Nuclear Deterrent
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
British warheads: Britain’s Next Nuclear Era
The Warheads
The type of warhead deployed on Britain’s D5 missiles will last at least into the 2020, according to the White Paper. But the U.K. government says it doesn’t yet know whether the warhead can be “refurbished” to last longer, or whether it will be necessary to develop a replacement warhead. The next Parliament will have to make that decision, the government says, an option that of course will be harder to reject if a decision has already been made to build the new submarines.
How British are the warheads on the British SSBN fleet? The Ministry of Defence stated in a fact sheet that the warheads on the D5 missiles were “designed and manufactured in the U.K.” Even so, rumors have persisted for years that the warheads are in fact modified U.S. W76 warheads.
Now a U.S. Department of Energy document – declassified after eight years of processing – directly links the warhead designs on U.S. and U.K. Trident missiles. The document shows that the “U.K. Trident System,” as the British warhead modification is called, is similar enough to the U.S. W76 warhead to make up an integral part of the W76 engineering, design and evaluation schedule (see figure below).
Specifically, the document shows that between 1999 and 2001, work on five of 13 “W76 needs” involved the “U.K. Trident System.” These activities included vibration and point shock models, impulse models, impulse and point shock tests, vibration tests, as well as “TSR [thermostructural response] and Blast Models.”
The activities listed in the chronology are contained in a detailed database that “maps the requirements and capabilities for replacement subsystem and component modeling development, test, and production to the specific organizations tasked with meeting these requirements.”
The “U.K. Trident System” is thought to consist of a 100-kiloton thermonuclear warhead encased in a cone-shaped U.S. Mark-4 reentry vehicle. The W76 is the most numerous warhead (approximately 3,200) in the U.S. stockpile. Built between 1978 and 1988, about a third of the W76s are being modified as the W76-1 (see figure below) and equipped with a new fuze with ground-burst capability to “enable the W76 to take advantage of the higher accuracy of the D5″ against harder targets. Delivery of the first W76-1 is scheduled for 2007 and the last in 2012. The W76 is also the first warhead scheduled to be modified under the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
The Warheads
The type of warhead deployed on Britain’s D5 missiles will last at least into the 2020, according to the White Paper. But the U.K. government says it doesn’t yet know whether the warhead can be “refurbished” to last longer, or whether it will be necessary to develop a replacement warhead. The next Parliament will have to make that decision, the government says, an option that of course will be harder to reject if a decision has already been made to build the new submarines.
How British are the warheads on the British SSBN fleet? The Ministry of Defence stated in a fact sheet that the warheads on the D5 missiles were “designed and manufactured in the U.K.” Even so, rumors have persisted for years that the warheads are in fact modified U.S. W76 warheads.
Now a U.S. Department of Energy document – declassified after eight years of processing – directly links the warhead designs on U.S. and U.K. Trident missiles. The document shows that the “U.K. Trident System,” as the British warhead modification is called, is similar enough to the U.S. W76 warhead to make up an integral part of the W76 engineering, design and evaluation schedule (see figure below).
Specifically, the document shows that between 1999 and 2001, work on five of 13 “W76 needs” involved the “U.K. Trident System.” These activities included vibration and point shock models, impulse models, impulse and point shock tests, vibration tests, as well as “TSR [thermostructural response] and Blast Models.”
The activities listed in the chronology are contained in a detailed database that “maps the requirements and capabilities for replacement subsystem and component modeling development, test, and production to the specific organizations tasked with meeting these requirements.”
The “U.K. Trident System” is thought to consist of a 100-kiloton thermonuclear warhead encased in a cone-shaped U.S. Mark-4 reentry vehicle. The W76 is the most numerous warhead (approximately 3,200) in the U.S. stockpile. Built between 1978 and 1988, about a third of the W76s are being modified as the W76-1 (see figure below) and equipped with a new fuze with ground-burst capability to “enable the W76 to take advantage of the higher accuracy of the D5″ against harder targets. Delivery of the first W76-1 is scheduled for 2007 and the last in 2012. The W76 is also the first warhead scheduled to be modified under the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Don't worry, there will be a Trident replacement. If the Government got rid of the nuclear deterent, it would lose its place on the UN Security Council. They would not countinence that, so there will be an update...
The UK is not just a member of the UN Security Council but a permanent member of said security council, and the permanent members set themselves up quite a little cartel when it was formed.
In order for a permanent member of the UN Security Council to be voted off all current members must agree to it in a vote. As the UK has the power of veto any vote taken would fail unless the UK voted itself off. The words 'turkey', 'voting' and 'Christmas' might be apt here.
Ownership of nuclear weapons is not what gained the UK its place as a permanent member, rather its place was gained by being one of the 5 major allied powers at the end of the second world war. The fact all the permanent members have nuclear weapons is a 'happy' coincidence that came about by being the major nations involved in the Cold War.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
The “U.K. Trident System” is thought to consist of a 100-kiloton thermonuclear warhead encased in a cone-shaped U.S. Mark-4 reentry vehicle.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you can certainly afford to wait
In the US they had a system called NUDETS. Any strike in the Continental US would be detected an a lamp would illuminate, and I guess a klaxon sound, in the SAC Bunker. What happened next would have been carefully scripted and pre-planned.
Now, suppose as a result of a bit of WMD activity on some of our property our leader decided that a CBM delivered some 30 minutes later to their MOD would serve as a suitable chastisement and warning. The enemy might assume it to be, a dud, then on the principle of use it or lose it they may launch a nuclear counter-strike.
There have been many instances of power play where in cold analysis afterwards the play was irrational.
Ballistic missiles are hard-wired in our psychic as deliverers of doom and gloom. If the enemy has the means then you cannot assume a rational "let's sit and wait." Look at the tensions in Israel when they did just that; it took lots of cajuns and lots of persuasion when Scuds started to drop in.
But let's not forget that we have gormless Gordon in charge, and he would probably consider it if he can save Ł20, so that he can give an extra Ł3,000,000 to impoverished 3rd world countries
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China (CGO)
Age: 75
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manuel,
Pity they didn't make it a few years earlier and sell a copy to that klutz Columbus.
It is indeed argued that he used copies of Chinese maps.
What I don't grasp is how, if he had such a map, he mistook the American continent for India.
An alternate explanation that comes to mind is that he sooner trusted the Norsemen's Vinland map, which has now been confirmed as authentic.
On Columbus himself, he was not a nice man.
Last edited by ArthurBorges; 14th Oct 2009 at 12:25.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China (CGO)
Age: 75
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey
Perhaps see 1421exposed to see what credible historians think of Gavin Menzies fantastic history of the world.
Wikipedia trashes him lavishly for not speaking Chinese, ramming a US minesweeper when in command of HMS Rorqual and lying about the routes he sailed.
Somehow this helps prove that Admiral Zheng He's fleets did not circumnavigate the globe, I guess.
Although you can dig it up under "Discussion", the Wiki frontyard entry also omits that he served on HMS Resolution, a Polaris submarine. Um my guess is that the RN screens for reckless liars when assigning folks to duties involving nuclear weapons, so I'd say he was sane. Or at least he didn't let politicians do a whale jump with his submarine and sink a Japanese trawler over half a century after the end of World War II!
I see three reasons that "professional" or "credible" historians come down hard on Menzies (1) He lays down the evidence like a story teller rather than an academic versed in the norms of academic literature (2) His evidence requires a complete rethink of world history, viz Zheng He pioneered most of the world's trading ports and distributed world maps, followed by a period of Chinese isolationism, which allowed Britain, Portugal and Spain to expand as rapidly as they did, and (3) Christianity loses lots of points because Christopher Columbus was on God's mission and the Renaissance has been sold as a very Christian achievement.
By the way, some nitpicker researched the names of Columbus' three vessels Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. There was indeed a Nina and a Pinta but the closest match to any Santa Maria was the Maria Galante.
All three names would inspire any sex-starved sailor: La Maria Galante = The Gallant Maria in the sense of a lady who obliges anyone's every wish; La Pinta = The Painted (Woman) in the sense of a sidewalk sex worker; and La Nina = The Cute Little (Woman). Addiion of "woman" is justified by "La", which is the feminine pronoun.
The shift from Maria Galante to Santa Maria traces back to Columbus' spin doctoring.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oberbayern
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The Micronesians were using coconut sextants circa 2000 BC. - By the time Colombus set sail, it was well known that 1 minute of arc subtended 1 nautical mile on the surface of the earth.
2. Columbus believed the earth was round. 360 degrees in a circle and at 1 nm per minute of arc if the earth was indeed round, its circumference was approximately 21,600 nautical miles. - Simple sums.
3. He knew where he was starting from. He knew how far it was (on an easterly route) to 'the Indies'. Had he subtracted that distance from 21,600 it would have given him a rough idea of how far he would have to sail to reach the same point on a westerly heading.
4. He knew the average speed of his ships and he should have known how many nautical miles he could expect to cover in a day.
5. He knew how many days he had been at sea when he arrived at the 'West Indies'.
Brave man? - Certainly.
Intrepid explorer? - Certainly.
Navigator? - Hardly. He made the biggest DR error in history.
As for 'discovering' America, well it already had people when he got there, so he could hardly claim to have discovered it.
If you sail west from Europe (and if you don't sink) then eventually your ship will stop sailing - You will run out of sea. He didn't 'discover' America, he ran into it.
He named the land he 'discovered' after his sponsor. Fortunately for the inhabitants of that continent, Columbus appears to have been an informal sort of bloke and he named it after that sponsor's first name.
Otherwise, they would be Vespuccians.
The American Federal holiday named after him is 'Get lost' day.
2. Columbus believed the earth was round. 360 degrees in a circle and at 1 nm per minute of arc if the earth was indeed round, its circumference was approximately 21,600 nautical miles. - Simple sums.
3. He knew where he was starting from. He knew how far it was (on an easterly route) to 'the Indies'. Had he subtracted that distance from 21,600 it would have given him a rough idea of how far he would have to sail to reach the same point on a westerly heading.
4. He knew the average speed of his ships and he should have known how many nautical miles he could expect to cover in a day.
5. He knew how many days he had been at sea when he arrived at the 'West Indies'.
Brave man? - Certainly.
Intrepid explorer? - Certainly.
Navigator? - Hardly. He made the biggest DR error in history.
As for 'discovering' America, well it already had people when he got there, so he could hardly claim to have discovered it.
If you sail west from Europe (and if you don't sink) then eventually your ship will stop sailing - You will run out of sea. He didn't 'discover' America, he ran into it.
He named the land he 'discovered' after his sponsor. Fortunately for the inhabitants of that continent, Columbus appears to have been an informal sort of bloke and he named it after that sponsor's first name.
Otherwise, they would be Vespuccians.
The American Federal holiday named after him is 'Get lost' day.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remind me, what is this thread about?
Or, why, when we had atomic bombs did we have a nuclear deterrent? Another case of the USA using a different English word from the one we use ourselves?
Viz - Bonnet = Hood and Boot = Trunk.
Or, why, when we had atomic bombs did we have a nuclear deterrent? Another case of the USA using a different English word from the one we use ourselves?
Viz - Bonnet = Hood and Boot = Trunk.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, they need the better thermal properties of CS95?
Or they hang around the beach with long hair talking about the tube and it being super gnarly rad?
Or they hang around the beach with long hair talking about the tube and it being super gnarly rad?
Nuclear weapons (deterrent) = Atomic (fission) bombs + Hydrogen (fusion) bombs.
Surely they just invented the word 'nuclear' so that the world could laugh at that ******** GeeDubya's inability to pronounce the word?
EDIT: The net-nanny didn't like 'd ick h ead', hence the asterisks...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This presupposes an element of rationality by both, or all, players.
Ballistic missiles are hard-wired in our psychic as deliverers of doom and gloom. If the enemy has the means then you cannot assume a rational "let's sit and wait."
Consequently, you can be rational, even if your opponent is not, if the scenario is a single incoming missile (or even a couple missiles). You can go to whatever your national equivalent of Defcon 2 is, you can start generating if you have a bomber force, you can start dispersing whatever should be dispersed, you can do whatever it is you need to do given what particular nation you are running, but you don't need to launch until after impact.
I think it's far too simplistic to assume everyone would automatically go dumb as soon as nukes are involved. Yes, things were scripted, but there were several scripts to choose from, and all had a play button that had to be pushed manually. Nothing was automatic, right?
What one would not do, however, is to launch a single conventional missile against a nuclear armed opponent with an early warning capability, because then you would have to assume your opponent was doing what you would consider rational. But maybe that was what you meant all along...
Modern Elmo - Mathias Rust
Rust was intercepted and tracked during his flight within Soviet airspace.
YouTube - Mathias Rust INTERVIEW May 28, 2007
The Notorious Flight of Mathias Rust | History of Flight | Air & Space Magazine
TJ
YouTube - Mathias Rust INTERVIEW May 28, 2007
The Notorious Flight of Mathias Rust | History of Flight | Air & Space Magazine
TJ
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever it does, a single missile would not materially affect your war fighting ability, so no action has to be taken before impact.
Consequently, you can be rational, even if your opponent is not, if the scenario is a single incoming missile (or even a couple missiles).
Great, so if that single missile track is closing on the city where your family lives, there's no need for panic. Just stay cool and rational. It's easy.
( Replying to another line of thought: )
What one would not do, however, is to launch a single conventional missile against a nuclear armed opponent with an early warning capability ...
Why do you keep saying single missile? The plausible and realistic scenario is a pre-emptive, spoiling attack using dozens of very accurate ballistic missiles with nonnookleer payloads against Foe XZY, which has a limited number of nuklur installations and IRBM or ICBM launch sites -- say, North Korea or Pakistan or Iran.
They have an early warning capability? How much reaction time will submarine-launched IRBM's allow?
Maybe some of Foe XYZ's fission or fusion weapons carrying systems survive the surprise attack. A quick situational assessment says no nookloor weapons were used.
But the attacking side is known to have newkalur weapons, nukes which are presumably ready to launch on short notice. Furthermore, the attacking side also has active ballistic missile defenses!
So, what's Foe XYZ's decision: counterattack with nukes -- or is XYZ deterred from doing so?
Consequently, you can be rational, even if your opponent is not, if the scenario is a single incoming missile (or even a couple missiles).
Great, so if that single missile track is closing on the city where your family lives, there's no need for panic. Just stay cool and rational. It's easy.
( Replying to another line of thought: )
What one would not do, however, is to launch a single conventional missile against a nuclear armed opponent with an early warning capability ...
Why do you keep saying single missile? The plausible and realistic scenario is a pre-emptive, spoiling attack using dozens of very accurate ballistic missiles with nonnookleer payloads against Foe XZY, which has a limited number of nuklur installations and IRBM or ICBM launch sites -- say, North Korea or Pakistan or Iran.
They have an early warning capability? How much reaction time will submarine-launched IRBM's allow?
Maybe some of Foe XYZ's fission or fusion weapons carrying systems survive the surprise attack. A quick situational assessment says no nookloor weapons were used.
But the attacking side is known to have newkalur weapons, nukes which are presumably ready to launch on short notice. Furthermore, the attacking side also has active ballistic missile defenses!
So, what's Foe XYZ's decision: counterattack with nukes -- or is XYZ deterred from doing so?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ME, wrong abacus.
We are discussing, you may have missed the point, nookleer deterrence by UK. We have just 5 dozen launch tubes in total. We may not even have 5 dozen missiles of any flavour. We certainly don't have the capacity to launch even one boat load of CBM and then retain a nuclear capability. Certainly that deterrent would disappear in a flash if any CBM failed to work.
We are discussing, you may have missed the point, nookleer deterrence by UK. We have just 5 dozen launch tubes in total. We may not even have 5 dozen missiles of any flavour. We certainly don't have the capacity to launch even one boat load of CBM and then retain a nuclear capability. Certainly that deterrent would disappear in a flash if any CBM failed to work.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What one would not do, however, is to launch a single conventional missile against a nuclear armed opponent with an early warning capability, because then you would have to assume your opponent was doing what you would consider rational. But maybe that was what you meant all along...
I was not suggesting that a rational or irrational opponent would send a single missile against us, but that we might be tempted to send a single missile against them. I was going to mention the BMEW case but then considered that the unannounced arrival of a supersonic conventional penetrator might be confused not with an exploding gas main but with a dud nuke.
On irrational foe might then react on the use it or lose it principle. The say of course applies if fleets of stealth bombers start to pick off his missiles one by one.
The rational-irrational argument is very similar to the assymetric warfare issues too.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China (CGO)
Age: 75
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wader
The rational-irrational argument is very similar to the assymetric warfare issues too.
Sorry, but I have a hard time believing in the irrational madman with a leer on his face every time he fingers a bright red button. This is a myth.
What I also find interesting is the ideological inconsistency in US thinking: on the one hand there is mythical faith in the privately-owned firearm as the Great Equalizer (81 or 90 such firearms per 100 inhabitants there) and total opposition in the Great Equalizing powers that come with having your own set of nuclear weapons. After all, why shouldn't "little guy" countries be as equal as "little guy" Americans?