Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion?

[Tigs2]

From The Independant Today.

I suppose this could raise interesting points such as - could we the military spend this cash in a better way?

Do we need an independant Nuclear Deterrent anymore?

Do we have any right to tell other nations in the world that they cant have Nukes when we continue to build/upgrade?



"Tony Blair's determination to ensure that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent will be retained well into the middle of this century is set to provoke the most ferocious row yet in his increasingly fraught third term.

The Government will today be accused by rebellious Labour MPs of preparing to squander up to £20bn of taxpayers' money by replacing Trident with a new generation of nuclear weaponry. The cost is equivalent to 800 new city academy schools, 60 medium-sized hospitals or the employment of 20,000 new NHS consultants.

A coalition of independent military analysts, dissident Labour MPs and groups such as Greenpeace and CND argue that replacing Trident will contribute very little to Britain's security in a world that has been transformed since the days of the Cold War. Britain's nuclear deterrent was last modernised in 1980. In a growing insurrection that threatens to split the Labour Party, MPs will argue that any decision to upgrade Britain's nuclear defences would be a disastrous own goal. Party chiefs have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent a vote on the divisive issue at this evening's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) which will be addressed by John Reid, the Defence Secretary.

But rebel MPs, spurred on by the belief that they have the private backing of several cabinet ministers, are planning to embarrass the Government by collecting a House of Commons motion underlining the strength of opposition to the move.
One hope is that a final decision could be put off until Mr Blair, who has made clear he favours replacing Trident, steps down as Prime Minister.

The current Trident fleet consists of four submarines carrying up to 48 nuclear warheads - each eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb - mounted on Trident II D5 missiles. As the vessels are due for replacement between 2020 and 2025 and there can be a lead-in time of up to 14 years to develop new weaponry, a decision is due shortly on whether to replace them. The Government says it has to be taken this parliament.
Labour MPs fear the decision has already been taken in Downing Street and worry the "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair on the subject is cosmetic. They point to a comment by the Prime Minister two weeks ago that he believed the "independent nuclear deterrent" was "an important part of our defence".
There is also anger that ministers have sidestepped demands to give Parliament the chance to vote on the issue.
Backbenchers had hoped to force a vote at tonight's meeting on a motion questioning the "wisdom of spending billions on Trident replacement" .

But internal PLP papers seen by The Independent disclose that the Labour Parliamentary Committee, senior backbenchers who meet the Prime Minister each week, believed it "would be unhelpful to have a vote on the future of Trident" at tonight's PLP meeting. The strong feelings in PLP ranks are, from the Government's point of view, an ominous precursor to other looming rebellions on such issues as education and welfare reforms.

One of the Trident motion's proposers, Gordon Prentice, MP for Pendle, dismissed Mr Blair's call for a debate on Trident as "completely vacuous ". He added: "John Reid will no doubt say that no decision has been taken yet, that the various options haven't been worked through yet."
MPs will argue that no decision needs to be taken for several years and should not be reached until the issues have been fully aired.

Paul Flynn, the Newport West MP, said: "The Cold War has ended and it's possible to discuss these things openly. There's no reason why we should not have a debate and a vote in the Commons on it. Having a new Trident would make the world a more dangerous place. We campaign against nuclear proliferation among other nations and we should lead by example." He said possession of a nuclear arsenal was irrelevant to British forces' main tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has launched a nationwide petition against the replacement of Trident. It has also circulated among Labour MPs an article by Robin Cook, the late foreign secretary, written weeks before his death, arguing that updating Trident was "against Britain's national interests" and "against our international obligations" .
Kate Hudson, the chair of CND said: "We are opposed to any replacement of Trident - no matter what that may be. We need to move towards multi-lateral disarmament."
Possibilities being mooted for a new generation of Trident include the development of multi-role submarines, which can fire both nuclear and conventional missiles, or that new Astute submarines being designed for the Royal Navy could be adapted for nuclear weapons.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "There are no official costs or even a list of replacement options for Trident at this time. Any decision on the future of Trident is needed in this parliament and ministers realise the importance of retaining the current Trident provision."
"

[MarkD]

Tigs2

somehow I suspect if the people who want Trident gone save 20bn, they won't want the mil to get it...

[Tigs2]

MarkD
I agree with you. Wondered if the money was put else where in the mil the non-believers wouldn't b***h and moan.

[Daysleeper]

Do we really need to replace "trident". Ok we might need new boats to cart the missiles around on but that will hardly cost £20 billion.

Lets face it we will never use the things anyhow.
We seem to be likely to send some squadies to jail for being a little rough with looters, how do you think we would treat a crew who nuked a major city no matter how bad the provocation.

[Tigs2]

Daysleeper
They (the law) would probably have us on 'use of excessive force'!! If youve got guys concerned about opening fire because of litigation mmm crews to press the button on a nuke??

[JessTheDog]

The idea we have an "independent" nuclear deterrent is b0ll0cks.

The Indy article makes this point later.

There is no way on this Earth we (as UK plc) could launch independently of the US. I wonder if we could even refrain from launching in the event of a US nuclear strike :E


All we are doing is subsidising the US Trident system.

[Red Line Entry]

"There is no way on this Earth we (as UK plc) could launch independently of the US."

Boll@cks! The Trident boats do not have US officers on board with a magic authorisation code like a Microsoft activation key. The UK could indeed launch independently if necessary. Whether from a political viewpoint we ever would is a totally different question.

A more relevant question is whether we need a nuclear capability that is based on a ballistic missile. Perhaps a move to lower yield cruise missile platforms may be more sensible. This would provide a much cheaper capability with the acceptable (?)disadvantage of a longer flight time.

[Data-Lynx]

Oh dear. What is this doing here? The military wouldn't see the cash from such a change in policy and, frankly, we haven't seen aircrew on a 'nuc' since Dr Strangelove or the demise of WE-177. Perhaps the thread could bring in the French (http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ja05norris) who still have nuclear capable aircraft. They also have a new 'bird', designated M51.1, which is due in service from 2010 in order to coincide with the commissioning of Le Terrible and will eventually arm all four Triomphant-class subs by about 2014. The Independant quotes the possibility of developing multi-role submarines, which can fire both nuclear and conventional missiles, or that new Astute submarines being designed for the Royal Navy could be adapted for nuclear weapons. Well the Yanks got rid of TLAM-N (RGM/UGM-109A) Tomahawk cruise missiles so that option has gone and because, when it came to Trident upgrades, size mattered (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMUS_Trident_C4_and_D5_pic.jpg), what target would fit a conventional missile of these dimensions?

[walter kennedy]

JessTheDog
Quite right at present.
Further to your << All we are doing is subsidising the US Trident system.>> I agree and would add “ sharing the blame “ much like we are required to make up the coalition in the middle east.
I believe that we should have an independent nuclear deterrent but that it should be technically independent (like the French) – otherwise we would be forced to follow further costly (and in future possibly unnecessary) upgrades as we were when the US went on from Polaris leaving us without a supply of the missile – we had to go with Trident or end up with no suitable ballistic missile at all (if my memory serves me correctly).
Political and economic independence/freedom are on a par with a strong military capability in my book – we could do a lot of good in the world (eg Africa) our way if we were not on America’s leash.

[brickhistory]

quote:
we could do a lot of good in the world (eg Africa) our way if we were not on America’s leash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like you did in the 1800 and 1900s?

[soddim]

Blair could not strut the World stage without an independant nuclear weapon in his pocket - maybe that would be to the benefit of the rest of the World but I doubt he sees it that way.

In any case, given the current state of so-called peace, it would be a great mistake to scrap any weapon capability.

[Postman Plod]

What surprised me from the papers over the weekend was the description of our submarines as "aging"....? Now tell me if I'm wrong, but surely the last of the Trident boats is less than 5 years old??? Or is it the Trident weapon itself we are looking to replace? Or are we just trying to spend lots of money on something we dont really need....?

[Unmissable]

Why don't we go back to a nuclear deterrent consisting of bombs hanging off aircraft?? Surely it keeps out status as a nuclear nation without the costly need of submarines.

The only reason we used submarines is their stealth (and therefore range). We could do that with a 'nuclear’ Storm Shadow on JSF which uses existing aircraft and existing missile technology.

[Archimedes]

PP - I think that's simply a misunderstanding along the lines of:

There is talk of finding a replacement for Tirdent, ergo, the submarines must be rather old.

The last Trident boat (VENGEANCE) was commissioned in 1999, IIRC. The first came into service in about 1993. The issue is one of beginning to study what (if anything) replaces Trident - which will be 'ageing' by the time this is necessary.

[ORAC]

Return of the V-Force - or another role for MR4A? Ministers may save cash by replacing Trident with air-launched missiles (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article323788.ece)

[Blacksheep]

Why keep nuclear weapons at all? Because, as we're often reminded, small countries with big ambitions and dodgy governments (Iran, North Korea etc. - Pakistan already has them and that place is hardly a model of democratic stability) are getting them and we need to wave an even bigger stick in their faces just to keep them quiet.

If they ever have more powerful weapons than we have, they won't be as gracious about it as we have been so far, that's for sure. The reason we're all still here is because of the good old policy of mutually assured destruction - If you show me yours, I'll definitely show you mine.

In today's environment it would make more sense to replace ballistic nuclear missiles launched from submarines with cruise missiles launched from anywhere we choose (including submarines) Cruise missiles are more flexible and could carry conventional or nuclear warheads as befits the situation and the target. I don't see the need for one huge bang when several smaller bangs bracketing the target can be far more effective. There are cases where you can't use a really, really big bang but a 'small' 5 or 10 kiloton device would do just fine.

[ORAC]

It does seem to throw the present defence policy of strategic deterrence out the window. The main point of Trident is it a second strike weapon, it is invisible at sea and can retaliate against a first strike - including the Moscow option. ALCM can do none of that, a permanent airborne force being unacceptable on safety and other grounds. If the government has abandoned that policy we might as well recall the boats now, mothball at but one, and moor it alongside till required.

We have already eliminated tactical nuclear weapons for several reasons, (blurring the nuclear threshold and a failure to envisage a scenario when they could be used amongst others), it is hard to see the case for reintroducing them.

I have suspicions this is a ploy. Get acceptance to retire Trident - then reduce or eliminate any replacement - as well as getting the present budget to absorb the cost, and nuclear weapons are money eating monsters.

I would urge the RAF to reject this idea as openly and firmly as possible and ask everyone to write to their MPs, the press etc to kill it before it becomes more than a kite flying exercise.

[Data-Lynx]

Well done ORAC. Leaving others to argue the do we or don't we have 'em, is there no PPRuNer who remembers the monolithic organisation and associated cost that was deemed necessary to support WE-177 variants at constant readiness? In this current lean climate of nearly enough kit with almost in time spares, is the RAF seriously proposing to plan this additional task. I think not, not even for the surge in job opportunities for snowdrops.

Meanwhile, is the UK ready to go it alone with a nuclear version of UK/French Storm Shadow (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/casom.htm)? Perhaps the French name SCALP may be more appropriate. We are good at politically aware military advice so is it really down to:
1. Tell the US that we will no longer subsidise Trident but ..er.. please can Raytheon sell us some Block IV upgrades for Tomahawk and leave some space for a UK warhead (from Aldermaston).
2. Persuade the French that a nuc version of Storm Shadow/SCALP EG is the way ahead for their air launched capability and develop a Nuclear Armed Stand Off Missile (NASOM).

Absolutely not.

[Tracey Island]

The reason that the nuclear deterrent is carried in submarines is so that the UK has a credible second strike capability. It's no good having all your nasty nukes strapped to shiny aircraft that have just had their runway bombed.

Do we also believe that any cost saving will be reploughed in to Defence plc's coffers? Methinks not somehow..

Deterrence is a funny old game but better to be on the train pi$$ing on to the platform than running along the platform trying to pi$$ in the train....

[RileyDove]

Tracey - Difference is that you have umpteen nuclear missiles on one sub . Compare that to finding eighteen aircraft at different airfields and the aircraft do have an advantage.
There are also very few instances where an airfield has been successfully put out of action for a long period of time.
Lastly a nuclear sub can only do a limited number of roles because of the nature of where it is- a strike aircraft can be quickly role changed depending on circumstances.

[Widger]

Riley,

Have it, take it, keep it.
Build the HAS to keep the aircraft in.
Build the new armouries and the technology to operate them from aircraft.
Train the operators, armourers, maintainers, medical staff etc. Deal with the public enquiries from the NIMBY brigade.
Deal with the Enquiry when one of your aircraft drops out of the sky.
Build an aircraft large enough and with enough range to take it all the way there and get back, because the V bombers are long gone.
Train and pay a huge force to guard those bunkers and airfields. Have all that expense.
Then there will be no money left for your tankers and transports, typhoon or bunkers for FCs to play in, or your pay rise.

Yes it will cost a lot of money but a damn sight less than the alternative.

Get real! stop living in the 1950s If we are going to have a Nuclear deterrant then there is only one place with the infrastructure, skills, security and expertees that it can go.

The only debate is, do we replace Trident or not?

[pr00ne]

Getting my threads mixed up I fear!

Just posted this passage on an entirely inappropriate thread, sorry!

As for the strategic nuclear deterrent, to get back on topic, whilst the present system has virtually NO relevance to any military activity we are currently engaged in and is of absolutely NO use whatsoever in this so called “war on terror,” I would feel extremely uncomfortable to be unilaterally disarming at a time in history when nuclear capability is rapidly being acquired by some rather unstable regimes and remains a key element of a major non democratic nation such as China.

[BillHicksRules]

Proone,

"I would feel extremely uncomfortable to be unilaterally disarming at a time in history when nuclear capability is rapidly being acquired by some rather unstable regimes and remains a key element of a major non democratic nation such as China."

Why?

Cheers

BHR

[pr00ne]

Bhr,

Because we would be potentially and theoretically extremely vulnerable to coercion and persuasion if involved in any kind of stand off or disagreement with another power that had a nuclear capability, even a limited one.

Wasn’t it a British politician at the time of the decision to go thermonuclear who said he would not want to condemm his succesors to; “walk into the debating chamber naked and unarmed?

I also think not to have a nuclear capability would restrict us from becoming involved in or even influencing future multi laterral disarmament.

[jindabyne]

walter

Didn't realise that little Johnny had gone nuclear?

[West Coast]

From BHR

"Why?"

Political relevance has a cost of admission. Just a reflection of reality, not what I'd want. Right or wrong I'll leave for you to debate.

[BillHicksRules]

WC,

I have to say that your last post is one of the most depressing looks into another's world view I have ever heard.

BHR

[West Coast]

BHR
My statement reflects the reality of todays politics IMHO.
Can you name a country that truly is politically powerful that doesn't have a bomb? (the big one) There are ones that have sway in a region and there are ones that are respected but possess little ability to shape the political landscape. I listen with an open mind.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

W Closet,

Standing by to be corrected but have "ze germans" got one:confused:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[16 blades]

No, and as a result nobody on the world stage gives a sh1t what they think. A bit like Canada.

A tactical deterrent may have even more relevance in the current 'asymmetric' climate that a strategic one. It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. And the infratructure for an air-launched deterrent is already in place - Waddington. It hasn't changed much in terms of infrastructure since the V-force days.

16B

[BEagle]

Not correct, 16B:

An estimated 150 atomic weapons are stationed on German soil out of a total of about 480 in Europe. In a case of self-defense after a nuclear attack, they would be carried by German Tornado jets under current pacts.

The weapons are US-owned.

The German Air Force currently only has one type of aircraft certified to deliver nuclear weapons, the PA-200 Tornado, which will be replaced over the next 10 years by the Eurofighter. The German Defense Ministry, in a statement to the Bundestag on July 12, noted that “it is currently not planned and no preparations are being made to enable the weapons system Eurofighter for a nuclear-weapon deployment.” If the government sticks to this line, Germany will have no nuclear-capable aircraft by 2015 at the latest.

[The Helpful Stacker]

BEagle - '16 blades' is essentially correct though.

Although the weapons are based on German soil as you state they are US-owned (and controlled). If the Soviet hoards had come steaming across the Inner German Border the weapons would have possibly been released to the GAF to stem the tide but they are not owned by Germany and hence on the world stage they don't own the toys to play with the big boys.

Defence pacts are bits of paper of intent not deeds of ownership.

[Widger]

16 B,

Whilst I do not have current knowledge of Waddington, the HAS etc might still be there but, so are all the ISTAR assets. There would be immense disruption if you were to put "nukes" back in there. Mind you...it would mean you could keep St Mawgan open!

The point is, the RAF does not have CURRENT experience of looking after and operating nuclear weapons. The RN has a sucure facility (+ protesters) both to store and operate the weapons. With over 30 years of experience, the RN has the ability to exclude/sterilise others from the area and the ability to hide the weapons virtually anywhere in the world. How are you going to sterilise Lincolnshire? You have enough trouble dealing with noise complaints from people who have brought houses right next to your airfield.

As I said before. Get real! it is not going to happen. The only debate is: Do we wish to remain a nuclear power once Trident reaches the end of it's life? I suspect the answer will be yes.

Thi debate about Sea based or Shore based was conducted many, many years ago by people more highly paid and far cleverer than you or I? Concentrate your efforts on what really matters, Transport, Tankers, Air Defence and Tactical Strike.

[Jackonicko]

There is infrastructure for nuclear weapons (in varying states of repair) at Waddinton, Wittering, and Cottesmore.

There is more recent, more modern infrastructure at Honington, and I suspect at Lossiemouth.

Marham has the full WS3 vaults under certain HASs and would be the obvious home for any future air launched deterrent. I cannot believe that a basic tactical nuclear option for Storm Shadow would not be possible for a tiny percentage of the cost of aa new sub-launched system, with subs.

[BillHicksRules]

WC,

I have racked my brains to come up with a country without the bomb to fit your criteria and had all but given up and then......

Here is one for you perhaps, Saudi Arabia?

Has political clout out with the region and has influence beyond its size and as far as I know has no bomb.

Cheers

BHR

[effortless]

A slightly different tack

This is not with reference to theatre weapons which in my view include potential terrorist nukes. Just the big buggers.

I cannot see an alternative to having nukes. We live with too many "friends" and not such friends who own them to give them up. Would, quite apart from anyone else, the US take us so seriously if we weren't a nuclear power? Would they take us more seriously if we had an independent nuclear deterrent?

In the end, nuclear weapons aren't just a deterrent. They are also a membership badge for a "big boys'" club. It is school playground politics but who the hell would talk to us on the big issues if we got rid of them?

In addition, I perfectly understand Iran's perspective, why should they be surrounded by nukes but not have any themselves. In a way perhaps the more of them that there are the more convesation would go on and the less sabre rattling.

I am not saying that it is right, just that I can see the sense in it.:(

[West Coast]

BHR
I'm inclined to agree with you with the example of SA. I would change my statement about relevance by adding "a few notable exceptions"
That said, wait a while and my original statement becomes true after the natural resources are gone.

[engineer(retard)]

"The point is, the RAF does not have CURRENT experience of looking after and operating nuclear weapons."

Widger

I think that you will find that there a still more than a few engineers and technicans knocking around who have been UCOs, WLSOs and load team members from WE177 days.

regards

reatrd

[ORAC]

But if they are still about in the Trident replacement timeframe, they may well need zimmer frames.........

[Blacksheep]

Many respondents seem to agree that submarine launched ACBMs are a second strike asset, but are they a credible deterrent against a country that knows you could never reasonably respond to their 10 Kiloton first strike on a military target (your own or an ally's) with a 2 megaton second strike on their capital city? Perhaps the ability to vapourise their entire military force in a storm of tactical nuclear strikes by submarine launched cruise missiles would be more credible threat. The non-nuclear variety of SLCMs did a fair job in Iraq, after all.

[buoy15]

Read your books

Bible, plus others say that " The Yellow man will eventually rule the world"

Everything you buy in the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada says "Made in China"

Buy shares in China or Far East Options

Get rich quick and retire - or become an MP - same game!

[snafu]

As has been said before the SND buys the UK a seat at the big boys' table in world politics. We've got it and I can't see any politician ever risking the global stature that the UK has by getting rid of them completely. Bearing in mind the countries that appear to be actively trying to develop their own capability, I have absolutely no problem with keeping it or developing a successor.

As far as who operates them, there is always going to be an element of single service rivalry about who has the responsibility. The RN have it at the moment and will hopefully keep it in the future. Notwithstanding any of the previous arguments about how secure your aircraft and airfields are or could be, a Vanguard submarine is currently sat somewhere on patrol with the SND on board. Where is it? Only a handful of people have a rough idea and probably only a couple of them who are actually on board can answer with any accuracy. That's secure! Bloody difficult for anyone to try and interfere with it or take it out when you haven't got a scooby where it is.

As far as the argument about tactical vs strategic scale nukes, there probably is a valid argument for the scientists to come up with something that could fit into a SS or TLAM for tactical use. Whether we would ever use them is a totally different argument!

[Bluntend]

Whatever happened to the airborne laser/counter ICBM project that was being talked about a few years ago? I remember seeing something about a huge chemical laser mounted in a converted 747 that could potentially track and destroy ICBMs before they got too close.

[Data-Lynx]

The Russians appeared to trump Ronnie's Star-Wars proposals with plans and a subsequent successful firing almost a year ago of the Topol-M mobile ICBM (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3296.html). Apparently airborne lasers have a capability gap with hypersonic missiles.

[pr00ne]

buoy15,

Hhmm…………..

Try telling that to the three million people who work in manufacturing in the UK!

As to the “yellow man”, why should the Bible be any more accurate here than it has been elsewhere?

Bluntend,

Isn't the Boeing A1 coming along rather nicely but extremely slowly?