Corbyn & Trident
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Pontius Navigator
I mean, do nuclear weapons actually work? In the YS2 we knew it was largely empty with a lot of electrical gubbins and a big dustbin inside, but was there anything in it?
I believe they stuck Ted Rogers in it when his show was cancelled
I mean, do nuclear weapons actually work? In the YS2 we knew it was largely empty with a lot of electrical gubbins and a big dustbin inside, but was there anything in it?
I believe they stuck Ted Rogers in it when his show was cancelled
I acknowledge nobody ever consulted me regarding the release of the Nuclear Deterrent. And on that score, I respect those within that chain. But I dont believe that the release of key US technology within NATO, was without conditions.
My assumption is that the submarines without the warheads would have a conventional role, thus retaining the support jobs. - Clearly, its not a deterrent, if its not equipped.
My assumption is that the submarines without the warheads would have a conventional role, thus retaining the support jobs. - Clearly, its not a deterrent, if its not equipped.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
But would you not have to carry out significant modifications to adapt it from a nuclear to a conventional Arsenal?
I would imagine most of the launch tubes would be dedicated to nuclear weapons.
I would imagine most of the launch tubes would be dedicated to nuclear weapons.
Why has Japan not been attacked?
Does it have an 'independent' nuclear deterrent?
Does it have an 'independent' nuclear deterrent?
Thatcher was not 'well on the way to dumping FI'.
There was a belief that the islands could not be defended properly without the expenditure of money we didn't have and a notion that they were more bother than they were worth. This led to explorations of 'leaseback' - which were torn to shreds by Tory backbenchers when Nick Ridley raised the idea. Thatcher, at the time, had a majority of 43 and a wing of the party which was deeply uncertain about her leadership.
She also faced a Labour party led by Jim Callaghan who would have led a fairly significant number of his MPs into the lobbies against any notion of sovereignty transfer followed by the UK leasing the islands back, and a number of Liberal (as they were at the time) MPs such as Russell Johnson were against the idea.
The FIGC, ironically, was not unanimously against the idea, but the opposition in parliament to the idea meant that unless and until the islanders were in agreement, there was no chance of the islands being handed over. This is all online as well; sovereignty transfer and lease back needs to be placed in the wider context - which was that the Thatcher government was nowhere near 'dumping the FI' - not least since MT was busy minuting proposals from Carrington with lines such as ' I could not possibly agree to the course of action the Foreign Secretary is proposing' and 'NO. It would never get through the H[ouse] of C[ommons], and rightly so.'
[See National Archives, PREM19/656 folio 118, 20 Sep 79]
Then in Feb 82, Lord Carrington sent her a note -
http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe...2C6C87933F.pdf
Which rather suggests that the problem was nowhere near a diplomatic resolution; a memo went in the opposite direction reinforcing the view of the PM that the wishes of the islanders remained paramout.
Other documents, in Kew, but not in the Thatcher archive also suggest that her administration was nowhere near 'well on the way to dumping the FI'.
Like the proliferation of comment about the independence of the deterrent, a lot of the material out there is well out of context; unlike the Falklands, the actual documents demonstrating that the scenario is rather more complex than portrayed are not in the public domain...
There was a belief that the islands could not be defended properly without the expenditure of money we didn't have and a notion that they were more bother than they were worth. This led to explorations of 'leaseback' - which were torn to shreds by Tory backbenchers when Nick Ridley raised the idea. Thatcher, at the time, had a majority of 43 and a wing of the party which was deeply uncertain about her leadership.
She also faced a Labour party led by Jim Callaghan who would have led a fairly significant number of his MPs into the lobbies against any notion of sovereignty transfer followed by the UK leasing the islands back, and a number of Liberal (as they were at the time) MPs such as Russell Johnson were against the idea.
The FIGC, ironically, was not unanimously against the idea, but the opposition in parliament to the idea meant that unless and until the islanders were in agreement, there was no chance of the islands being handed over. This is all online as well; sovereignty transfer and lease back needs to be placed in the wider context - which was that the Thatcher government was nowhere near 'dumping the FI' - not least since MT was busy minuting proposals from Carrington with lines such as ' I could not possibly agree to the course of action the Foreign Secretary is proposing' and 'NO. It would never get through the H[ouse] of C[ommons], and rightly so.'
[See National Archives, PREM19/656 folio 118, 20 Sep 79]
Then in Feb 82, Lord Carrington sent her a note -
http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe...2C6C87933F.pdf
Which rather suggests that the problem was nowhere near a diplomatic resolution; a memo went in the opposite direction reinforcing the view of the PM that the wishes of the islanders remained paramout.
Other documents, in Kew, but not in the Thatcher archive also suggest that her administration was nowhere near 'well on the way to dumping the FI'.
Like the proliferation of comment about the independence of the deterrent, a lot of the material out there is well out of context; unlike the Falklands, the actual documents demonstrating that the scenario is rather more complex than portrayed are not in the public domain...
It has always puzzled me that at the time of the Falklands invasion by a country which was ruled by a right wing military dictatorship, the left were generally in favour of us handing them over to the tender mercies of such a regime, and certainly against any military action in their defence.
If Corbyn and his ilk were not prepared to defend us (and we can reasonably describe the Falklands population as "us") against invasion by right wing extremists, just who would they defend us against? Why doesnt Corbyn come right out and admit that, other than providing jobs for workers in the armaments industry, he sees no future for any armed forces, nuclear or otherwise?
If Corbyn and his ilk were not prepared to defend us (and we can reasonably describe the Falklands population as "us") against invasion by right wing extremists, just who would they defend us against? Why doesnt Corbyn come right out and admit that, other than providing jobs for workers in the armaments industry, he sees no future for any armed forces, nuclear or otherwise?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean, do nuclear weapons actually work? In the YS2 we knew it was largely empty with a lot of electrical gubbins and a big dustbin inside, but was there anything in it?
I remember watching the Yes Prime Minister episode about "salami slicing" long ago and I thinking what a silly argument it was - without the deterrent, your enemy wouldn't have to bother with such a time consuming and piecemeal strategy - he'd just blow you to smithereens without warning.
I think the Labour party voting in Corbyn was an attempt to steer away from the Labour party of years previous. I don't think the gamble has paid off and hope to God this idiot never gets into number 10.
Two things if I may. To hand the FI to Argentina would be an insult to everyone who fought in the 1982 conflict. I'm also sure that I read recently that there is only a microscopic percentage of islanders who want to be ruled by the Argies.
My second point is more worrying. Let's say judgement day came and we sent up a Trident missile or three that didn't have nuclear warheads on them. Everyone else's defense systems would react to the fact that Trident had been launched and we would end up getting vapourised by the real thing. A rather over simplistic analogy I know but you get the point.
Two things if I may. To hand the FI to Argentina would be an insult to everyone who fought in the 1982 conflict. I'm also sure that I read recently that there is only a microscopic percentage of islanders who want to be ruled by the Argies.
My second point is more worrying. Let's say judgement day came and we sent up a Trident missile or three that didn't have nuclear warheads on them. Everyone else's defense systems would react to the fact that Trident had been launched and we would end up getting vapourised by the real thing. A rather over simplistic analogy I know but you get the point.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeesus it beggars belief the mentality of some of these politicians
To have 4 Trafalgar class submarines at great cost to the taxpayer, the prime role of which is a nuclear deterrant, which would be useless in any other role, patrolling the seas, not to be used because the left wing lentil eating beardy would refuse to "push the button"
If the "button" was pushed the empty ballistic missile would amount to a glorified firework, appearing on others radars as a nuclear attack with the obvious consequences
Corbyn should resign and pursue a career in stand up comedy as he's not fit for purpose to lead the UK, problem is he's being laughed at now so there's no point
To have 4 Trafalgar class submarines at great cost to the taxpayer, the prime role of which is a nuclear deterrant, which would be useless in any other role, patrolling the seas, not to be used because the left wing lentil eating beardy would refuse to "push the button"
If the "button" was pushed the empty ballistic missile would amount to a glorified firework, appearing on others radars as a nuclear attack with the obvious consequences
Corbyn should resign and pursue a career in stand up comedy as he's not fit for purpose to lead the UK, problem is he's being laughed at now so there's no point
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Ahh.... I get a chance to use it in a proper thread, apologies to Neville Chamberlain whose head I pasted over..
On the subject of independent deterrence I believe much was made of RAF Thor IRBMs being under dual key control and only able to be used if the White House agreed. I also seem to remember at least one comment from a former Thor driver that if necessary the US-held key may well have been exchanged for a bullet from an RAF-issue personal weapon had the situation demanded it.
Don't expect the current arrangement vis-a-vis Trident to be quite the same, but I have no doubt that the UK can use it unilaterally if needed -warhead or no warhead
.
Don't expect the current arrangement vis-a-vis Trident to be quite the same, but I have no doubt that the UK can use it unilaterally if needed -warhead or no warhead
.
Evanelpus - Correct, and a major reason why Conventional Trident was 
canned in the US, despite Hoss Cartwright's enthusiasm for Conventional Prompt Global Strike (I think he liked it because it didn't involve any Air Force pilots).
And if the boats have conventional warheads, or no warheads at all, they create an incentive for an adversary to move quickly towards a desired end-state before they can be armed.
canned in the US, despite Hoss Cartwright's enthusiasm for Conventional Prompt Global Strike (I think he liked it because it didn't involve any Air Force pilots). And if the boats have conventional warheads, or no warheads at all, they create an incentive for an adversary to move quickly towards a desired end-state before they can be armed.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Yep, a British built "Red Snow" warhead based on US B-28 design and some ballast. You could have got 4 US B-28's in a Vulcan, but the ballistic data for the original YS bomb was already known so it was quicker to modify the YS bomb casing to hold the smaller US warhead than to modify the NBS to drop the B-28 in its US configuration (according to a discussion in the latest RAFHS journal which covers the development of British nuclear weapons for the RAF as one of its topics).
The bottom line, it could have been a bluff.
After 28 days on stand-by the aircraft was disarmed, underwent a BF, and then was flown off. No rectification was undertaken if the 'post-QRA fly-off' was to prove a success.