Trident. Yes or No

[taxydual]

Various retired Heads of Sheds have called for the scrapping of the UK Trident System.

Thoughts?

A straight forward Yes or No will suffice.

Unless you wish to expand on your answer...............................

[ORAC]

Been round and round this many times on this forum, just do a search on Trident.

Or do you think a press release by 2-3 senile old duffers in the HOL will seriously drastically change anyone's opinion? :hmm:

[Green Flash]

I didn't know any were still flying!:eek: The 727 sold more I believe and there are still some flying.













:}:p;)

[brit bus driver]

Damn, you beat me to it. I was going to add that there's already a thread on old 3-engined airliners.....:E

[taxydual]

I should really learn. Ask a silly question.....................:ugh:


Regards to all. :O:O

[A A Gruntpuddock]

The Americans have control over whether the missiles are launched.

This means that they are not our missiles.

We are paying the US to let us run one of their weapon systems.

So what else is new........?

[Green Flash]

Sorry taxi, couldn't resist.

If we were to have a (non-nuke) deterent, what would it be? SLBM/cruise but with a fuel-air/thermobaric payload?? Given the increase in int, imagery & targetting accuracy do we need to drop a big bnag in the next county when we can drop a smaller bnag in their mess tins? Collaterol an' a' tha'.

[taxydual]

Don't worry Greenflash, my shoulders are broad etc

No, I was just musing if the billions earmarked for Trident could be used more where it was needed.

I believe the 'bucket of golden sunshine' threat is well past it's sell-by date to use as a deterrent.

To me, the threat of a bucketload of well-armed, well trained, well equipped guys coming over the horizon would be more of a deterrent. I just wondered what could the Trident cash be used, militarily, for instead.

What's the point in having a deterrent that

a. We won't use come what may.
b. The Spams won't let us use anyway.

[L J R]

Never forget that there are other countries - some less savoury than yours that own the bucket of sunshine, others almost own it, some are trying to get it, some would dearly like it, and the odd occasional appearance on a wish list. If you have it, don't give it up!......

Costly? - yes,....... effective? - you will never really know. :8



....again, just a though (as usual)

[TEEEJ]

A A Gruntpuddock wrote

The Americans have control over whether the missiles are launched.

Why do you think that?

'Operational independence'

House of Commons - Defence - Eighth Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm)

[soddim]

It is not what we think that counts. Our elected (by whom?) leaders hold delusions of grandeur and want to strut the World stages so we have to be a nuclear power.

Will the next government hold the same desire for power?

[Ogre]

So if we scrap the Trident and/or the replacement for Trident, do you really think all that cash will be spent expanding the current armed forces? Methinks the government will use the money elsewhere, and we'll end up even more stretched and no longer a nuclear power.

Or I am being cynical......again?

[Wrathmonk]

And would we know if Trident was scrapped given the "neither confirm or deny" line that is trotted out . After all the moon landings never happened ....:E

As long as people think we have them, and that we would be prepared to use them, then the "deterrent" would work. Unless some nutter calls our bluff. Make a big show of sailing the subs out of wherever, sit off the coast of Scotland for 4 months, come home ... repeat etc.

Conspiracy theories. Gotta love em!

[cornish-stormrider]

Gents (and ladies).

Having a big bucket of sunshine sitting waiting is necessary, maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow......

maybe 50 years from now some nutter with a missing suitcase nuke is musing over a target list and does he pick:

A, countries with sunshine capability to return the favour with interest.

B, countries without sunshine that cannot strike back

or C, decides that taking such a big step is a step too far.

Yes we need Trident and its replacement. And yes we need a properly funded and equipped military. On a slight thread drift I are seeing lots more comments from the locals to pull out of the sandpits.....

How do we explain to them we either fight them over there or over here..?

Seems to me the spin doctors and treasury are orchestrating (sp) a rather god job of divide and conquer with the services. Don't let it happen to you, go on Hug a Crab

[thunderbird7]

Realistically its had its day. It served its purpose for the enemy it was intended to deter. However, good as it would be to ringfence the money saved for conventional defence procurement, it aint gonna happen! It will just get sucked out into the maelstrom of government book balancing - and that goes for whichever political party is in power.

[Green Flash]

Cornish

I take your point and, while not advocating getting rid of the sunshine option, what if afore-mentioned nutter doesn't have a country which we could convert to a glass car park? What if said nutter is stateless loner, driven by a grudge, an ideology, or who is a psyco or a criminal???? Who could we then threaten to turn into heat and light? It's a ferkin complicated world nowadays and it keeps getting more complicateder (pardon?)

[charliegolf]

What if said nutter is stateless loner, driven by a grudge, an ideology, or who is a psyco

Which is why i keep thinking Israel ought to be compromising: they are surrounded with nutters sans suitcase at present.

Any how, GF beat me to it- we don't face the MAD scenario anymore do we?

Can't anything deliver a nuke?

We could have lots of anythings for a Trident sub's cost.

CG

[Pontius Navigator]

Realistically its had its day. It served its purpose for the enemy it was intended to deter.

Now we know deterence worked don't we? But did the bomb actually work? If we didn't land on the moon, how do we know all those underground bursts weren't massive civil engineering projects designed to look as if they worked?

Now we don't do live testing at all do we even need to make real physics packages? Just pretend that we do.:E

[Bunker Mentality]

Secret decommissioning is a non-starter. Mounting a continuous deception campaign would costs just as much as keeping/replacing the deterrent - but we'd have no retaliatory capability. Now that really would be a waste of money.

Look what happened to Saddam - binned his WMD programme but continued to pretend that he hadn't. His bluff was so convincing that not enough people believed him when he finally saw the writing on the wall and came clean.

[Modern Elmo]

Quote:
Quote:
What if said nutter is stateless loner, driven by a grudge, an ideology, or who is a psyco


Stateless nutters can't manufacture atomic bombs.

Which is why i keep thinking Israel ought to be compromising: they are surrounded with nutters sans suitcase at present.

Peace in our time, yes.

[Not_a_boffin]

Stateless nutters with a suitcase of sunshine are one threat. Nuclear-armed states that may not entirely follow the happy-clappy agenda are another.

You can never deter a stateless nutter with anything. If you are really lucky his sponsor (if a state) might just think twice.

You can (hopefully) deter the nuclear-armed state, provided that he is convinced that :

a) He can't find and neutralise your delivery system
b) Once the weapon is on the way, he's toast - with no escape route.

The further away and faster you can deliver the good news, the more convincing that deterrent is. Given that one of the (currently) more unfriendly nuclear armed states is still the one trident was specified against, difficult to see why we should go for anything less.

So that's a "yes" then.

[Modern Elmo]

Stateless nutters with a suitcase of sunshine ...

Another good reason to stop letting immigrants into one's homeland.

[pr00ne]

Modern Elmo,

Racist claptrap!

[harrym]

The only part we make is the bit that goes bang, delivery and guidance systems are supplied by the US and they control one of the launch keys - so hardly an 'independent' deterrent but, as Gruntpuddock suggests, a highly convenient financial arrangement for America.

In the end, it has always come down to our PM wishing to look tall on the international stage!

harrym

[Not_a_boffin]

Which key is that then? Where located and held by?

[harrym]

<<<<< Which key is that then? Where located and held by? >>>>>>>>.

Not a real key of course - a figure of speech for one of many lines of code that must be inserted to activate the system.

harrym

[Not_a_boffin]

Of course, how silly of me....

[hval]

As per Cornish.

hval

[411A]

Me thinks you chaps had better keep your buckets of sunshine...no telling what our new occupant of the White House will do with ours...:}

[stilton]

Our new 'White House occupant' will have far less need for WMD's than the Toxic Texan had merely by virtue of not alienating most of the world..

They will be available if necessary !

[Wader2]

On a slight thread drift I are seeing lots more comments from the locals to pull out of the sandpits.....

How do we explain to them we either fight them over there or over here..?

Well over here does have attractions - shorter, internal lines of communications. Fewer transport costs. Better hotels. more equable climate :)

Drifting further (well SSBNs drift too) but the UK Border Force on TV last night was very impressive with some Gucci kit - CO2 sniffers, vibration sensors for heatbeats etc. State of the art but then what?

Illegals released pending investigation. Escape from the compound back to the Calais refugee camp. No passport so no idea where to deport them.

Overstaying visas etc.

Then a perfectly bonafide US male who didn't realise he needed a work permit even for a short lecture tour is turned back.

We need to get tough and then stay tough.

[Argonautical]

I read recently a letter in the Daily Mail (I know, I know) from a Doctor chap which flabbergasted me about our Trident deterrent. This chap said that the boats only go to sea with one missile. Is it true that all the money spent is only to keep one boat at sea with one missile?

[cornish-stormrider]

Yes, of course the bomber (Jackspeak, may I now go and wash my mouth out) ONLY goes to sea with one misslie. The rest of the slio's are full of spare ipods.:E

The bomber goes out to play with a number of deliverable sunshine options.........More than a troll can count.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Although the Thread subject is a “regular” on here and the repetition can get rather tedious, some of the flights of fancy and other assorted bollox expounded do border on the entertaining. Sadly, even if the Polaris Sales Agreement (as amended) and the Kings Bay Missile Processing Agreement were available for public viewing, I doubt it would make any difference to the sundry theories and “hidden facts” some people have fixed in their minds. I would say shame on you other chaps for winding them up but, in all fairness, it is good sport.

Under the rules, if we give up the nuclear deterrent, we will never get it back.

If we did give it up, what concessions would we wring from the other nuclear Powers? Probably none, which seems a criminal waste of a significant bargaining chip.

Like it or not, the nuclear deterrent does buy us a place at the top table. I’m amazed that so many of you would like to give that up. So many souls happy to serve behind the counter and so few with ambitions to run the shop!

Of course it’s useless against a stateless nutter but that’s no argument against its true value. There are some nasty buggers out there who are nation states and, although they seem benign for now, could give us serious cause for concern in the future.

As some of you have already observed, any money saved from giving it up would not find its way to other parts of the Defence Budget. The cost of our ultimate “big stick” is not that great compared to its value. My personal view is that we would be either very brave or very stupid to give it up.

[Violet Club]

GBZ

A coherent point, but why not take the next step? The answer is, very brave.

If Britain really wants to stand up and be counted, to have an impact that is truly is worthy of a 'top table' nation then why not do something brave, something admirable, look the world in the eye and say we can do without our nuclear weapons - and so can you.

The British deterrent is an embarrassing anachronism. Gifted to us by others we have the capability to strike Moscow. Even in the days when that mattered, it didn't matter because our contribution to the apocalypse would hardly have registered.

The same is true today. The UK will never unilaterally use Trident - even if the US were to sanction such use.

The suitcase bomb threat does not exist. The rogue nation threat does not exist. Britain will never trade ICBMs with Iran or China or North Korea or whoever this week's fantasy villain is. Neither can you deter stateless groups or madmen with an SSBN.

The nuclear flag wavers will always shout - you don't know that! What if, what if, what...

The truth is there is no downside to the UK renouncing Trident and using the money for something else – even if it is not defence (and I believe tht it SHOULD be, while recognising that it probably will not). It would be the one thing the nation has done since 1945 to mark it out as a real world leader in something. Waving our second-hand weapons around buys us nothing of value.

You almost admit as much when you say:

>>If we did give it up, what concessions would we wring from the other nuclear Powers? Probably none, which seems a criminal waste of a significant bargaining chip.<<

If it's not worth anything then it's not a bargaining chip. It's a throwback, an anachronism – a waste of our time and money.

If you really, really, really can't live wothout a nuclear blanket well then let's buy ASMP or tweak a few Storm Shadows. That way you can keep your place at the table, your seat at the Security Council and the Americans won't laugh too hard at us... which I suspect is what really worries the decision makers.

So be brave.

[Pontius Navigator]

VC, am I right in thinking that your name is relevant to the debate? :)

[LowObservable]

Consider the following strange events.

The US and UK have joined up to design a common missile compartment for the next SSBNs. Which will presumably be an Astute or a Virginia snipped in half and stretched, like an early US boat.

The US Congress continues to block the development of a replacement warhead for Tridents and any notional landbased missile. However, presumably AWE is doing something, since it's not a National Laboratory but - well - an atomic weapons establishment.

The boffins at Aldermaston whose predecessors had all those smart kids in LO's junior and grammar schools are working more closely with the US than in years and their work is greatly respected.

If the US can't get the job done at home, where will they get it done?

[Pink&Ginger]

GBZ / VC,

I thought for a moment that no one was going to make a decent argument, but you two have saved the day (and helped my ‘enforced’ essay no end – ta !!)

There’s little doubt that the UK’s ‘independent’ (word used wisely) nuclear deterrent serves little purpose. Against a re-emergent nuclear state (no clues there) we would undoubtedly have the US nuclear umbrella to shelter under – and why would a resurgent Russia want to attack the UK anyway? Against a terrorist nuclear incident (God forbid) the UK would need to prove conclusively that it was state-sponsored in order to have a target to strike – even then, would striking the population of a state with a nuclear missile be proportional to AQ detonating a dirty-bomb in London? Also, after the ‘dodgy dossier’ debacle, the UK government would have a hell of a time convincing the House, let alone the public, that a particular state sponsored the terrorists.

For a Labour government that has had its fingers burnt previous by its nuclear-policies, it is far easier for them to accept the status-quo and keep Trident, albeit in a new boat. Let us hope that the US decide to replace Trident in 2042 with a missile that is exactly the same size at Trident – otherwise the UK would have spent £20+ billion on 4 submarines that they no longer need, because there is no way that we can unilaterally support Trident if the US no longer use it.

The only debate worth having is whether, or not, our ‘top table seat’ is predicated on our nuclear weapon status – I suspect if we look hard, it is only the UK that thinks that it gives us status, the other nations really couldn’t care less.

P&G:p

[Modern Elmo]

There’s little doubt that the UK’s ‘independent’ (word used wisely) nuclear deterrent serves little purpose. Against a re-emergent nuclear state (no clues there) we would undoubtedly have the US nuclear umbrella to shelter under ...

Undoubtedly,. yes. My suspicion is many British ban-the-bomb peaceniks think it's OK for Blighty to ban precisely because they know Uncle Sugar won't. Uncle Sugar will be there holding the boom-boom umbrella over them to keep disarmed Britain safe.

– and why would a resurgent Russia want to attack the UK anyway?

"Why can't those vulgar wolves learn to be vegetarians?" said the sheep.

No need to attack if one can get what one wants by intimidation and threats of attack.

[spheroid]

I read recently a letter in the Daily Mail (I know, I know) from a Doctor chap which flabbergasted me about our Trident deterrent. This chap said that the boats only go to sea with one missile. Is it true that all the money spent is only to keep one boat at sea with one missile?


I think thats the point of it....thats the deterrent. Is it One missile or 21 Missiles. Are the missiles servicable or not...is there a Submarine on task at the moment or not..... thats the point.

[ORAC]

For a Labour government that has had its fingers burnt previous by its nuclear-policies, it is far easier for them to accept the status-quo and keep Trident, albeit in a new boat. Let us hope that the US decide to replace Trident in 2042 with a missile that is exactly the same size at Trident – otherwise the UK would have spent £20+ billion on 4 submarines that they no longer need Sigh......

Trident Replacement Concept Contract Signed (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/356467-trident-replacement-concept-contract-signed.html)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

If we accept, as I do, that the MAD concept isn’t flawed, why should we or Europe in general expect the US to provide our ultimate insurance policy? Well, I don’t know; perhaps some representative Americans would shed some welcome light on that. The simplistic answer to that basic question is NATO as the Treaty obliges the Member States to defend against any attack on one or more of the Signatories. That said, does it oblige a Member State to commit suicide in the process? Again, I don’t know.

Who is our Nuclear Deterrent intended to deter? Assuming the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty works, USA, Russia, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea (sorry; nearly included S. Africa!) who, at the moment are all our friends? Apart from the obvious ones, which of those States can be guaranteed to remain our friends in times of increasing population and dwindling available resources? Let’s, for the sake of argument, pick our new friend Russia. Capitalism is alive and well there and they are not going to readily upset their new means of wealth creation on points of political dogma. Bearing in mind all the political/ethnic time bombs that Stalin inserted into the former USSR, what constitutes “dogma”? Russia needs resources, as do the rest of us, from foreign sources and, importantly, regions that it believes are Russian by right (Arctic Circle ring any bells?) and will likely assert claims over them. Russia has resources that we may increasingly need (gas?) and, although currently happy to meet by fair trade, may choose to do otherwise in the future. Failed trade agreements can become political and, as good old Von Clausewitz observed, war is "continuation of politics by other means". The salient point is, we don’t know who, where or why will be the source of future conflict. We also don’t know if Russia would make life in Europe difficult without concurrently antagonising the USA. I reiterate the point that I use Russia as a hypothetical example here.

The other recurrent argument is the credibility of the British IND (this is not directed at those who believe that isn’t independent as that would be truly futile) and the significance of our relatively small “throw weight”. Would we use it on the big day? Who knows; Dennis Healey wouldn’t but Jim Callaghan would have. Certainty would be an obvious advantage but even uncertainty can seriously bugger up an opponent’s decision making. Our throw weight is limited by SALT 2 but it would be sufficient to cause any opponent so much pain and grief to be probably not worth his (or her) while. What weight would we throw on the big day? The full provisioned Outfit or a fraction of it? Again, who knows? And that uncertainty diminishes any opponent’s planning options. For now at least, it doesn’t take the brains of an Archbishop to work out what financial saving there would be in sending Boats on patrol with part warloads: oh, did I miss out the phrase “if any”?


Getting rid of something that we could, probably, never legally get back is a big gamble on ones future political, commercial and, dare I say, ethnic survival.

[ORAC]

I read recently a letter in the Daily Mail (I know, I know) from a Doctor chap which flabbergasted me about our Trident deterrent. This chap said that the boats only go to sea with one missile. Is it true that all the money spent is only to keep one boat at sea with one missile?

Hansard: Nuclear Submarines (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061218/text/61218w0010.htm)

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the implications are for the number of deployed warheads of the announcement in the White Paper CM6994 that the stockpile of operationally available warheads will be reduced from 200 to 160; and if he will make a statement. [108791]

Des Browne: As set out in Box 2-1 of the White Paper “The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent” (Cm 6994), published on 4 December 2006, normally only one Trident submarine is on deterrent patrol at any one time, with up to 48 warheads on board..........

[Lazer-Hound]

How long could the UK maintain Trident if the US withdrew its support?

[Modern Elmo]

(1) Why can't UK build its own functional equivalent of Trident? Keep British jobs at home for the lads, and so on.

(2) Why not build submarines similar to the Virginia class, which have vertical launch tubes for either Tomahawk cruise missiles, antiship missiles, or larger torpedos?

(2.a) I'd suggest building a ballistic missile small enough to fit in those tubes. This missile might carry either nuclear or non-noo-klur warheads.

The basic idea is to have multi-role submarines, instead of specialized, use-only-on-Doomsday ballistic missile boats.

[TyroPicard]

From the 2006 Defence White paper on the subject...

our focus is on preventing nuclear attack.
The UK’s nuclear weapons are not
designed for military use during conflict
but instead to deter and prevent nuclear
blackmail and acts of aggression
against our vital interests that cannot be
countered by other means.

So if Trident is not designed for use, how does it deter?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I believe it's a way of saying that it's not intended for 1st strike within a conflict. There will be variations of that within a true nuclear stand-off.

[Pink&Ginger]

ORAC, the CMC contract is a good observation....but with one minor drawback:

The US Navy intends to buy its first replacement SSBN in 2019 and purchase one per year starting in 2024 with a view to the first replacement entering service in 2029 (when the first extended Ohio-class submarines is decommissioned). To ensure Continued at Sea Deterrence (ie 4 SSBNs) the RN need to have the first Vanguard replacement in Service by 2023 (when HMS Victorious is due out of Service). The UK 'outstanding' military procurement process will mean that in order to achieve this ISD, the design will need to be frozen very soon - Vanguard/Trident took 14 years, the 2006 White Paper estimates 17 years for the Successor-SSBN. Unfortunately for the UK, the somewhat slicker US procurement process means that in order to meet their SSBN-X ISD they can afford to faff-around with design changes for another decade.

Consequently, I wish I shared your optimism that the dimensions of the CMC (for a missile that does not yet even exist) will not change in the years between the UK and US needing to design-freeze. Quite literally anything, from improved propellants to improved anti-ballistic missile defences of our adversaries ,could alter the missile's design in that time.:sad: