The United States is reportedly planning to station nuclear weapons at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, marking the first such deployment in the United Kingdom in 15 years.

This development, as indicated by the Telegraph, is in response to growing concerns about the threat posed by Russia.

RAF Lakenheath has a historical precedent for housing US nuclear weapons; it was an active site during the Cold War but saw the removal of such armaments in 2008.

This decision comes at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions and is expected to draw major international attention.

The Pentagon has maintained silence regarding speculations about the development of a new “surety dormitory” at the site. The procurement documents further detail orders for new equipment for the base, notably including ballistic shields. These shields are reportedly intended to provide protection for military personnel against attacks targeting “high-value assets.”

Additionally, the disclosed papers suggest that plans are underway for the construction of a new housing facility for American forces, with the project expected to commence in June. This move aligns with the broader strategy of enhancing the base’s infrastructure to support the anticipated “nuclear mission.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

123 COMMENTS

  2. Absolutely! Nuclear weapons were there in the past, and is hopefully now returning. I also hope that the USA will make it very clear to the UK government that the UK military must come out of its minimalist stupor and start pulling its weight.
    And then . . . more hopefulness when comes November we will see the return of a straight shooting US President to read all of NATO the riot act!

    • reading NATO the riot act may not get what the US needs….infact it could be the ultimate geopolitical fuckwitery..If china thinks the U.S. and European nations have a spit it will encourage and emboldened china and china is already on a trajectory of war with the US and if the US entered a war with china at the point it had buggered it’s relationship with European it would be in a whole heap of trouble…..

      • If what you say comes to a head, we all will be learning yoga to kiss our butts goodbye…

        Four Horsemen will be on the horizon if these idiots in power dont get there heads straight…as for Trump ! thats a nightmare that should never be allowed to be re-visited, im told by a freind in the states Civil War could be on the cards if that numpty gets power ! Not the kind of drama the world needs,could get messy for N.A.T.O
        Case of wait and see, i live in hope those in power come to there senses😉

    • Sorry when did sleepy Joe get a vote on UK defence spending?

      Perhaps we should lecture them for not pulling their weight in Ukraine along with EU.

      What weight is the UK not pooling? Compared to who?

      • Well perhaps you should be calling out Trump and the republicans,not Biden who wants to give Ukraine all they need (bell end that he is)

    • Trump needs a red spot in the middle of his forehead. Felt tip pen will do. To make look more of an idiot than he is.

    • Let’s hope Mr Trump v2.0 is not so stupid but you wonder if he’s still pally with Mr Putin? US needs to show leadership in keeping all of NATO together. If the US leaves won’t that just encourage old European power rivalries again? Let’s hope Mr Shapps doesn’t talk too much “war talk” too especially if the UK doesn”t have the means to deliver on it. Hope UK defence gets a further boost though.

      • Talking to your opposite, e.g. Trump talking to Putin, is never bad. A short cut to war is when talking stops, after the war the victors and vanquished will have to talk the peace anyway!
        Yes, if the US leaves Nato “old European rivalries” may start again. Well, surely the US cannot be expected to babysit “old European rivalries”? The EU must babysit themselves.
        The short answer – the UK, if it wants to ‘walk the talk’ will have to find the money and up the defence budget substantially, the bigger challenge is to motivate the youth to join the services in defence of King and country!

  3. Another reason to increase the numbers.

    Eurofighter says it is comfortable with delivering integration of the U.S. B61 nuclear weapon onto the aircraft, a process that requires U.S. certification. Paltzo said he was confident the U.S. government would not use the certification requirements of the weapon as “leverage” to force Germany towards a U.S. platform.

    • The Germans tried that before, as the replacement for their Tornados. The US ramped up the integration costs. Hence the requirement for the F18’s as they’re already integrated with B61. Then Germany saw sense when the penny dropped, when they realized they wouldn’t be getting an upgrade over their Tornados. Which is why they are now choosing the F35A, as a direct Tornado replacement.

        • Hi Nige, I doubt it. You just have to look at what some Senators were doing trying to block the Ukraine arms deliveries. To realize that America first is not a byword!

  4. Not sure on this one, seems to ramp up nuclear tension but has no real impact..looks and smells a bit like pointless sabre rattling…that gives our enemies something to point out in the UN.

    The simple fact is the wests nuclear deterrence guarantees the mutual destruction of human civilisation…so what more is needed in that domain…you don’t need more than MAD.

    What we need is more conventional deterrence and increased industrial output of key arms as that is what we seem to be lacking at present…

    • A response to Russian IRBMs placed in Belarus?
      While I’m not so concerned myself, are such bombs still located in Italy and Germany? I thought Incilik too at one time? If so, assume the F35A being an ideal carrier and seemng as a wing of those is coming there, makes sense.
      CND and CAAB will be jumping up and down as usual.

        • AFAIK the lady who runs CAAB has never stopped. Although I’ve not checked in with her on their website in many a year now….🙄

          • Funnily enough, I was talking to a lady just a few months back whilst Camping on Portland… she was telling me all about her life “You Name it, I’ve Protested” she said….. Greenham Common, Save the Whale, A34 Bypass, Just stop oil to name a few…. She was a “Van Lifer” with an old Talbot camper and Tie dyed clothes…… a bit of a Character to say the least ! oh and no teeth…. 😁

          • Well I’d support her on some of those.
            There was a suggestion the A34 was pushed by the USAF so GLCM could disperse easier from Greenham Common, but also Welford, were it’s been suggested some might also have been located.
            Her name wasn’t Lindis by any chance?

          • Never got her name but standing down wind was a bit difficult ! …. A34 is horrible mostly….. Full of lorries trying to overtake each other whilst failing at the next incline… It’s theoretical Speed limit of 70mph is more like 30 in reality…..

          • But she had great Crochet Skills…. She showed me all her Decorations she’d made for Christmas…..

          • To be fair, I do get out quite a bit……. Thinking of going full time Van Life… just need to get a Divorce ! 😂

          • Interesting….I’m desperate for a new vow camper van ( the gear box fell out the old one about 7 years ago) but Mrs will not have it….the argument is it’s cramped, not very comfy and involves weeing in a bucket…apparently spending the money on a nice car and using high end B&Bs and hotels is more fun and civilised….

      • Yes it’s probably as you say a response, not the best one but I suppose a response is a response..personally I think something like forward basing US SSNs in the Uk would be a more powerful message as they are usable in a war.

        As for other nations holding US weapons, they are part of the NATO weapons sharing agreement and part of that is that they would arm the pilots and planes of that nation…so Germany would actually deliver the nuclear weapons that are based in Germany etc…I’m don’t believe these weapons would come under that agreement and structure..

        There are actually 150 weapons in five NATO nation under the weapons sharing agreement ( Turkey, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands)….

        Im not a lover of nuclear weapons, I accept the need for a strategic deterrent that will allow us to functional destroy any other nuclear power..but I have a profound dislike of none strategic nuclear weapons, as they create the illusion you could actually fight a nuclear war ( other than simply trigger the everyone dies global thermonuclear war button). I particularly disagree with the idea that there should be nuclear weapons on UK soil that the Uk does not have Total control over….so i suppose im morally against this one…I’m not a no nuclear weapons person..just a no other people’s nuclear weapons…

        So if their is an identified need for air delivered free fall tactical nuc based in the Uk ( which I don’t think there is any viable military justification for anyway) then it should be a UK one…but the reason for the Uk getting rid of its freefall nuclear bombs was because it did not believe in the military application of those tactical nuclear weapons…essentially they are a weapon the Uk would never use…..

        • The UK does have full control over these weapons, they are operating from RAF airbases on UK soil, they are not sovereign bases. US planes can’t launch strike missions without permission.

          Having such weapons in the UK strengthens NATO in that if you look at seven days to the Rhine the Soviets planned to be pretty liberal with tactical nukes over Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands to knock out airbases.

          This way they know they can’t take out NATO tactical nuclear capability without dropping weapons on another nuclear armed power which would attract a strategic response.

          • As I said Jim, I pretty much disagree with the whole concept of tactical nuclear weapons..a a profundity fucked up concept that would inevitably lead to a strategic exchange…the only use for nuclear weapons is as the big red everyone dies button..it removes any strategic ambiguity and the concept that you could use nuclear weapons as weapons of war….simply tell your enemy the red line is using nucs and if you do we press the big red die button…actually having tactical nucs sends out a message that

            1) You consider them a tool of war….and so why can’t your enemy.
            2) your enemy may convince themselfs that if they use tactical nuclear weapons..then you may respond with a tactical nuc and not a strategic response….

            because of these two factors tactical nucs are a terrible idea….we only had them in the 60s, 70s,80s because for most of that time the red army would have overun and destroyed NATO forces and tactical nucs were considered a desperate last line, before strategic forces were used…but everyone actually knew that the moment a tactical nuc were drop that world was fucked….the UK dropped them pretty much as soon as the horde of the massed red army disappeared….and they should stay dropped and we should have nothing to do with them….just stick with our present policy….you use tactical nucs on us, we dump our strategic deterrence on you….it provides no room for mistakes and everyone knows the line and everyone knows you step over it everyone dies.

            I hate strategic nuclear weapons, but I admit the need…tactical nuclear weapons on the other hand I consider insane…not to the same level of insanity as biological weapons…but that’s a whole nother ball game of insanity.

      • And in Kaliningrad enclave. Which given as our Defence Post is the Baltic / NE Poland area means we are in the firing line but with nothing of our own deter Putin with. I have said before we need to get a small but effective U.K Tactical Nuclear Strike capability.

        • And still no GBAD as yet to intercept anything that might come the UK’s way. Why wait to be hit? While they’re upgrading Aster, purchase a few more and have some SAMP/T land/truck based units with shared inventory with the RN. Will complement the Sky Sabre.

          • The UKs ground based air defences are shockingly lacking. I’ve said before on here that it wouldn’t cost a fortune to set up a TA or RAF reserve unit or a new service altogether that principally and only addressed defences for key UK facilities.
            An order for a few dozen radar guided 40mm Bofors, Phalanx , land Ceptor and Aster 30NTs wouldn’t break the bank and likely would ensure short of a massive strike that the UK remains in the fight and able to support it’s allies and defend it’s home territory (something that is supposed to be the number 1 priority for all governments).
            £3-4 billion as a one of investment would go a long way to resolving the issue. Perhaps utilising the navy PODS concept of rapidly deployable containerised systems that can be driven to their selected defensive sites, integrated into a air defence network and moved after each and every engagement so follow up strikes won’t know their location.

        • Rodders, from the 80s, there was no tactical nuclear strike – it would have been an escalation to full on nuclear war and the leadership of both sides recognised this.

          We need a far bigger and more balanced conventional defence capability with added power to deter China – starting with the navy first alongside defence engagement in the Indian and Pacific littorals and nation building/support in those self same littorals.

          Just for a change – Sri Lanka springs to mind and is desperate for support away from China 😉

          • If we can go back to calling them Ceylon, sure let’s go!

            Then ‘simply’ just going through Burma to cause China a pain in the rear.

          • Completely agree…tactical nuclear weapons are a disaster…It provides a delusion that you can actually use nuclear weapons as weapons of war..it weakens our strategic deterrence….knowing you will get strategic deterrence in the face if you ever use a nuclear weapon on us is a very different proposition to you may get a tactical nuc back as a response to your tactical nuc.

            what we need is as you say a huge upgrade in our conventional response as a way to deter war.

          • Morning Jonathan, a huge upgrade in our conventional posture will never happen, at best
            (if 3% GDP is actually realised) we can slowly increase force levels across the board back to turn of the century levels, with a modern twist.

          • Not really because no one else has ever used a tactical nuclear weapon against another nuclear power…they all keep the tactical nuclear weapons..but no one has ever used one…using a tactical nuclear weapon against a strategically armed opponent when every single strategically armed nation makes it clear they would undertake a strategic response makes tactical nuclear weapons the ultimate in pointless…

          • Yes but only for the UK noone else drank the same Coolade.
            The French see it differently hence the “Force De Disuasion” which is their Tactical Nuclear force using ASMPE..
            Because they have them and are not declared to NATO they see them as a vital part of deterence as it not US dependant but a sovereign capabilty and gives them options.
            Their logic is it allows them a measured response to the limited use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons by an enemy. It gives them an option we don’t have as it shows that they are ready to use weapons in retaliation but at a lower level than all out Strategic.
            In other words the troops ordered to use them 1st have to be aware that they will get the same back if they Bomb French Forces. Hence disuasion.
            Why is the UK the only declared Nuclear Power which doesn’t posses Tactical Nucs anymore? Are the others all wrong or is the truth that when the Cold War ended we just decided that as Russia wasn’t a threat any more we could just save yet more money.
            Any bets ?

        • No we don’t…it lessens our deterrent..at present Putin know that if he used a tactical nuclear weapon on the UK he would get a full strategic deterrent back that would shatter his country and end up killing billions if he returned the complement..if we had tactical nuclear weapons..he may just consider us using one back an acceptable loss…tactical nuclear weapons make people believe the delusion that you can actually use nuclear weapons as weapons of war….if you face only a strategic deterrent that says if you use any nuclear weapons on us you get a strategic deterrent back in the face…you cannot use tactical nuclear weapons as a weapon of war..

          • USA, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are 8 of the 9 known Nuclear Armed Nations all of them don’t agree with that logic.
            The 9th is us and we didn’t get rid of them for any strategic reason, we just did it so we didn’t need to spend money replacing them.

            So a Russian conventional war happens, the UK Brigade in the Baltic is singled out for a Tactical Nuclear Strike.
            Do the US and NATO countries counter strike to retaliate ? Doubt it ! They tell the Russians what hapens if they do it to them.
            Does the UK Prime minister launch a Strategic Nuclear Strike ?
            Doubt that as well !
            But if the Russians knew we had a few dozen Nuclear Armed Strorm Shadows would that have happened in the 1st place ?

            Because those are the options we have.

          • Sorry not true

            India, Pakistan,Israel and North Korea do not have viable strategic nuclear deterrents..they only have tactical weapons in reality..so to have any form of nuclear power they have to use that…India and Pakistan would exchange their tactical nuclear weapons for a strategic deterrent in a flash if they could…

            france does not have tactical nuclear weapons it only has strategic weapons..it’s air launched TN81 warheads are variable yield 100-300kiloton warheads.which in everyone’s book is a strategic warhead. It’s sub launched ballistic missiles use 4-6 100kiloton MRVs..so France does not have a warhead smaller the 100kt which are all strategic weapons…the difference between the Uk and France is that Frances air launched strategic weapons means it can fire a single warning strategic weapon..before of loading an entire ballistic missile submarine..the UK has dispense with the warning shot option and will simple off load a ballistic missile submarine if you push it that far.

            china is profoundly wedded to a no first us policy..it does no mate any of its warheads with any of its launch vehicles and has made it very clear..it would never used nuclear weapons first or in a tactical role..its entirely a reactive force to a nuclear strike against china…

            The only two nations with strategic deterrence that hold a potential first use of tactical nuclear weapons without a the use of weapons of mass destruction or profound risk to nationhood are the US and Russia….the Uk and France would would use a strategic response if forced and china has said it will never use nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons….

            the point is that present Uk Nuclear doctrine is that yes we would undertake a strategic nuclear strike if the Russian dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on UK forces…that is the deterrent..the fact that we have no other option means that Putin knows this…the more options for brinkmanship and blurred lines the more risk….

            a strategic exchange is essential so close likely if a nation launches a tactical nuclear weapon at a nation with a strategic deterrent that it would be an insane action.…but Putin may just risk it if he thinks our response and policy would be a tactical nuclear weapon back….

          • The point is that if a single nuke fell on France, they could respond with a single nuke. If a single nuke fell on Britain, we have two choices, launch a whole boatload of Trident & destroy the world, or do nothing & face defeat.

          • No France has always made its posture clear, any nuclear attack on France would see a full strategic response…the single strategic weapon is for explaining none nuclear transgressions that would lead to a full strategic nuclear response..basically if in a future time a nation was building an invasion force and invaded France it would use the single strategic nuclear weapon….but again to reiterate the French airborne nuclear deterrent is a strategic deterrent not a tactical one…it’s part of its strategic forces and would not be used tactically….if a nation invaded France…it would get one strategic nuclear weapon strike on its own soil…it would then get the full strategic arsenal….these weapon are not designed to be used on the battlefield…as I said I don’t have an issue with strategic nuclear weapons and if the UK decided it needed another part of the strategic triad that’s OK..what is not ok are tactical nuclear weapons with a battlefield usage….that to be honest either
            1)utterly insane….if used against the forces of a strategic nuclear power…as they would alway use their strategic nuclear forces back…every single state with strategic forces makes this very very clear…
            2) pointless if you are talking about an none nuclear nation that has invaded you as if you decided to us nuclear weapons to stop the invasion you would not use a tactical nuclear weapon on the battle field ( your being invaded so it’s either on or near your real estate)..instead you would simple hit them with a strategic weapon at their home…by undertaking a counter force strike.

          • Wrong on so many levels. Whatever policy a government declares in peacetime, will fall apart in a real war.

          • Well you don’t know that I’m afraid, but the evidence I give is the actual counties stances…and the use and none use of these devices.

            simply put since their inception even in a wars of extremism, even against an enemy without nuclear weapons tactical nuclear weapons have never been used…and the only time nuclear weapons were ever used…they were not used as battlefield tactical nuclear weapons..they were used as strategic weapons on the other nations home soil..not against their military forces..because if you feel you need to use nuclear weapons you attack the nation you are fighting..not the army…armies don’t makes wars nations do and to end a war you defeat the nation…if someone is shooting at you you don’t shoot back and aim for his gun you aim for centre mass..same with nations at war generally .

            So we know that only used if nuclear weapons in war has been a strategic use..to basically destroy the other nations will to fight..let’s look at a wide variety of other nuclear age wars….

            during the 6 day in 67 war Israel had 2 nuclear devices…it did not use them tactically..instead it is believed instructions were given that if Israel was destroyed they were to be driven into Egypt and detonated in Egypt….not to be used against the attacking armies…a strategic usage.

            Even more convincing of the fact tactical nuclear weapons are not usable was the 1973 Yom Kippur war…in which Isreal suffered from an almost catastrophic loss of forces due to strategic surprise and was very close to being punched out. With a massive infusion of equipment and supplies from the US staving of defeat..at that point Israel had been manufacturing nuclear weapons for 6 years..and had a probable stockpile of 10-20 devices….Syria attacked of the Golan heights with 1400 MBTs and 60,000 men in 5 division against the 177 MBTs of the Israeli 36 division but even when the after 4 days of fight with the 36th division down to 7 MBT Isreal did not use tactical nuclear weapons….even though its enemies were non nuclear powers and had no response and their nation was profundity close to being over run..with its airforce being almost shot out the sky in fighting against the an integrated air defence system..and is defending division down to less than a company of tanks it did not use tactical nuclear weapons against the attacking armed forces …instead their usage was to be at the point Israel was being overrun and against the homelands of the nations that were destroying Israel…again strategic usage.

            when the US faced of against strategic nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba…it didn’t U.S. tactical nuclear weapons….instead it used conventional forces in a blockade and threatened strategic level warfare.

            during the retreat from North Korea 1950 in which 105,000 UN troops ( Uk,US,France etc) literally had to run for their lives…against what seemed like an unstoppable Chinese horde the US did not use tactical nucs. Even MacArthur facing essentially total defeat and suffering huge casualties..with the risk of losing 100,000 allies soldiers stepped back and did no deploy them..even though at time he was fighting a none nuclear power ( and MacArthur was a pretty controversial figure from a nation that has used Strategic weapons 5 years before…and would probably be voted most likely to us tactical nuclear weapons)….

            Then you go onto the other wars the U.S. and USSR have been involved in that included significant losses and even fighting each other such as in the Vietnam war…no use of tactical nuclear weapons…even though a few tactical nuclear weapons would have completely cut the north Vietnamese supply lines….the the U.S. had no thought of use even when it had 60,000 dead service personal…

            the UK and the Falklands…the RN was getting a hammering and the UK was a bad half morning away from losing….no though of using tactical nuclear weapons on Argentinian air bases….

            so in every example of real warfare no one has ever used tactical nuclear weapons even in some of the most deadly fighting…and faced with powers that could not strike back…no one have ever got a tactical nuclear weapon out the tin and thought that’s the weapon I need…no one apart from the U.S. and Russia has any form of nuclear posture that would involve the use of tactical weapons as a first strike and every nation with strategic weapons has a if you use tactical weapons on us we will use strategic weapons on you ( even if they generally have strategic counter force policies) ..tactical nuclear weapons are unusable, have never been used even in the bloodiest century in history..they are total BS and a waste of money and resources..but the worst is that they weaken the strategic deterrent and may just allow some nutter to think you can engage in a controlled nuclear war…you cannot and that is way every strategic nuclear power makes it clear any use of nuclear weapons by a state gets a strategic response…

          • There is another article on this website saying NATO is worried Russia might be tempted to use a tactical nuke. The counter to that is to have our own tactical nuke, for the classic “Mexican stand off”. I would not waste a lot of money on tactical nukes, we only need 25-30, & if we can adapt an existing strategic nuke, as Trump did, then I think it is a useful bit of extra insurance.

        • Trump did take the 100 kt Trident warhead, remove the fusion boost, & got a very “clean” 5-10kt tactical nuke. The UK uses a very similar Trident warhead. What if the UK did the same & put it in a Paveway IV case? You woulnot need hundreds, 25-30 would be enough.

      • Believe weapons are currently deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. Prudent measure to upgrade infrastructure at RAF Lakenheath to current storage and O&M specs, given existing geopolitical environment, even if no final deployment decision has been taken. 🤔

        • It has been common knowledge for decades that nuclear weapons are stored at Volkel airbase (The Netherlands), but officially it’s a state secret. It is believed there are about 22 of them. Dutch fighter aircraft are able to carry them (currently F-16 and F-35A).

  5. Problem is if Trump wins in November, this whole thing will be cancelled as he tries withdraw the US forces from Europe giving Putin a free hand to threaten Europe

      • Because Trump does not like NATO and remember that he back in 2020, he said that America would not come to Europe’s aid and this is the opposite of that, for Trump to not come to Europe ‘s aid, he will have to cancel this and pull all American military forces form Europe including their nukes

        • And you believe it will happen ? Personally I don’t, America has way too much to lose….. The bloke has serious personality Issues, he’s divisive, Incendiary and Egotistical on another level, America will be heading for another Civil War if he has his way……

          • She is the only American politician that I’ve heard actually make sense! Still as most yanks haven’t got a passport and don’t realise there is a world out there god help us with those other two numpties🙄

          • That is not quite fair to be honest..the reason there are so few US passport holders is that you don’t need to leave the US to find your holiday pleasure…I’m sure if we had an entire continental land mass to play on ( from desert, to huge forest.vass mountain ranges, plains Great Lakes ect) then we would have fewer pass ports.

          • Not as a proportion of their population. Vast majority of Americans have never left America or travelled abroad.
            The daft ones we see walking the streets of London, Oxford, Bath, Edinburgh are the educated open-minded thinkers.

          • Polling ahead of Biden and everyone else. Unlikely. Maybe fear of him getting elected will force Europe into taking it’s defense seriously instead of freeloading on the US taxpayer.

          • They are not free loading, the politicians thought that the US would deal with it so they don’t have to pay for defence which was a mistake cause they do not like to pay for defence

          • Of course UK, and Europe are freeloading in USA.
            Houthis is just the recent example.

            Without US Israel would have fallen and October 7 would be occurring in southern coasts of Europe.

          • What you describe is 100% freeloading. Proves my point in its entirety.

            Europe built a utopia of free healthcare/college way outside of historical norms because it doesn’t have to pay for anything of substance defense related. Euro politicians are scared to acknowledge they can’t afford both.

            As the demographics of the US increasingly shift from white to Latino/Asian, it will find my more focus on Asia and Latin America. The Nostalgic ties and moral obligation to defend Europe is fading fast.

          • Good point !! 😉Seriously though.. Trump is actually one of my biggest worries amongst all of the other worries when it comes to the way things are going. Think I will go and have a whisky, perhaps a double one. 😆 Chill time! 😊Enjoy the rest of the Weekend All!

          • There is a rumour that a Trump second term may not be as bad as his first term. Republican think tanks are involved in his campaign this time & if he wins, the think tank will get capable people into US Government jobs quickly. Unlike last time, when Trump did not have a clue who to appoint & many senior posts remained unfilled.

          • #45 hasn’t a clue about lots of things just the classic male over confidence turned up to 11 by his narcissistic tendency.

            He’s a convicted fraudster and rapist so far with 91 indictments going to trial. So his track record of dealing with facts is very poor.

            He’s not a competent human being never mind business man. He’s on public record that he will be a Dictator and plans to replace the Constitution of the United States with full Executive power for him alone.

            The idea that he is a fit and proper person to get the US National Command Authority to launch nuclear weapons is ludicrous.

            Patriots uphold the Constitution. The District Court and Supreme Court of Colorado were unanimous in finding him an Insurrectionist based on the evidence. The 3 Disents were on procedure not the facts of the case.

            The investigation of Maine agreed.

            He’s ineligible for public office.

            This has been appealed to the Supreme Court so we will find out if they uphold the Constitution of the United States.
            Specifically Amendment 14 Section 3.

            Check out @LincolnProject and @MaidasTouch for more information..

          • I am no Trump fan boy, nor do I suffer from “Trump derangement syndrome”, that seems to have infected many on the left. We are where we are. I do not want Biden or Trump to stand for President, but sadly they probably will. we have to make the best of it. I would rather have seen the two governors stand, so California vs Florida, but that now seems unlikely.

          • With the unfortunate choice of Dictatorship or Democracy only Democracy can provide a better choice later…

            Many people around the world are invested in a rational approach to international relations and global trade. They won’t get that with a Dictator who only listens to sycophants and the voices in his own head..

            Kaputin and chairman Xi would be delighted to have another dictator on the world stage as that will help them to advance their own plans.

            The ruzzian election interference is so much cheaper and low risk compared to the SMO in Ukraine. Let’s hope the CIA and NSA are doing their job to frustrate the FSB misinformation. Social media suggests that they are not..

            #ArmUkraineASAP 🇺🇲🇬🇧🇩🇪🇵🇱🇫🇷🇳🇱🇮🇹🇪🇸🇨🇿🇨🇦🇦🇺🇯🇵🇸🇪🇩🇰🇳🇴🇫🇮🇱🇹🇱🇻🇪🇪💛💙

          • I am no fan of Trump, but lets not lose our heads. The US system has many checks & balances. Trump could not do everything he wanted first time around. Congress & Senate have not gone away.

    • Those wacky Americans they make a washed up ex cowboy actor and a megalomaniac their president. They’ll get exactly what they deserve.and we’ll all suffer for it.

      • Hehe, i remember the horrible talk by the media against Ronald Reagan.
        The Soviet Union certainly did not fall because of journalists but despite them.

      • Reagan did actually cause the downfall of the USSR…he may have been an actor..but he had a profound grasp of the Geopolitics and turned the “west” around…( see what I did there…)

      • He’s much poorer too now that he was held to account for his victim abuse in the E.Jean Carroll rape case in New York Court.

        The first time he was found liable and $5 Million damages awarded.

        Because he couldn’t help himself from defaming her further the latest case accepted his guilt and awarded $83 Million damages against him.

        While he was in court for the trial he posted many more on social media so it’s possible that there will be a third trial for defamation. The absence of judgement..

        I would hope that the Judge imposes an injunction to make further defamation subject to contempt of court making incarceration likely.

        Do not pass Go and collect 200, go straight to Jail.

        • This shows how political this has got. In any normal case, the damages would have been a fraction of this, but if you go to a court where they hate Trump, you will get a warped judgement. Justice is supposed to wear a blindfold & hold the scales of justice. Yes, Trump was wrong, but he should not be punished more than anyone else. Bringing politics into court judgement is dangerous & could backfire. Biden’s deals for example.

          • Since he was found liable in the first trial the second trial was only about the defamation compensation aka damages.

            The standard court procedure is for representing lawyers to enter briefs and make oral arguments in front of the Judge and Jury.

            The Judge is responsible for knowing the law and keeping the lawyers on the substance of the case.

            The Jury are the triers of facts as enabled by the Judge on the law and summary after the evidence and arguments are heard.

            The prior process of Jury selection is to ensure that bias or pre-judgement is not in the Jury.

            Ultimately being tried by your peers does mean that they will hear the evidence, law and reach their conclusions based on that and their beliefs.

            This is all standard working for a fair trial.

            It’s a modern day delusion that Judge and Jury are political from a defendant who is a persistent denier of his accountability for his own actions.

            He’s know as the Tangerine Toddler with good reason. Adults accept responsibility and accountability for their own actions.

            Projection is another character flaw. In this case alleging that the court is rigged against him because that is the corruption he would attempt if he were able. Not because he has any evidence of corruption but because it suits him to evade accountability, again.

    • The Industrial Military Complex would suddenly lose all of its customers outside of NATO. I would see Trump getting an invite to a third-floor celebratory party and slipping on one of his dropped cheeseburgers and falling out of a window.

  7. I’m not overly happy with this issue. Our own independent deterrent mustn’t be overshadowed. To me it’s who has the finger on the button that counts

    • Certainly not a wannabe dictator and deluded fantasist who doesn’t control his narcissistic behaviour or his digestive tract.

      Donald Von Schitzenpants as he’s know in NYC.

  8. Feels like Greenham Common all over again. In the week Putin visits Kaliningrad? Out comes this. Be honest, it is just back to Cold War threat versus threat. Like too lads in a peeing up a wall contest. People forget Russia has one main weakness now. No Warpac, so its ability to advance into Europe is limited by logistics, yes it could threaten Baltic states and Finland, but it has hardly been an outstanding military campaign in Ukraine has it?

  9. My givea!uckometre is on zero.

    I doubt there is any special relationship between the UK and the US except when our service people have to fight side by side; we will always be there for them, and they will be there for us.

    Simples.

  10. Good. With Putin & North Kores making reckless threats of nuclear attacks against anyone they feel threatened or opposed by we need to make sure they know they’ll never get away with it.

    It’s also essential to have strong conventional forces to deter, plus also to ensure nukes are only used as a very last existential resort.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here