A report, dismissed on both sides of the channel as speculation and therefore probably true, that the UK and France are negotiating an agreement which would see British nuclear warheads serviced by French scientists does not go far enough, said the Guardian in an editorial published Saturday. Excerpts: French defense analysts rightly say that for this to happen Britain would have to break its very special relationship with America in this field. Would that be such a bad thing? It makes eminent sense for two European military powers, both of whom have nuclear deterrents which are independent in name only, to co-operate with each other on warheads and joint submarine patrols. But why stop there? Why not consider transport aircraft, helicopter capacity and carriers? Why should French warplanes not operate from British aircraft carriers and vice versa? The Royal Navy is still considering ordering cheaper catapult-launched aircraft for its future carriers, a move which would enable French Dassault Rafale M planes to land on them, because the cost of the alternative – the American F-35 Joint Striker Fighter – has ballooned. The price of ordering two carriers and the 140 F-35s planned to go with them would be to scupper the rest of the fleet. France and Britain have much in common at the moment. Both are proud, postcolonial and broke. Between them, they have 460 nuclear warheads. Each has conventional forces that neither can afford. Signals intelligence (eavesdropping) should also be combined. Turn the entente cordiale into an entente militaire. __
