WikiLeaks Cables: US Agrees to Tell Russia Britain's Nuclear Secrets

[Hissyspit]

Source: Telegraph UK

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

By Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope
Last Updated: 9:59PM GMT 04/02/2011
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Whoa!

[KansDem]

2. x2!!!

:wow:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. What the bloody hell?!

:evilgrin:

[Canuckistanian]

4. O M G

Excrement, meet ventilator.

[rox63]

5. Ouch!

This one's gonna hurt...

[blublu]

25. no, Cameron is just another toothless wanker, he'll just bend over and take it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Fuck it, let's not buy any, then

That's got to be the best solution to this. Get rid of the UK "independent" Trident system, since it so clearly is not "independent" in any form.

[Ghost Dog]

12. Yeah. Better to do without, or, more practically (for now)

partner with France.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Does "next week" refer to an event in the past

or literally next week ?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Strictly, the documents wer signed 2 days ago; they'll be exchanged this weekend

Wed Feb 2, 1:11 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama pushed a key foreign policy goal a step closer to completion Wednesday with the signing of documents for a nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed similar documents last week after the treaty cleared Russia's parliament. The U.S. Senate approved the pact in late December after Obama and others lobbied hard for passage.

Ratification becomes final when the U.S. and Russia exchange the signed papers. Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, are set to make the swap this weekend when they meet on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_russia_nuclear

[dipsydoodle]

10. Unbelievable

:(

Back to watching Fleetwood Mac on BBC4 - highly recommended.

[decidedlyso]

9. Did it occur to you that this particular release may be an

entrapment ploy? Assange could be easily extradited for this, a release injurious to both England--the place where Assange resides--and the United States--the place wanting Assange's extradition. I'll be interested to see how the US responds to this. Also, this could affect Obama also: is this Republicans trying to kill two birds with one stone. All this sounds suspect to me.

[Zywiec]

18. So why believe any of the leaks? n/t

[decidedlyso]

22. Good point. It'll take me a minute to put that into a decision matrix. nt

[Dominic]

80. Good point

Ouch, this is getting very muddy.

[whathehell]

21. You watch "Spooks", aka "MI 5" don't you?

That's something that would happen in that series.

[decidedlyso]

23. I don't watch television but I think I understand what you mean.

[whathehell]

24. If you saw one episode of this series,

which sometimes runs on PBS, can be bought in boxed sets from Amazon or BBC America

is so good it would probably start you watching TV again.

[decidedlyso]

28. Thanks. I'll go look. I don't mind buying sets and watching stuff;

I just don't like tv. Here's what I think happened. A US intelligence agency contacted somebody and this organization figured out a way to release this story to The Telegraph as a Wikileaks release. This is an incidence of cyberwar. Who got the intelligence agency to do this? A right-winger in high places.

[whathehell]

48. Yes...the very fact that you came up with this idea tells me you would love this series..

and I'd rather it be true than that our government did this.

Britain is considered to be a very close ally..It's hard to believe they

would jeopardize the relationship that way..

OTOH, Israel is supposed to be a tight ally too, and they were caught

spying on us...Twice, I believe.

That being the case, we're still "friends".

Shoot me a pm if you get this series and like it..

It's not only highly intelligent and entertaining,

It's interesting and informative on a couple of levels.

[panzerfaust]

87. On the other hand: Why would this NOT be true?

Seems very American to me

[dipsydoodle]

11. All over twittter

and I googled "US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets" - Free Repubic's got it too.

edit to add : its even on Harmony Central which is guitar site.

[decidedlyso]

14. It's this kind of stuff that will eventually result in the approximate

shut-down of the Internet. Will the entire world now presuppose that Obama has compromised the defense of both England and the United States. Based on Assange's initial conversations on what he would and would not release, does this sound to you like something he would release, damaging himself and many others?

[marshall]

69. That internet kill switch would certainly come in handy now

Let's hope the finger on the button is connected to a wise person.

[bongbong]

13. I have a request for Julian

In your next batch of releases, could you please include the British Top Secret discussions about this disclosure to the Russians? Entertainment deluxe!

TV should create a sitcom based on Wikileaks, entitled "Leakfeld". It could have four main characters, who are top level government leaders, modeled on Seinfeld. One change: you would make them much, much more venal, criminal, & ignorant than the four leads in Seinfeld, so as to make it realistic.

[FreakinDJ]

15. That will cause some hurt feelings

[hugo_from_TN]

16. And probably kill the treaty

[AngryAmish]

59. Already passed

deed is done

[provis99]

17. all your ass-kissing really worked, didn't it Blair, old chap?

Americans have contempt for those who weakly kiss up to them. So much contempt, we spilled your nuclear secrets, Tony.

[24601]

39. This one is about Obama, not Bush and Blair left left office before

Obama was even elected. What this means is that Obama threw the UK (the country, not an individual politician) under the bus to score political points getting a treaty. Now he has no room to bitch should the UK decide to release US operational secrets in order to get something they want - perhaps something like a trade treaty with China. It also tells every other country in the world that he can't be trusted with any of their sensitive information since he'll sell it off when it suits him. Bad move for the USA. And if we can prosecute someone for selling off our secrets, what's to stop another nation from going after him for the same thing?

[theold fossil]

47. The U.S. officially has not one ally left in the whole damn world!

If this is how you treat your friends - how can anyone expect you to be an honest broker
concerning anything?

[social_critic]

62. Much ado about nothing

The British use American missiles in their nuclear subs. They are known to be our lap dogs. Therefore it's reasonable that, as the number of nuclear warheads is reduced by the new treaty, the Russians will worry about the total count in both the US and British arsenals.

If the British don't like this disclosure, then they can choose to return the missiles to us, and build their own. Or they can just roll with the punch. The US has allies because it's convenient for them to be allied with the US - nobody is out to do anybody favors.

Because nuclear war is so remote, the US becomes useful to them for other reasons - the US fleet and the marines are more important to them than British nukes or whatever the british will or will not do. They also like to be able to sell their companies' stocks in the NY stock exchange, and sell their gadgets to us. Which means nobody is going to blink or give this much thought. Allies are a lot more concerned with US abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the way their troops have been sucked into a never ending war in the later.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Luminous Animal]

70. I ask again... where is the evidence that this is true? The article contains nothing that supports

the accusations.

No link to the relevant cable or cables and no excerpts.

Zero, nothing, nada.

[24601]

72. The original post links to the UK Telegraph which links to the

source cited. Perhaps it wasn't posted yet when you looked earlier.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html

[social_critic]

82. Big deal

The Russians were entitled to know the British warhead count. And I'm sure the Russians won't disclose the figures anyway. It's not to their advantage.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daleo]

84. Did the U.S. give Russia info on the French nukes too?

The argument about the need for British missiles to be included in the U.S. count just as validly applies to the French nuclear forces too. French missiles become all the more important as russian-U.S. counts are adjusted, too.

Did the U.S. give Russia data on French nuclear capabilities too? It seems doubtful to me, but maybe that will come out in the next Wikileaks.

Basically this shows that the U.K.'s nuclear deterrent is not really an independent force, for better or worse. It may lead to British demands to go back to producing their own bombs and missiles, for the sake of national sovereignty.

[social_critic]

86. We don't build French nukes, they don't have nuclear subs with Tridents

We build the Tridents the British use. Those are nukes in nuclear boomers, much more dangerous than the French nukes. The Russians evidently asked for the British nukes in the boomers to be included, and didn't ask for the French numbers. Or maybe they got the French numbers from the French.

The British deterrent is indeed not that independent. If it were, they would not be our lap dogs. It's up to the British to decide. I don't think they have done us any favors when Blair enables war crimes in Yugoslavia by Clinton, and then enables bigger war crimes by Bush and Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as I'm concerned, the Brits would do better serving the French and the Germans.

[theold fossil]

71. You speak the truth

My only contention is there are times, when in foreign negotiations it would be helpful if the parties thought they
could trust us, count on us and not be sold down the river at at our earliest convenience.

[whathehell]

19. Not good...Not good at all.

Just wondering, though, Does anyone here watch the British show "Spooks"?

or as it's known in the US, "MI 5"?

It's a great show...Often touches on that "special relationship"

[Matilda]

30. We get it here.

It's excellent viewing, though often quite chilling. And you have to
pay attention all the way through.

Glad to know you get it in the U.S. too.

Edit to add; Here it goes by its original title, "Spooks".

[whathehell]

50. I agree with you on all three counts..

It is absolutely first rate, It is chilling and you do have to pay close attention.

Some people on Amazon were chatting about why it's called "MI 5" here instead of "Spooks"

I thought it may be to distinguish them from our "spooks", the CIA, another person thought it might

be because the term is also used, albeit infrequently, as a racial slur.

I'm glad we get it here too...Actually, we're a few seasons behind the UK and possibly Australia too

My spouse and I love it so much we actually bought a multi-dimensional DVD player so that we could

buy the series (we're on the 8th season now)from Amazon.uk.com and not have to wait for it here.


Thanks for checking in:hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Why is THIS a problem? Should it be that WE ARE PROLIFERATING NUKES TO ANOTHER COUNTRY?

Besides, the UK has nukes beyond the tridents we have exported to them. Their 'security through obscurity' is intact. Especially given anyone with a crayon and a napkin can do the math on how many tridents are deployed by their number of deployed boomers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. No, Trident is the only nuclear system the UK has

I'm not sure how much difference this information does really make - the document talks about supplying "the time of such transfer, as well as the unique identifier and the location of each of the transferred missiles". Unless 'location' means telling them every time a British sub puts to sea, that doesn't mean too much - the UK has already said it will limit the operational missiles per sub to 8 in future. In theory, the warheads, up to 40 per sub, are made by Britain, but I think they are basically an American design, so perhaps they are included in the count of 'missiles' too.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Well, technically they can be launched from land.

So the entire trident inventory is 'usable', regardless of the subs.

But yeah, the serial numbers? Oh no, a US ally, allied to the point that if we went to war, they would probably push the button too, Russia can verify their stated inventory now.

Ye gads, how awful.

:sarcasm:

[Psephos]

49. Does the word "optics" mean anything to you? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Yes, but not within the context of this discussion.

[decidedlyso]

29. It may be more of an outside perception of a problem that's the

real problem.

[Major Hogwash]

26. So, the US is like that one ugly girl in high school that tells everyone else all the secrets.

I knew this was going to go awry when we started selling bombs to everybody.

It was easier back in the old days, when we would just sell our bombs to France or Italy, and then they'd have to go through Iraq or Iran, in order to sell them to the USSR or China.

[MilesColtrane]

31. How fortuitous.

I just made this comment in another thread, defending the need for some level of diplomatic secrecy.

Let's do a little "what if" thought experiment.

Edited on Sat Feb-05-11 12:04 AM by MilesColtrane
Let's say that the American public found out that Kennedy struck a deal with Khrushchev to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy in order to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Who do you think would have gone on to win the 1964 presidential election, Lyndon Johnson the Democratic Vice President of the man who had compromised with the evil Soviet empire, or Barry Goldwater the tough talking "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" Republican candidate?

Bear in mind that the cold war mindset was still prevalent among many Americans during this time. The McCarran Internal Security Act, creating the Subversive Activities Control Board to investigate possible Communist-action, and requiring the registration of Communist organizations with the U.S. Attorney General wouldn't be struck down as unconstitutional until 1967.

The Democratic party and its presidential candidate would have been unfairly branded as dangerously weak on national security, perhaps to the extent that Barry Goldwater would have won the White House in 1964.

Diplomatic secrecy gives the President and Secretary of State the political cover to do the right thing in brokering a deal with a belligerent nation without destroying their political careers or their party's chances in subsequent elections.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4721462

[Luminous Animal]

46. Have you seen the actual cable? If so could you provide a link? I'd like to confirm

the Tory Telegraphs accusations with actual evidence.

[MilesColtrane]

53. According to the article the information is in one or more cables here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/london-wikileaks/

Knock yourself out finding it.

If the paper is making this up, I fully expect that some other media outlet (The Guardian,The Telegraph, the BBC) will call them on it at some point.

[Luminous Animal]

55. Yes. I've spent a few hours looking through those cables. I've found nothing to

support the Tory Telegraphs article.

Again, do you have any evidence to support your conclusions about Wikileaks based on the Telegraphs report?

[stevedeshazer]

32. Astonishing. Double Whoa.

:wtf:

[underpants]

33. Hey England after the Iraq War and this you might want to further explore this“special relationship"

Russia's got the money - we don't and you don't so.... then there is that

[Snellius]

34. Consider the source and the timing

One should be more than a little suspicious about this. Why is it just coming out now? Who leaked it? Why? Was this part of the Manning leak? If so, no one noted this before? If not, where did it come from? Does it tell the whole story? Were documents chosen selectively? Most of all, why did it come out in The Telegraph, the Conservatives Torygraph?

[Abq_Sarah]

36. Apparently, The Guardian is no longer in love with wikileaks

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-dis.htm

Perhaps they're handing off info the the Telegraph because they'll actually publish the information?

[Snellius]

38. Hate to agree with Keller but

This whole WikiLeaks scandal has done more to discredit real whistleblowing than to promote our right to freedom of information. At this point "leaks" can be from anyone with whatever hidden agenda, selected out of whatever context. I've never understood why Manning didn't just give the info to NYT. He seems to have wanted more to impress his reputation in the hacker world than anything else.

[ozone_man]

40. Why would one entrust the NYT?

A corporate sponsored paper like the NYT would not be my choice for control of such info. As a secondary outlet, sure.

[Snellius]

43. News is news. NYT? TMZ? Who cares/

Doesn't have to be NYT. TMZ? Who cares! Why trust Julian Assange to personally decide what's what? Does he make any attempt to verify the source, completeness, or motives of his sources? How do we know he's not himself being used? This whole snitch story of Assange and Manning and Lamo is dramatic on a tabloid level but also very weird. This is not the Pentagon Papers and Assange is not Daniel Ellsberg.

[Luminous Animal]

42. And why is there no link to the actual cable?

[Ozymanithrax]

35. Yes, lets sacrifice the Salt Treaty on the alter of Assange

Shit canning the START treaty is worth the openness. Everyone should make more nuclear weapons.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Have you seen the cable? Or are you going to trust the Tory Telegraph which

conveniently does not offer direct quotes from the cable nor does it provide a link.

[Ozymanithrax]

52. Assange threatened the Guaridian with a law suit...

when they were not revealing things they way he wanted.(Link below) It seems that the Telegraph is not threatening his financial interest.

The Man Who Spilled the Secrets
In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.

If he threatens them with a law suit, then I will reconsider. Otherwise, revealing information that may end the SALT agreement and expand the creation of nuclear weapons is in his financial interest.

[Luminous Animal]

56. Funny that the your snip claims that the Guardian was released from their agreement, yet they...

are following that agreement. Thus, the Guardian lost that argument.

So, I ask again... where is the cable that supports the Tory Telegraphs article?

[Ozymanithrax]

64. Funny that he sued them for profits over it.

Imagine that...

[Luminous Animal]

65. Really? Where is the lawsuit?

[Luminous Animal]

41. Has anybody seen the cable in question? After all, this is the conservative Telegraph

which, by the way, does not give a link to the cable in question.

[Luminous Animal]

44. No quotes from the cable. No link to the cable. And from the conservative Telegraph...

I won't say that it isn't true but how is it possible to verify the Telegraph's claims?

[boppers]

51. Hilarious!

1. So what? "Hey, Russia, we just shipped the UK 10 more nukes". "Uh, ok, whatever."

2. Security through obscurity is idiocy. If you want to know the exact capabilities of any nation, it's easily obtainable on the internet.

3. These are "secrets" for what reason? So the UK can pretend other countries cannot do math?

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom <--hey, look at all the seekrits!

[skoalyman]

54. uh oh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUH3JQjcweM&NR=1

[Poll_Blind]

57. Holy fucking shit.

What a bunch of cocksuckers.

PB

[egressingsparrowdrop]

58. Every relationship with the US is a "one-sided affair"...and then they

carry on about being such a positive force for good in the world.

[AngryAmish]

60. Who is the shithead who authorized this?

Way to go, Bush!

[Doctor_J]

61. I wonder if the Repukes can use this to impeach the prez

this is awful

[Luminous Animal]

63. Use what? Have you evidence that this is true? Have you seen the cable or cables

that support the Telegraphs claims?

[LanternWaste]

66. I haven't even seen Assange.

I haven't even seen Assange. I think he's little more than a magenta pigment of someone's imagination.

[Doctor_J]

75. I didn't say it is true. I said they might use it to impeach the president

when have wing nuts cared about the truth?

[social_critic]

67. It's going around in the right wing nut blogs and chats

They're claiming it could be used to impeach President Obama. But President Obama can't be impeached because he's a Kenyan citizen and a Muslim. The US Constitution makes this very clear, neither Kenyans nor Muslims can be impeached for signing a nuclear treaty.

[treestar]

73. They would just be telling the Soviets the truth, no?

Why does Britain have any right to secrecy? Why doesn't Wikileaks reveal "the truth" about Britain's classified information.

As to the substance, I'd rather look into it some more. As so often happens, there could be a logical explanation.

[Gin]

74. how did they get a recent cable? I thought this stopped when they

arrested the supposed leaker and jailed him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. The document is dated Feb 9 2010

which is before Manning was arrested in June.

[go west young man]

77. No worries.

Israel=52nd state. Britain=53rd.

[Pirate Smile]

79. Yoo Hoo! This is bullshit - see link below but the RW appreciates everyone falling for the garbage

spewed in a conservative British paper:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x606509

Did Obama Sellout Britain To Russia On Sub Nukes? Nope, Says State Department

Posted by Michael Scherer Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm
6 Comments • Related Topics: russia, special relationship, start treaty, united kingdom, wikileaks

Conservative blogs and the British press are agog over a report in London's Daily Telegraph that the U.S. provided certain information about the United Kingdom's submarine-based nuclear missile stockpile to Russia as part of recent arms negotiations. Matt Drudge nearly blew a siren on the "Secret Deal" report, which includes no quotes from either U.S. or British government sources confirming, denying or adding any context to the claim, which was apparently gleaned from a leaked document provided by Wikileaks.

As is their habit with just about any report about American-British relations, the Telegraph jumps to the conclusion that this revelation "sheds new light on the so-called 'special relationship,' which is shown often to be a one-sided affair." Perhaps the last part is true, but the U.S. State Department maintains that there is little news behind the breathless headlines. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley emails TIME:

This is bunk. Under the 1991 START Treaty, the U.S. agreed to notify Russia of specific nuclear cooperation with the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of SLBM's (submarine launch ballistic missiles) to the UK, or their maintenance or modernization. This is under an existing pattern of cooperation throughout that treaty and is expected to continue under New START. We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/05/did-obama-sellout-britain-to-russia-on-sub-nukes-nope-says-state-department/#ixzz1D7w4MMeK

[Pirate Smile]

83. An ABC News article with both the UK & USA calling bullshit on this garbage from the Telegraph.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4723189

[treestar]

85. Thank you.

DU should hear both sides before jumping to conclusions. Get the facts first. Not be so willing to believe everything the US does is evil.