Politics and speculation

 I've been quite shocked to come across two instances of misinformation about the UK's nuclear deterrent in recent weeks.  The first was in a report by DW (German state broadcaster) which you can watch at this link:  https://youtu.be/vo7kar5bE7k?t=1388 It's a good report, but at the time of the link Katarina Engberg announces that the UK is reliant on getting its fissile material from the USA, which it doesn't seem to at the moment. The UK has an enrichment facility at Capenhurst, and has a stockpile of about 150 tonnes of fissile material (https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/britain-has-139-tons-of-plutonium-thats-a-real-problem/) this is enough for 10,000's of nuclear weapons.  In the past it is true that the UK has imported some fissile material from the USA but the implication that it's dependent on the USA for fissile material is obviously untrue. We have far too much of the stuff lying around and simply can't get rid of it. The second claim was made in ...

How should the UK prepare for sustained conflict?  It was always assumed that near peer war would go nuclear in about 3 weeks - so the UK and other NATO powers only stocked ammunition for 3 weeks. This provided a useful strategic signal as well, "genuinely, we are preparing to fight for 3 weeks and after that we will flip the switch and go crazy, so don't expect anything else".  The Ukraine war and the change in strategic position in both the USA and Russia has changed this calculation. The USA is fundamentally more interested in Asia than Europe, and Russia has a genuine strategic need to seize territory and population. The UK has a vital national interest in stopping Russia because the UK's economy depends on a rules based global trading system. The UK and France cannot afford for eastern Europe or Germany to be coerced or taken over by Russia. Unfortunately, it is now the case that neither the UK or Europe can expect the USA to intervene in a future European war, a...