a spine to just go it alone. We know all to well that you can't rely on the Americans for help, unless of course they stand to gain from it
@@nuntana2
The US invented the nuclear age not lil England. 😂 Both the Atom and much more powerful and influential nuclear hydrogen bombs were created by the US. The Brits almost 10 yrs later couldn't create a nuclear bomb by themselves as usual and asked the US for the knowledge.
'Under the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, the US supplied the UK with Polaris missiles and nuclear submarine technology.'
Thanks + what about Thor.
The whole point:
You shoot yours, i shoot mine, everybody dies.
Sometimes you need to walk quietly but carry a big stick.
Since when did Britain ever “walk quietly”? They lost their global empire, but still wanted to be part of the nuclear weapons club. They just weren’t quite up to it, hence the endless dependence on American technology. That’s not something the French have done - their nuclear weapons, missiles, aircraft, nuclear submarines, the whole shebang are completely independent of the Yanks.
@@hegemonersmith1048 so where were the American soldiers in the Falklands war?
@@hegemonersmith1048
The UK nuked America twice and they couldn't do anything about it 🇬🇧
The UK had Vietnam under control till the yanks came in and messed it up. When they ran away they left loads of equipment.... sounds familiar?
@@richardoakley8800 Seriously, dude, that’s your answer?
@@awatt What are you babbling about? The French pulled out of their colony of Vietnam following their military defeat in 1954. Then the Americans moved in. It’s never been British, dude.
It's fun to learn about the thing that will probably end civilization. Not humanity. Not by a long shot. But civilization, sure. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero, does it not? And on a long enough timeline, we're bound to use nuclear weapons again as long they exist. Especially when the generations who remember how horrible Hiroshima and the effects of atmospheric testing were and these just become words in a history book.
Before watching the video and with only having read the title; is the answer "Because all my friends are doing it?"
V bombers - wow, how good do they look
Because Britain was involved right from the start of the Manhattan-Project!
Congratulations, Britain.
Anyone know the songs used in this video?
The only thermonuclear weapon that produces a cup of tea.
Such a shame that Britain relinquished (and continues to relinquish...) her ability to act in her own interests...
the Warheads are British, we only buy the rockets.
THE NUKES USA DROPPED ON JAPAN were designed and developed mostly in UK to fit our aircraft , before USA joined us in WW2 somehow USA helped finish them then got us to hand them over but had a problem dropping them as they didn't fit their aircraft .
US nuclear weapons were completely built in the US. Very few people had knowledge of them even the generals did not know they existed.
I think it’s the other way around. The UK was very close to being asked to drop the US atom bombs on Japan.
@@bighands69 not really, deal for US to join D day landing with soldiers and supplies, was UK gives all information about new weapon development to US
Try reading one or more histories of the atomic bomb development and you'll find out you're totally wrong. The only bomb that would not fit into a B29 without modifying the aircraft was the Thin Man. Thin Man was the original gun concept plutonium bomb that was 17-feet long. It would not fit into a standard B-29 dual bomb bay. This was remedied for the training B29s but a Thin Man bomb proved unworkable because the Pu239 had too much Pu240 which would have caused premature detonation with a gun-type bomb. This caused the development of the implosion bomb, Fat Man, which fit into the Silver Plate model B29 standard bomb bay.
@@buckhorncortez which book and written by which country 🤔. Fun fact is no unified history in this days. And half of history facts from ww2 era is still under classified stamp
In a scary world, it’s reassuring to know we have the English speaking world of the US and the UK with her commonwealth family to protect us. Respect to all nations of the alliance 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇳🇿🇦🇺🇨🇦🇦🇮🇻🇬🇰🇾🇫🇰🇲🇸🇵🇳🇬🇸🇸🇭🇹🇨🇹🇻
No mention of the WE.177?
Big Ben is a formerly secret missile silo