DOCSLIB.ORG

Entente Nucleaire: Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation Entente Nucleaire Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Entente Nucleaire: Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation Entente Nucleaire Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation Entente Nucleaire Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation Bruno Tertrais Senior Research Fellow Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique Discussion Paper 3 of the BASIC Trident Commission An independent, cross-party commission to examine UK nuclear weapons policy Published by British American Security Information Council (BASIC) June 2012 BASIC in London BASIC in Washington 3 Whitehall Court 110 Maryland Ave., NE Suite 205 London SW1A 2EL Washington, DC 20002 Tel: +44 (0) 207 766 3461 / 65 Tel: +1 (0) 202 546 8055 www.basicint.org Acknowledgements Author BASIC and the BASIC Trident Commission are grateful Dr. Bruno Tertrais is Senior Research Fellow at the to Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Polden Puckham Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique. He is also Charitable Foundation, the Mulberry Trust, Marmot a member of the editorial board, The Washington Charitable Trust, Allan and Nesta Ferguson Charitable Quarterly, and contributing editor, Survival. Trust, Ploughshares Fund and Nuclear Education Trust Previously he was Special Assistant to the Director for their financial support of the work of the Commission. of Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Defense, France We would also like to thank all those who have contributed (1993-2001); Visiting Fellow, RAND Corporation to the work of the Commission by submitting evidence (1995-1996); Director of the Civilian Affairs and otherwise engaging in our activities. BASIC would Committee, NATO Assembly (1990-1992). He is also like to thank the BASIC Trident Commissioners for the author of a number of publications, including In their unpaid involvement in this enterprise. Defense of Deterrence, Paris, IFRI, 2011. ii Entente Nucleaire: Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation Entente Nucleaire Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation Bruno Tertrais Senior Research Fellow Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique Discussion Paper 3 of the BASIC Trident Commission An independent, cross-party commission to examine UK nuclear weapons policy BASIC Trident Commission Discussion Paper 3 www.basicint.org iii BASIC is a small but influential think tank with one very large idea: we want a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons. A growing number of politicians, government officials and other decision-makers share our vision. We work constructively with them - and with others who are not yet convinced - to achieve our goals of nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation. We leverage our reputation as a respected, trusted and independent source of information, ideas and perspectives to inform debate and foster creative solutions. BASIC is the only peace and security non-governmental organization that is British-American in composition and focus. We work on both sides of the Atlantic to encourage sustainable transatlantic security policies and to develop the strategies that can achieve them. We partner with other international NGOs that share our goals and we promote public understanding of the danger of growing nuclear arsenals. For more information please visit our website: www.basicint.org iv Entente Nucleaire: Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation Contents Page Foreword 2 Executive summary 4 1. Introduction 6 Part 1 Past nuclear cooperation 7 2. Failed attempts at cooperation during the Cold War 7 3. The end of the Cold War: plans for a common missile 9 4. Lessons learned 9 5. Bilateral talks since the early 1990s 10 Part 2 The current state of play 12 6. The convergence of UK and French nuclear policies 12 7. The Lancaster House Treaty and the Teutates Project 14 8. Drivers and constraints for further cooperation 15 Table 1: SSBN replacements: initial timeline (circa. 2006) 17 Table 2: SSBN replacements: revised timeline (2012) 17 Part 3 Options for future nuclear cooperation 19 9. Options for technical and industrial cooperation 19 10. Options for strategic and operational cooperation 20 Box: Continuous at-sea deterrence and a three-SSBN force 23 11. Trilateral cooperation with the United States? 24 Part 4 Conclusions 25 12. This time it’s different? 25 Appendix UK-French nuclear cooperation areas 27 About BASIC Trident Commission 28 BASIC Trident Commission Discussion Paper 3 www.basicint.org 1 Foreword from the Commission Co-Chairs The last Labour Government reaffirmed its In our view, there is a strong case in this context for a commitment to Britain’s independent nuclear fundamental, independent, review of UK nuclear deterrent, based on Trident, at the end of 2006. The weapons policy. current coalition government, in its October 2010 There is also a case, in the national interest, for lifting Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), the issue of the United Kingdom’s possession of maintained a commitment to this decision in nuclear weapons out of the day to day party political principle but also announced some changes to UK context and for thinking about it in a cross party nuclear doctrine, a reduction in the number of forum. The BASIC Trident Commission is doing this warheads and missiles possessed by the United by facilitating, hosting, and delivering a credible cross- Kingdom, and a delay to the timetable for the party expert Commission to examine the issue in construction of the replacement submarines on which depth. the Trident system depends. The Commission is focusing on three questions in The decision to delay the final judgment on particular, namely: replacing the submarines until after the next election • Should the United Kingdom continue to be a has created a window of opportunity for further nuclear weapons state? deliberation on UK nuclear weapons policy. The starting point for the BASIC Trident Commission is • If so, is Trident the only or best option for delivering a belief that it is important to make the most of this the deterrent? opportunity. • What more can and should the United Kingdom We are living through a period of enormous change in do to facilitate faster progress on global nuclear international affairs with new powers and security disarmament? threats emerging, increased nuclear proliferation risks, and growing pressure on economies and defence budgets in the West. Since the original 2006-07 decision on Trident renewal modest arms control progress has also been made by the United States and Russia and President Obama has set out a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. The current government, more recently, has also initiated a further review of possible alternatives to Trident. 2 Entente Nucleaire: Options for UK-French Nuclear Cooperation This discussion paper is the third in a series and This study does an excellent job of drawing together focuses on the scope for future cooperation with the strands, outlining the history of past proposals, France over the procurement, deployment, doctrine and assessing the prospects for the future. This could and control of nuclear weapon systems between the have significant bearing on the options for Britain in two countries. There has been exhaustive treatment of the next few years. the more extensive cooperation between the United The report is published in the name of the author, Kingdom and the United States in this field, rather than in the name of the Commission as a cooperation that will feature heavily in the whole, but it will feed into the Commission’s Commission’s work and the final report. But the deliberations and we hope it will stimulate wider relationship with France is less developed and even less discussions and further submissions of evidence for discussed in public until recently. the Commission’s consideration. Malcolm Rifkind Ming Campbell Des Browne BASIC Trident Commission Discussion Paper 3 www.basicint.org 3 Executive summary This paper draws lessons from past attempts at Several political factors linked with the end of the nuclear cooperation between London and Paris, Cold War have made UK-French cooperation evaluates present arrangements, and gauges the easier. The 2010 Lancaster House Treaty and the prospects for increased cooperation. It understands Teutates projects are true historical milestones in nuclear cooperation as closer links between the two the nuclear cooperation between the two countries, countries in one or several of the following areas: building upon two decades of in-depth dialogue on science and technology; industrial programs and nuclear matters. procurement; operations and crisis management; UK and French nuclear policies and postures are and political-military and strategic affairs. largely similar, more so than they were during the Incentives for cooperation may include scientific, Cold War. There has been a convergence of nuclear financial, diplomatic or strategic benefits. doctrines. However, London has a different Constraints have often been the same and include conception of independence from that of Paris; divergent policy preferences, legal or the UK deterrent is available to NATO; political obstacles, incompatible and its doctrine and technology has technical requirements or Today, always been in sync with that of the modernization timelines. all the building United States. There is also a blocks of a solid nuclear There have been many attempts stronger nuclear consensus in relationship exist and strong by both countries to cooperate on France. incentives (including one aspect or another in military financial ones) exist to Today, all the building blocks of a nuclear matters over the past fifty deepen it. solid nuclear relationship exist and years. All failed, though London and strong incentives (including financial Paris were very close to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tailored Deterrence - a French Perspective
    50 TAILORED DETERRENCE - A FRENCH PERSPECTIVE Bruno TERTRAIS France is not at the forefront of the debate within NATO on the future of deterrence and retains a fairly conservative nuclear policy. However, the evolution of the French nuclear deterrent has been largely in tune with US and UK policies. Nuclear Deterrence With Smaller Arsenals Nuclear weapons will remain the ultimate guarantee of a nation’s survival for the foreseeable future. There is no alternative means of defense on the horizon which may threaten in a credible way the complete destruction of a State as a coherent entity, in just a few minutes. Conventional weapons could conveivably do the job, but only through repeated and multiple raids and with a lesser guarantee of success. Moreover, conventional weapons cannot instill in the adversary’s mind the very peculiar fear induced by nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are arguably as scary as nuclear ones - and perhaps even more so, in particu- lar for public opinion. But their use can be controlled only with difficulty. More importantly, they are not able to physically destroy government buildings, factories, command posts and arsenals. Unless perhaps deployed in space in very large numbers, strategic defenses will not be effective against a large number of missiles equipped with decoys and multiple warheads. Finally, threatening some particular hardened targets will continue to be possible only by nuclear means. But future deterrence will be ensured with smaller nuclear arse- nals. In the coming twenty years, Western nuclear stockpiles will continue *Senior Research Fellow, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, France. 51 to be reduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)
    Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) m kg s cd SI mol K A NIST Special Publication 811 2008 Edition Ambler Thompson and Barry N. Taylor NIST Special Publication 811 2008 Edition Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) Ambler Thompson Technology Services and Barry N. Taylor Physics Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (Supersedes NIST Special Publication 811, 1995 Edition, April 1995) March 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology James M. Turner, Acting Director National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition (Supersedes NIST Special Publication 811, April 1995 Edition) Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 811, 2008 Ed., 85 pages (March 2008; 2nd printing November 2008) CODEN: NSPUE3 Note on 2nd printing: This 2nd printing dated November 2008 of NIST SP811 corrects a number of minor typographical errors present in the 1st printing dated March 2008. Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) Preface The International System of Units, universally abbreviated SI (from the French Le Système International d’Unités), is the modern metric system of measurement. Long the dominant measurement system used in science, the SI is becoming the dominant measurement system used in international commerce. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of August 1988 [Public Law (PL) 100-418] changed the name of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and gave to NIST the added task of helping U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • UK-US Trade Relations
    House of Commons International Trade Committee UK-US Trade Relations Second Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 April 2018 HC 481 Published on 1 May 2018 by authority of the House of Commons International Trade Committee The International Trade Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for International Trade and its associated public bodies. Current membership Angus Brendan MacNeil MP (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Chair) Mr Nigel Evans MP (Conservative, Ribble Valley) Mr Marcus Fysh MP (Conservative, Yeovil) Mr Ranil Jayawardena MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) Mr Chris Leslie MP (Labour (Co-op), Nottingham East) Emma Little Pengelly MP (Democratic Unionist Party, Belfast South) Julia Lopez MP (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster) Stephanie Peacock MP (Labour, Barnsley East) Faisal Rashid MP (Labour, Warrington South) Catherine West MP (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green) Matt Western MP (Labour, Warwick and Leamington) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this Report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mariam Keating (Committee Assistant), Lydia Menzies (Clerk), George Perry (Media Officer), Dr Gabriel Siles-Brügge (ESRC IAA/POST Parliamentary Academic Fellow), David Turner (Committee Specialist), Luke Villiers (Committee Specialist), Andrew Wallace (Senior Committee Assistant), and Joanna Welham (Second Clerk).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Warheads
    OObservatoire des armes nucléaires françaises The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons looks forward to the elimination of nuclear weapons in conformity with the aims of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To that end, the Observatory disseminates follow-ups of information in the forms of pamphlets and entries on the World Wide Web: • on the evolution of French nuclear forces; • on the on-going dismantling of nuclear sites, weapons, production facilities, and research; • on waste management and environmental rehabilitation of sites; • on French policy regarding non-proliferation; • on international cooperation (NGO’s, international organizations, nations), toward the elimination of nuclear weapons; • on the evolution of the other nuclear powers’ arsenals. The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons was created at the beginning of the year 2000 within the Center for Documentation and Research on Peace and Conflicts (CDRPC). It has received support from the W. Alton Jones Foundation and the Ploughshares Fund. C/o CDRPC, 187 montée de Choulans, F-69005 Lyon Tél. 04 78 36 93 03 • Fax 04 78 36 36 83 • e-mail : [email protected] Site Internet : www.obsarm.org Dépôt légal : mai 2001 - 1ère édition • édition anglaise : novembre 2001 ISBN 2-913374-12-3 © CDRPC/Observatoire des armes nucléaires françaises 187, montée de Choulans, 69005 Lyon (France) Table of contents The break-down of nuclear disarmament ....................................................................................................................................... 5 The
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Staff Register
    REGISTER OF INTERESTS OF MEMBERS’ SECRETARIES AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTS (As at 15 October 2020) INTRODUCTION Purpose and Form of the Register In accordance with Resolutions made by the House of Commons on 17 December 1985 and 28 June 1993, holders of photo-identity passes as Members’ secretaries or research assistants are in essence required to register: ‘Any occupation or employment for which you receive over £410 from the same source in the course of a calendar year, if that occupation or employment is in any way advantaged by the privileged access to Parliament afforded by your pass. Any gift (eg jewellery) or benefit (eg hospitality, services) that you receive, if the gift or benefit in any way relates to or arises from your work in Parliament and its value exceeds £410 in the course of a calendar year.’ In Section 1 of the Register entries are listed alphabetically according to the staff member’s surname. Section 2 contains exactly the same information but entries are instead listed according to the sponsoring Member’s name. Administration and Inspection of the Register The Register is compiled and maintained by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Anyone whose details are entered on the Register is required to notify that office of any change in their registrable interests within 28 days of such a change arising. An updated edition of the Register is published approximately every 6 weeks when the House is sitting. Changes to the rules governing the Register are determined by the Committee on Standards in the House of Commons, although where such changes are substantial they are put by the Committee to the House for approval before being implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Party Leaders and Officials Since 1975
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 07154, 6 February 2020 Conservative Party and Compiled by officials since 1975 Sarah Dobson This List notes Conservative Party leaders and officials since 1975. Further reading Conservative Party website Conservative Party structure and organisation [pdf] Constitution of the Conservative Party: includes leadership election rules and procedures for selecting candidates. Oliver Letwin, Hearts and Minds: The Battle for the Conservative Party from Thatcher to the Present, Biteback, 2017 Tim Bale, The Conservative Party: From Thatcher to Cameron, Polity Press, 2016 Robert Blake, The Conservative Party from Peel to Major, Faber & Faber, 2011 Leadership elections The Commons Library briefing Leadership Elections: Conservative Party, 11 July 2016, looks at the current and previous rules for the election of the leader of the Conservative Party. Current state of the parties The current composition of the House of Commons and links to the websites of all the parties represented in the Commons can be found on the Parliament website: current state of the parties. www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Conservative Party leaders and officials since 1975 Leader start end Margaret Thatcher Feb 1975 Nov 1990 John Major Nov 1990 Jun 1997 William Hague Jun 1997 Sep 2001 Iain Duncan Smith Sep 2001 Nov 2003 Michael Howard Nov 2003 Dec 2005 David Cameron Dec 2005 Jul 2016 Theresa May Jul 2016 Jun 2019 Boris Johnson Jul 2019 present Deputy Leader # start end William Whitelaw Feb 1975 Aug 1991 Peter Lilley Jun 1998 Jun 1999 Michael Ancram Sep 2001 Dec 2005 George Osborne * Dec 2005 July 2016 William Hague * Dec 2009 May 2015 # There has not always been a deputy leader and it is often an official title of a senior Conservative politician.
    [Show full text]
  • Assemblée Nationale Constitution Du 4 Octobre 1958
    N° 260 —— ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 DOUZIÈME LÉGISLATURE Enregistré à la Présidence de l'Assemblée nationale le 10 octobre 2002. AVIS PRÉSENTÉ AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES FORCES ARMÉES, SUR LE PROJET DE loi de finances pour 2003 (n° 230) TOME II DÉFENSE DISSUASION NUCLÉAIRE PAR M. ANTOINE CARRE, Député. —— Voir le numéro : 256 (annexe n° 40) Lois de finances. — 3 — S O M M A I R E _____ Pages INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 I. — UNE DISSUASION GARDANT UNE PLACE CENTRALE DANS LES STRATEGIES DE DEFENSE, MAIS DONT LE ROLE EVOLUE........................................................................................ 7 A. LA DISSUASION NUCLEAIRE AMERICAINE : UNE VOLONTE DE FLEXIBILITE ACCRUE .................................................................................................................................... 7 B. UNE INQUIETANTE PROLIFERATION BALISTIQUE ET NUCLEAIRE ................................... 10 C. LA DISSUASION NUCLEAIRE FRANÇAISE : UNE POSTURE ADAPTEE A L’EVOLUTION DE LA MENACE .............................................................................................. 15 1. Une dissuasion nécessaire pour faire face à l’imprévisible ........................................ 15 2. Un outil d’ores et déjà adapté ......................................................................................... 16 II. — UN BUDGET 2003 PERMETTANT LA POURSUITE DE LA MODERNISATION
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy
    Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy How do democracies form and what makes them die? Daniel Ziblatt revisits this timely and classic question in a wide-ranging historical narrative that traces the evolution of modern political democracy in Europe from its modest beginnings in 1830s Britain to Adolf Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Weimar Germany. Based on rich historical and quantitative evidence, the book offers a major reinterpretation of European history and the question of how stable political democracy is achieved. The barriers to inclusive political rule, Ziblatt finds, were not inevitably overcome by unstoppable tides of socioeconomic change, a simple triumph of a growing middle class, or even by working class collective action. Instead, political democracy’s fate surprisingly hinged on how conservative political parties – the historical defenders of power, wealth, and privilege – recast themselves and coped with the rise of their own radical right. With striking modern parallels, the book has vital implications for today’s new and old democracies under siege. Daniel Ziblatt is Professor of Government at Harvard University where he is also a resident fellow of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also currently Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute. His first book, Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (2006) received several prizes from the American Political Science Association. He has written extensively on the emergence of democracy in European political history, publishing in journals such as American Political Science Review, Journal of Economic History, and World Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Vito Marcantonio Part 3 of 25
    1;:__%_43_.v__V?L_1___5__'q,_M92J__"gmi__4__"____!_*_!_EI,_~A___:_____"I?__y___:_92____1_ f,_¢V_I1L W ___Vk§__92?_H3_?_H__ld__ _v'_ 3 v __ vA_LV LQ:__ I___W!_3qr_Jf LA?__V!V___x&M,,_____ TIAF H J__7]_4,_Mr_J.hA_v" I1_a__"$__________J'1f _im'___F;V.JV__2:__'kME CF ___f_R3_y_92_hr_v_92_N_;,___m__wmiA;kr__'_I-K____,___!292__I__V, _ _MT 92 WJ_G/_'__4___92_r*2 __W:_______i A___§'___:_#F; JJM_Ak_yS1w::__!_,__u __lg!$_i__!m;_______v,QgN H _ ___>___PM_{J_Vk_Jq_~_Uvv_H,R__.':'__|1hrv V1HR ,5.'!*92H.I]r92 _'W _ _L_*kMT:_!_an_______v._'in__xyr t~ _ _ if1|__~__;___!___?__>_4_H_._ __hr_wHNUy?_ivh;_H_m_ M 7 ¢_W :K___&_____l21_/R >3_"___;%_h__n___'_v__V»v_tr___'V J ___i______>MtL_,Jx _{IL____:__r__!_ K_ ____V'__y___rE'"__ J; WC,___}wr~ __H: _ WWzfi~_F¬_;_Y_v____A1___'_5V"lmy_____,q_lV___W_'_Y___KMF__%""__H_v____92__>__,_____ W _ __F_WW4*_WE 1_____w_M___W__?__L|5; _ LJP?r___M_M_Evvi$m?v_wn?_§¥Ma 7{whm___iA_R_I 1: H/~@_YaTh___H_"I_{n_7F_____n92_1,___._*!Hb_iIa_m%y_,"_w__'__#_¢_,_.92_L__L__;__1II A92IK{IVS Il!_i'|___&h__ _ av*__W!_P__!___,_r_&ux_,___J_iKn______:'__"H,H_£_r_'_____ _92C}_ 4 hNh!_§¬p}Ex_A_N%g.:5%}! y ,,___A:3__L,r_"_ . V i_A__.7M_wv_:_1'__N_HIifmmi_gM.§_'__;__gin!r_%__W_"_qhhw_WW_H___mj__H ~WbiA_ W__H__Ik__A_aAm%fmrx$5m_w'_H!|LN&_UArm_w?Wm_92__u_w!___T IW iifH>_H__x____#M_Mq 1 __K61_ i Ihi_My___'ivé éN_%_M_J_~__,__,___r_4{__FJ-R5___if__f_92__,_4'1._____4_S92___TI_v_V_6Mn?ty+iihi$3Em%%E¥av%%*£3x!_Jw_§;92_;W§i_¢'__r}__h__M1i_£3q;A¢jHhM__H_nuNM4mv__f%1%?W/pg92_'7.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Futures: Western European Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction
    Nuclear futures: Western European options for nuclear risk reduction Martin Butcher, Otfried Nassauer & Stephen Young British American Security Information Council and the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS), December 1998 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary Chapter One: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Policy in Western Europe Chapter Two: The United Kingdom Chapter Three: France Chapter Four: Nuclear Co-operation Chapter Five: NATO Europe Chapter Six: Nuclear Risk Reduction in Western Europe Endnotes About the authors Martin Butcher is the Director of the Centre for European Security and Disarmament (CESD), a Brussels-based non-governmental organization. Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at BASIC’s Washington office. Otfried Nassauer is the Director of the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS). Stephen Young is a Senior Analyst as BASIC. Previously, he worked for 20/20 Vision and for ACCESS: A Security Information Service. He has a Masters in International Affairs from Columbia University, and a BA from Carleton College. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the many people who pro-vided help of various kinds during the writing of this report. They include: Nicola Butler, for her inestimable assistance; Ambassador James Leonard, for his helpful comments on the report’s recommendations; Professors Paul Rogers and Patricia Chilton, for their comments on early drafts; Daniel Plesch, for his comments on the entire report; and Camille Grand, for his guidance and support in compiling the section on France. Special thanks to Lucy Amis and Tanya Padberg for excellent proofing and copy-editing work, and to Christine Kucia and Kate Joseph for advice and assistance on the layout and design of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • New Chief of Defence Materiel Makes Offer to DE&S
    Feb 11 Issue 33 desthe magazine for defenceider equipment and support New Chief of Defence Materiel makes offer to DE&S Bernard Gray’s message to DE&S staff See inside Technology Ambush hits Extension All-round Cutting edge on display the water of support vision engineering NEWS 4 5 Osprey is the star again DE&S staff have welcomed news that a soldier in Afghanistan has twice survived insurgents’ bullets thanks to the life-saving Osprey body armour. 6 Rivet Joint progresses The first of three aircraft in the Airseeker project, the US RC-135 Rivet Joint, has arrived in Texas for conversion to an RAF aircraft. 8 A clearer front line vision A programme to deliver thousands of world-beating 2011 night vision systems to the front line has been completed in short time by a DE&S team. feb Picture: Andrew Linnett 10 Chinook passes first flight test Flight testing of the first Chinook Mk4 aircraft for the RAF has taken place, another step in a project to deliver an essentially new aircraft into service. 12 Bridging the gap Soldiers on operations can now cross obstacles thanks to a portable bridging system which has been procured by DE&S. 13 Focus on base security Extra surveillance has been provided to forward bases in Afghanistan with new tripod-mounted short-range cameras. cover image 14 ‘Troops want for nothing’ Soldiers in Afghanistan ‘want for nothing’ and Bernard Gray has addressed staff in town hall sessions at Abbey Wood after taking over as Chief of Defence Materiel last have ‘the very best’ equipment, according to the month.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambassador's Activities
    Ambassador’s Activities Distributor: French Embassy in the UK - Press and Communications Services - 58 Knightsbridge, SW1X 7JT London 2012 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.ambafrance-uk.org Speech by HE Bernard Emié, French Ambassador to the United Kingdom at the FRUK Defence Forum Roundtable London, 19 Septembre 2012 www.ambafrance-uk.org It’s not easy to be invited at a week’s notice to close a conference we haven’t attended, in the presence of so many experts! But let’s get back to the basics of our strategic defence relations, which remain an absolute priority for the French authorities that emerged from the elections of May and June 2012. I/ The solidity of Franco-British defence cooperation I’d like, first of all, to recall a few simple and basic facts about Franco-British defence cooperation. It’s a solid partnership rooted in a shared vision of the great defence and security challenges. It’s a partnership that will continue to play a key role in the long term. A/ First of all, our two countries’ strategic proximity reflects the similarity of the challenges we face : - We are of similar size . But on the new world stage, we no longer reach the critical mass; - We have similar values and similar responsibilities . Our two nations are permanent members of the UN Security Council, key members of the European Union, key members of NATO; - Both our nations have a nuclear deterrent , which places us in a category of our own, with specific responsibilities and a specific policy stake in the complex world of counter-proliferation; - We face similar challenges and threats .
    [Show full text]