Under the mostly-unwritten British constitution, the sovereign is de jure commander in chief, but the prime minister holds de facto authority over the British military, including nuclear weapons, I’ve read. True? IIRC, all of the UK’s nuclear weapons are now mounted on Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. If another country attacked Great Britain, I suspect there might not be enough time to consult with the sovereign and get her approval to launch a retaliatory strike. Does the prime minister have, in actual fact, unlimited discretion and authority in using British nuclear weapons?
Is this the reason you shouldn’t piss off the Queen?
That and her ninja training. Believe me, the last thing you want to see (and it might be the last thing you do see) is a black-swathed figure slipping silently into your bedroom window carrying a sword and a handbag.
Frankly, the idea that it’s QE II controlling UK’s nukes is rather reassuring to me.
I just can’t picture her going nuclear without sufficient provocation.
Well, the fact she hasn’t nuked Washington for the Chimp-in-Chief’s shocking display of disrespect just goes to illustrate the wisdom of the British Way. 
But he is the Commander Guy after all. :rolleyes:
Yeah way to answer the question before turning it into another make fun of Bushism thread.
According to wiki
As well as random websites
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_00kag01.html
According to the second link, it’s a two person decision. One of them being the PM the other being the CDS. No where is the Queen mentioned.
A username and password are necessary to access the second site you provided, alas. Do you have a better cite?
Therein lies an interesting, probably deliberately never quite explicitly resolved, constitutional debate.
Traditionally, there was at least an assumed clear answer. The PM had unilateral control, via royal prerogative. Thus, acting in the name of the Queen, they could simply order the bombers or submarines to unleash their nuclear weapons.
Then the former senior MoD civil servant Sir Frank Cooper put a fly in the ointment in 2000 in an interview with Peter Hennessy, the doyen of Whitehall watchers. Cooper argued that the PM isn’t the Queen’s commander-in-chief in any meaningful sense and so can’t act alone. In particular, they can’t issue a binding military order. It requires a military officer like the CDS to do that. In other words, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are the Queen’s military, not the PM’s.
To a large extent, Cooper’s distinction is meaningless in practice. PM’s have ordered the military to do stuff all the time and nobody worries about the nuance. In virtually all imaginable circumstances, it’d be career suicide for the CDS, or any other serviceman, to refuse to agree with an explicit order from No.10 and they don’t. Nobody thinks twice about the constitutional theory. But Cooper’s point was that ordering the use of nuclear weapons was clearly the extreme case. In particular, it’s not inconceivable to envisage more junior officers trying to treat this as different. By arguing that the chain of command from the Queen downwards was entirely military, Cooper was emphasising the lack of room for dissent.
The other angle is what happens if Tony decides to do a General Ripper on June 26th? This is the side of Cooper’s argument that’s found greater acceptance. There has to be a cut-out in the chain of command to cover the Dr Strangelove event that the PM goes mad. On this interpretation, the PM has the positive power to order a nuclear attack, while the CDS, or substitute, has a negative power of veto.
However, none of this has been officially confirmed. Hennessy (in his 2002 book The Secret State) infers that the current formal procedure likely follows some version of the latter. Quite how a “decapitation” attack works out is unknown. Nor are the current procedures likely to be formally made public.
Several other points. The Cold War procedures allowed launch authority to be devolved to the submarines. Famously, the commanders could assume that if Radio 4 hadn’t broadcast The Today Programme for a set period then Western Civilisation had indeed ended and that therefore they could take complete control of their weapons.
Going by this story in this week’s Observer, the Brown camp is flying the trial balloon of proposing shifting the power to declare war under royal prerogative from the PM to Parliament. If this comes to pass, it is unlikely to make any practical difference to how our nuclear weapons are controlled - no more so than Congress’s power over declarations of war makes any difference in this respect - but may influence the theorising.
In short, whatever the details, the authority technically derives from the Queen, but she’s unlikely to be kept in the loop when it comes to issuing the order.
Reputedly the chimp is quite amusing in private
- roll on November 2008
MODERATOR NOTE: Enuf with the political remarks in General Questions.
samclem GQ moderator