Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion?
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."
"
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."
"
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
All we are doing is subsidising the US Trident system.
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
All we are doing is subsidising the US Trident system.
"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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
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, what target would fit a conventional missile of these dimensions?
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
In any case, given the current state of so-called peace, it would be a great mistake to scrap any weapon capability.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Return of the V-Force - or another role for MR4A? Ministers may save cash by replacing Trident with air-launched missiles
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Last edited by ORAC; 1st Nov 2005 at 07:07.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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? 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.
Meanwhile, is the UK ready to go it alone with a nuclear version of UK/French Storm Shadow? 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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Travelodge account holder
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.