Nuclear (trident replacement) do we need one?
BHR
I don't know what type of schedule time frame it would take other than to compare it to the Manhattan project. Obviously the level of knowledge is greater nowadays then in the mid 40's. The IAEA seems concerned enough to feel the need to have top Japanese officials publicly refute any desire to possess nukes.
Makes you wonder.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japa...Nukes_999.html
I don't know what type of schedule time frame it would take other than to compare it to the Manhattan project. Obviously the level of knowledge is greater nowadays then in the mid 40's. The IAEA seems concerned enough to feel the need to have top Japanese officials publicly refute any desire to possess nukes.
Makes you wonder.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japa...Nukes_999.html
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a Cockpit near you
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who really controls our
I for one, am in favour of the purposed Trident upgrade, however, this article raises some very interesting points, which were previously unknown to me.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm
Is the real reason old Tone is pushing for the replacment, down to the US needing validation??
Regards,
Nick
http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm
Is the real reason old Tone is pushing for the replacment, down to the US needing validation??
Regards,
Nick
Did anyone read the letter in today's Telegraph from the vice-chairman of CND? It was signed off as Air Commodore Alastair Mackie.
Does anyone else feel slightly uncomfortable with someone continuing to use their previous military rank when engaged on political activity a la CND?
Is there something in QRs which prevents this?
Does anyone else feel slightly uncomfortable with someone continuing to use their previous military rank when engaged on political activity a la CND?
Is there something in QRs which prevents this?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Trident replacement is a barking mad idea.
By all means, please, spend the money on a fleet of diesel/electric hunter/killer subs. The Iranians, the Chinese and others are all developing submarine fleets and aircraft carriers. A fleet of cutting edge super silent subs that could clip their wings would be very useful.
Trident is unique and excellent in only one regard; MAD. If this country woke startled in the dead of night to find a barrage of thermonukes exploding above its major cities then Trident is what you want. We do the same to them within a few hours and there is nothing they can do about it. Lovely.
But times have changed. There is, and will not be, a superpower capable of doing that in the next 50 years. Even if N Korea or Iran or China went down that road then a sub or air launched nuclear cruise missile could put at risk their country. Which is all that is required.
Having a Trident system is a lovely thing to have. But balance it against replacing:
All the Armys rifles, radios and Landrovers with better kit plus,
Replacing the RAFs Tristars and VC10's with B767s and adding another 2 sqns of Chinooks plus,
Tripling the size of the RNs minesweeper fleet and adding a new fleet of diesel/electric hunter/killer subs plus,
Having some spare cash left over you spend it on some decent pay rises. Now do you, a) replace Trident or, b) not?
I suggest not.
AP
By all means, please, spend the money on a fleet of diesel/electric hunter/killer subs. The Iranians, the Chinese and others are all developing submarine fleets and aircraft carriers. A fleet of cutting edge super silent subs that could clip their wings would be very useful.
Trident is unique and excellent in only one regard; MAD. If this country woke startled in the dead of night to find a barrage of thermonukes exploding above its major cities then Trident is what you want. We do the same to them within a few hours and there is nothing they can do about it. Lovely.
But times have changed. There is, and will not be, a superpower capable of doing that in the next 50 years. Even if N Korea or Iran or China went down that road then a sub or air launched nuclear cruise missile could put at risk their country. Which is all that is required.
Having a Trident system is a lovely thing to have. But balance it against replacing:
All the Armys rifles, radios and Landrovers with better kit plus,
Replacing the RAFs Tristars and VC10's with B767s and adding another 2 sqns of Chinooks plus,
Tripling the size of the RNs minesweeper fleet and adding a new fleet of diesel/electric hunter/killer subs plus,
Having some spare cash left over you spend it on some decent pay rises. Now do you, a) replace Trident or, b) not?
I suggest not.
AP
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are wondering what the real reason is for replacing Trident, you need look no further than the Channel. Forget the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans et al, there is no way any British Govt would give up its nuclear first strike option as long as the Frenchies still had their's. C****y reason, but it sort of gets my vote!
AP, all very fine and well, but you're never going to get the money for a trident replacement, it will just go on pay rises for MPs and some shiny new computer system for the NHS, into a black hole where no one really cares about it!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can people not look at how rapidly the world has transformed in the last 50 years and still believe that they can predict what could occur in the next 50, it is impossible! The UK should hedge its bets and go with what we can afford to best protect ourselves without becoming a militaristic state or bankrupting UK Plc. Nuclear weapons may be the ultimatum to end all ultimatum's, but do we settle for lesser deterents(i.e. a pointy stick) or a weapon that "should" make even the most crazy despot think twice!
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
Worse still some cheesed off Russian or Chinese general has a pop at Big Ben with an ICBM are we going to nuke Moscow or Bejing?
Those figures given earlier by Widger are illuminating, given that the primary purpose of government is security - securing the borders, securing internal peace through operation of law and security of the economy - defence seems to be far, far too low down the list. When it comes to the defence of the nation I think the relevant expression is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." That means the biggest, knobbliest and meanest looking stick you can find.
We need to keep our nuclear weapons, they're our big stick. I learned in the schoolyard that showing any sign of weakness gets you thumped and you lose all your candy. If we throw away our big stick, what message would we be sending out?
What happens if an Iranian takes a pop at Big Ben with a North Korean missile and a Russian nuke?
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just can't understand (logic) why we will pay billions£ for a nuke system, that is only allowed to be launched with the OK of the US.
Crazy! eg. Iran (2010) nukes UK...US getting on well with Iran...UK PM (then) asks' Mr President' "we have lost a few cities, may we launch against Iran" ........
Err, no you can't use the nukes?
Lets put our 'home grown nukes' on our own a/c VC10?
Crazy! eg. Iran (2010) nukes UK...US getting on well with Iran...UK PM (then) asks' Mr President' "we have lost a few cities, may we launch against Iran" ........
Err, no you can't use the nukes?
Lets put our 'home grown nukes' on our own a/c VC10?
Just can't understand (logic) why we will pay billions£ for a nuke system, that is only allowed to be launched with the OK of the US.
Crazy! eg. Iran (2010) nukes UK...US getting on well with Iran...UK PM (then) asks' Mr President' "we have lost a few cities, may we launch against Iran" ........
Err, no you can't use the nukes?
Lets put our 'home grown nukes' on our own a/c VC10?
Crazy! eg. Iran (2010) nukes UK...US getting on well with Iran...UK PM (then) asks' Mr President' "we have lost a few cities, may we launch against Iran" ........
Err, no you can't use the nukes?
Lets put our 'home grown nukes' on our own a/c VC10?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly right. That was an original concern regarding the King's Bay Agreement on pooled missile maintenance but, in the event, wasn't a practical problem. After a Launch, there would be more pressing things to think and worry about!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, if the fleets of Hunter Killers no longer exist do we need Nimrods?
Well the fleets may not be as big as they were but they do and we do.
Of course we need ICBMs. Just as we need stormshadow and tlam. Lets just hope the update works better than the one done on .5" ball and tracer.
Well the fleets may not be as big as they were but they do and we do.
Of course we need ICBMs. Just as we need stormshadow and tlam. Lets just hope the update works better than the one done on .5" ball and tracer.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Skills warning over submarines plan
Government plans to build a new generation of nuclear submarines could be hit by a critical shortage of key engineering skills, MPs have warned.
The Commons Defence Committee said the skills base in Britain had fallen to the "minimum level" necessary to maintain a submarine industry. It also expressed concern that the Ministry of Defence lacked the capacity to manage such a large and complex project effectively.
Prime Minister Tony Blair announced earlier this month that the Government intended to go ahead with a new £20 billion fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to maintain Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent into the middle of the 21st century. MPs will vote on the proposals in March.
However, the committee said the programme could be jeopardised by the "haemorrhaging" of essential skills from the shipbuilding industry.
"The UK submarine industry draws on a uniquely skilled and specialist workforce. Retaining that skills base will be essential if the UK decides it wants to continue to design, build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines," it said. "The skills base is now at a critical level. Any further erosion of the workforce may have significant implications for the future of the submarine programme."
At the same time, it said it was essential that the MoD had the capacity to manage the programme effectively. "Any shortfall in preparedness must be addressed as a matter of priority," the committee said. "The MoD's shortage of systems engineers and project managers - skills essential at the start of a programme of this kind - is a cause of serious concern."
MPs put defence needs above jobs on Trident
Any decision on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent must be taken on the basis of "strategic defence needs" and not on the number of employees and industrial and shipbuilding firms which might benefit, the Commons defence committee says in a report today. It describes building a successor to Trident as a "huge undertaking" and the shortage of submarine building skills in the MoD as a cause of "serious concern". It also criticises the secrecy surrounding work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where nuclear warheads are made.
Government plans to build a new generation of nuclear submarines could be hit by a critical shortage of key engineering skills, MPs have warned.
The Commons Defence Committee said the skills base in Britain had fallen to the "minimum level" necessary to maintain a submarine industry. It also expressed concern that the Ministry of Defence lacked the capacity to manage such a large and complex project effectively.
Prime Minister Tony Blair announced earlier this month that the Government intended to go ahead with a new £20 billion fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to maintain Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent into the middle of the 21st century. MPs will vote on the proposals in March.
However, the committee said the programme could be jeopardised by the "haemorrhaging" of essential skills from the shipbuilding industry.
"The UK submarine industry draws on a uniquely skilled and specialist workforce. Retaining that skills base will be essential if the UK decides it wants to continue to design, build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines," it said. "The skills base is now at a critical level. Any further erosion of the workforce may have significant implications for the future of the submarine programme."
At the same time, it said it was essential that the MoD had the capacity to manage the programme effectively. "Any shortfall in preparedness must be addressed as a matter of priority," the committee said. "The MoD's shortage of systems engineers and project managers - skills essential at the start of a programme of this kind - is a cause of serious concern."
MPs put defence needs above jobs on Trident
Any decision on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent must be taken on the basis of "strategic defence needs" and not on the number of employees and industrial and shipbuilding firms which might benefit, the Commons defence committee says in a report today. It describes building a successor to Trident as a "huge undertaking" and the shortage of submarine building skills in the MoD as a cause of "serious concern". It also criticises the secrecy surrounding work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where nuclear warheads are made.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's many years since I studied the theory of nuclear deterrence at Sleaford Tech .. perhaps some more current military brains could answer this question...
From the White Paper (p.17)...
"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 that cannot be countered by other means."
So if they are not designed for use during conflict how do they deter?
TP
From the White Paper (p.17)...
"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 that cannot be countered by other means."
So if they are not designed for use during conflict how do they deter?
TP
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
How do they deter?
Look at the Israeli nuclear deterrent. Nobody's ever seen it. Nobody's ever heard it. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny its existence. But everybody knows they have nuclear weapons.
Sounds like a pretty good deterrent to me. You don't even need to have any actual warheads with a deterrent like that.
Look at the Israeli nuclear deterrent. Nobody's ever seen it. Nobody's ever heard it. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny its existence. But everybody knows they have nuclear weapons.
Sounds like a pretty good deterrent to me. You don't even need to have any actual warheads with a deterrent like that.
