Talk:US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Notes for a Future Exapnsion

Typing up some of the criteria for my dissertation, thought I'd dump them here for a latter date --Pickle 10:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The criterion to qualify for this was, in effect, written specifically for Britain, the nation had to have made; “substantial progress in the development of atomic weapons” and where improvements could be made to the existing “atomic weapons design, development and fabrication capability”

Source - US Public Law No. 85-479, 85th Congress, 2nd session quoted in Pierre, Andrew J "Nuclear Politics : The British Experience With An Independent Strategic Force, 1939-1970" 1972, p141

“The cooperating nation must have achieved considerably more than a mere theoretical knowledge of atomic weapons design, or testing of a limited number of nuclear weapons. It is intended that the cooperating nation must have achieved a capability of its own in fabricating a variety of atomic weapons, and constructed weapons manufacturing faculties, a weapons testing station and trained personal to operate each of these facilities”.

Source - Senate report 1654, House Report 1859, 85th Congress, 2nd session quoted in Pierre, Andrew J "Nuclear Politics : The British Experience With An Independent Strategic Force, 1939-1970" 1972, p141

---

Yes Siphelele Nabo (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Project E

All mention of Project E seems to start around 1958 - was this part of this agreement? I have no reference at the moment to say one way or the other.

Project E was the agreement for US nuclear weapons to be carried on RAF V-bombers but under US custody and with US release for use. It was also used to enable B28 or B43 bombs to be carried on Valiant bombers assigned via SACEUR to NATO as part of its tactical bomber force. This came to an end when the Valiant was grounded in late 1964 with metal fatigue problems.

Most of my information on Project E comes from Humphrey Wynn's "RAF Strategic Nuclear Forces" official history, and whilst this talks a lot about the weapons and their usage, it doesn't apparently talk of the commencement of Project E. Soarhead77 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Project E part of NATO nuclear sharing agreements, rather than this MDA? Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom#Deployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons discusses U.S. weapons assigned to UK deployment, but doesn't yet really go back to the early days as the info in Project E. Rwendland (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest - it may actually pre-date it. This is at the heart of why I asked the question. Do you know when the nuclear sharing agreement started? Humphrey Wynn says that the final end of Project E came in 1969 when the last US custody weapons carried by RAF Germany Canberras was returned to the US. There were various end points prior to this - the UK based V-bomber force part ended in 1962 when UK made nuclear weapons became more available and the RAF TBF Valiants assigned to NATO via SACEUR ended in 1964/5 when the Valiants were grounded, but might well have carried on if the Valiants had not been grounded, or they had been replaced by Vulcan 1s or 1As - something which the government of the day weren't interested in because primarily of the cost implications. (This was contemporaneous with the cancellation of TSR-2, P1154 and HS 681). What this book doesn't tell me is how it came about in the first place! In Appendix 9 of Wynn's book (which I drew heavily on in creating the Project E article) is a list of weapons supplied under Project E and the earliest shown is October 1958 against the Mk 5 entry. Soarhead77 (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I suspect reading A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963 (Chapter 5: Eisenhower and Nuclear Sharing), Marc Trachtenberg, 1999, ISBN 0691002738 might shed some light on this. It's been on my TOREAD list for a long-time, but I haven't got round to doing an inter-library-loan for it. If you're in London, Westminster Library has a copy according to WorldCat. If the Valiants were under SACEUR, doesn't that imply NATO control, which implies the nuclear sharing agreements (Program of Cooperation agreements I recall)? NB does Wynn explain how US control on nuclear weapons was implemented in the early Canberra/Mk 7 days? (I suspect not very effectively, as in the German/Turkish quick-reaction alert airplanes sitting at ends of runways "guarded" by a single 18-year-old U.S. sentry with a rifle. Chapter 11 of Ross Anderson's Security Engineering is worth a read online if you've not seen that.) Rwendland (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also interesting are pages 85-96 of the online RAND book Commitment to purpose : how alliance partnership won the cold war. Nothing on Canberra/V-bomber use but a decent historical background on nuclear sharing. On Page 88 it says the Program of Cooperation agreements were made in 1957, which I think started NATO "nuclear sharing", so Project E could be under that. OTOH the footnote on 94 claims the Hunter and Javelin were the main British NATO nuclear oriented airplanes in the 1950s - which suggests the possibility that Canberra/V-bomber US nuclear bomb use was outside NATO agreements. Rwendland (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That book looks like a good read! I'm nowhere near London, so such things might have to be bought from Amazon. Wynn mentions in passing the security of US weapons. Like the bit about TBF Valiants being fenced off by six foot fences from non TBF aircraft (I suspect this was at RAF Marham). But nothing about 18 year olds with a gun. But all sorts of wierd things went on at that time which would have shocked people if they'd known about it - like setting PAL codes to 00000000...

Wynn doesn't mention anything other than what was then RAF Bomber Command, and the use of Mk 28 or Mk 43 bombs even though there is a note on the page (which I note you've been too) which talks about Mk 28s being carried on CF-104s. AFAIK the Mk43 in particular was designed to be carried by just about anything that could get off the ground. Note that these devices postdated the Thunderjet :-) These two are mentioned as coming under Project E.

The Valiants coming under SACEUR does imply direct NATO control. Some parts of Wynn say the use of the SACEUR controlled TBF came under Project E, some are more equivocal and say this was similar to Project E. Soarhead77 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistant dotting

At 10:54 pm 16 February 2009 UTC Mauls moved the article from 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement to 1958 U.S.-UK Mutual Defence Agreement citing WP:MOS then proceeded to dot the USes.

Let's examine the relevant section of the MoS.

US and U.S.

In American English, U.S. (with periods) is the standard abbreviation for United States; US (without periods) is the standard abbreviation in other national forms of English and is becoming increasingly common in American English. ... In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.).

Note

1. The article is not written in American Enlish (using defence not defense).
2. The abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside the abbreviated form of the United Kingdom ... obviously.

Therefore what the MoS actually says is exactly the reverse of what Mauls reads it as saying. The article is to be moved back and the dots are to be removed. JIMp _talk·cont 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

UK contribution

The transfer of technology wasn't all one-way. The UK had a significant lead in several nuclear weapons technologies and this material was transferred to the US. Re-entry vehicle ('Re-entry heads' in the UK terminology of the time) designs being one notable area. These were tested using the Black Knight launch vehicle, BK04 on 11 June 1959 being the first proper RV test, using a conical RV, re-entering pointed-end first. 3-Dimensional Quartz Phenolic used for the later US and UK RV bodies was also of UK origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.15 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/MDAamend.htm
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:32:58, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/about_awe/history/timeline/1962/
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:33:49, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/about_awe/history/timeline/1961a/
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:35:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.danplesch.net/articles/WMD/WMDMar10FINAL.pdf
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:35:33, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/12/britains_next_nuclear_era_1.php
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:36:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B31B4EF0-A584-4CC6-9B14-B5E89E6848F8/0/plutoniumandaldermaston.pdf
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 401 Unauthorized
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:36:32, 401 Unauthorized

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/1958MDA.htm
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:37:07, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/MDAlegal.htm
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:37:35, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Format query

Hi Hawkeye,

• there seems something wrong with formatting causing spaces in plurals and before commas in these. (And is Swiftsure missing after Churchill?)

"... the US Skipjack-class submarine s."

"... the UK's Valiant , Resolution , Churchill , , and Trafalgar-class submarine s."

Seems something happened with the template. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Clarify? "Between 2007 and 2009, staff of the Atomic Weapons Establishment paid 2,000 to US nuclear facilities."

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• "visits". Fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! JennyOz (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you thanking me? I should be thanking you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • Other nuclear material was also acquired from the United States under the treaty; only one material?

    This is grammatically correct. ("one material" is not though) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Conversion missing for "5.4 tonnes", "7.5 tonnes"

    Imperial/US conventional units for fissile materials is metric, so no conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • Link "Hyde Park Agreement"

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Please explain its relation with the Quebec Agreement

    "extended both commercial and military cooperation into the post-war period" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • was not binding -> did not bind

    "was not binding" is correct. See wikt:binding. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Link "Field Marshal"

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • What does "pain of death" mean?

    It's an English legal lemma. It means that the death penalty applies. See wikt:on pain of

  • Modus Vivendi; is this an agreement?

    Y Yes. Added that. See [wikt:modus vivendi]]. Nut here it refers to a specific agreement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The "Meanwhile" Soviet Union responded

    No, the chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Link "Bermuda Conference"

    There's no article. It would be a red link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • in the Operation Grapple

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Section 2;
  • Capitals on sputnik

    Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Link Royal Navy

    Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Any reason for capitals on "Special Relationship"

    Y Yes, but de-captalised here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3;
  • by far the most comprehensive; "comprehensive" in which sense? In the size of the agreement or in exchange of technology etc.

    Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • training of personnel; by whom, US or OK or mutual

    Y Mutual. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • There are also confidential intelligence matters covered by the agreement -> Confidential intelligence matters were also covered by the agreement

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • section 3.1; para 3; What is "HEU"? Never defined in the previous text, please define it on the first mention

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Link "Herbert Loper" on the first mention in para 1 of section 3.3

    He already appeared in the previous section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • J.H.B. Macklen -> J. H. B. Macklen; per MOS:INITIALS

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Link Aldermaston

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • para 1 of section 3.4; highly enriched uranium (HEU); has been already linked and defined before, dup-link

    Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • para 1 of section 3.4; tritium; already linked, dup-link

    Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • conversion for 21.86 tonnes

    Fissile material is always in metric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Section 4; all good
• All images OK
• External links check shows a dead link

  {{tick} Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Copyvio check 1, 2, 3 shows violation possible, but they are mostly due to quotations. So no issues.

G'work, nice article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

---

• @Hawkeye7: I could not decide under which section of WP:GA/W the article is to be listed, any idea? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  File it under "Weapons, military equipment and programs" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Treaty"

The lead sentence says that the agreement is a "bilateral treaty", but does not state whether it is a treaty in the sense of US law, meaning that it was ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. This should be clarified one way or the other. If it is not a treaty in the US sense, it is presumably an executive agreement, which should be stated and linked. --Trovatore (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not an executive agreement, it was approved and amended by Congress and is on the list of US treaties [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Can we add the date of ratification by the Senate? --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Already there. What I wrote was: "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed by Dulles and Samuel Hood, the British Minister in Washington, DC, on 3 July,[76] and approved by Congress on 30 July.[77]" What I am looking at is something called a "resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Division Vote." Did the US Senate ratify the treaty, or consent to its ratification? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'd like to know. It's not Congress (as a whole) that approves treaties under the Treaty Clause; it's just the Senate, and it requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. So if it says it was approved by "Congress", that's already frankly suspicious. I'm thinking it's probably not a treaty (in the US sense) but rather one of the sorts of executive agreement (some of them do involve Congress). --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You have no basis for thinking that. The Senate passed a resolution of advice and consent, and not just once, but every time the treaty was amended or extended. That looks like the wording of the Treaty Clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, "Congress" was what you wrote, I guess, and not what it says in the sources? In that case you're probably right. The House doesn't vote on treaties, which was why it made me suspicious that you said "Congress". --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Which one is correct?

Hi User:Hawkeye7, at section "Eisenhower administration": "...paving the way for the Agreement for Co-operation Regarding Atomic Information for Mutual Defence Purposes, which was signed on 15 June 1955".

But at Project E, section "Negotiation": "...This paved the way for the Agreement for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information for Mutual Defence Purposes with Britain, which was signed on 12 June 1955".

Which day is correct, 12 or 15?--Jarodalien (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(Has a look at the source.) 15 June is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Move to US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

As the agreement is still current, whereas the article title gives the impression it is historical. Whizz40 (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

---

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement → US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement – Still current and in effect Whizz40 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to the change, but don't see how the title gives the impression that it is not still current. It is always referred to as the 1958 agreement when it is renewed or modified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming Hawkeye. I guess that could be made clear in the lead and the order of the alternative names in the opening sentence swapped from the current: "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defense Agreement, or UK–US Mutual Defence Agreement,". Whizz40 (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.