It strikes me that the issue of an independent deterrent should be more usefully examined as it pertains to our foreign policy.
Can our foreign policy ever be independent of the US when we are utterly reliant on them to maintain a critical component of the deterrent? Can we ever take a principled stand against a US position if they are always able to nullify our 'independent' deterrent, and remove our status as a nuclear power?
That's the real question of independence - since this started in the 60's with Polaris, we have been shackled to US foreign policy, and will continue to be for as long as we maintain a nuclear deterrent. That seems like a greater submission of sovereignty than even EU membership.
It strikes me that the issue of an independent deterrent should be more usefully examined as it pertains to our foreign policy.
Can our foreign policy ever be independent of the US when we are utterly reliant on them to maintain a critical component of the deterrent? Can we ever take a principled stand against a US position if they are always able to nullify our 'independent' deterrent, and remove our status as a nuclear power?
That's the real question of independence - since this started in the 60's with Polaris, we have been shackled to US foreign policy, and will continue to be for as long as we maintain a nuclear deterrent. That seems like a greater submission of sovereignty than even EU membership.