Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
States such as Germany and Italy who sit under the American nuclear umbrella seem reliant on NATO Article 5. Article 5, though, does not require the US to commit suicide on behalf of a militarily violated Member State. I’m sure that average Joe (or Jolene) American (who pays for that umbrella) would prefer some diplomatic compromise that fell short of swapping big bombs and didn’t materially affect the US; even if the aggrieved Member State was required to make massive concessions. I believe that it’s called Realpolitik.
The question is, does the World’s 6th (or is it 8th now?) largest economy, with many interests South of the NATO Region, want to risk being forced to those possible massive concessions?
Regarding the UN Security Council, the UK Independent (standing by for the predictable contradictions) Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is a good bargaining "chip" to retain our place there. Why have that place? Well, it’s probably better to have a say with power of veto than to not. Does it give us an obligation to help to "police" the World? Probably yes; but rather like the Empire, if we didn’t somebody else would and possibly not to our liking and standards.
Cruise missiles? Current technology, even that available to some minor States, probably puts us back to the ‘40s argument of whether it’s easier to counter a V1 or a V2.
Offered for what it’s worth.
The question is, does the World’s 6th (or is it 8th now?) largest economy, with many interests South of the NATO Region, want to risk being forced to those possible massive concessions?
Regarding the UN Security Council, the UK Independent (standing by for the predictable contradictions) Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is a good bargaining "chip" to retain our place there. Why have that place? Well, it’s probably better to have a say with power of veto than to not. Does it give us an obligation to help to "police" the World? Probably yes; but rather like the Empire, if we didn’t somebody else would and possibly not to our liking and standards.
Cruise missiles? Current technology, even that available to some minor States, probably puts us back to the ‘40s argument of whether it’s easier to counter a V1 or a V2.
Offered for what it’s worth.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Clarkson has got it spot on.
You do the ragoût, mon capitaine; I’ll do the nuking | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online
If there were to be another war, and I mean a real one against an army with boots rather than flip-flops, I would volunteer to serve in the submarine fleet. The army, I’m afraid, is right out because there’s too much running about, and while the RAF offers many opportunities to hang about behind the lines, drinking tea, there’s always the danger that at some point I’d be asked to go in a plane. And the problem with a plane is: it’s big and the enemy can see it.
It’s the same story with surface vessels in the navy. We saw in the Falklands that one jet fighter, flown by a mustachioed man called Gonzales, can sink a destroyer. Because it’s visible. And if I were to be on such a thing, in charge perhaps of the guns, then it’d be even more of a sitting duck because I’d be hanging over the railings throughout the attack, vomiting.
Submarines have none of these drawbacks. You can fight while sitting down in air-conditioned comfort, under the seasick zone, and the enemy can’t fight back because it doesn’t know where you are.
When military submarines were first mooted, the Royal Navy top brass dismissed them as “underhand and unfair”. They had grown up with the notion that you charged at your enemy in red coats, with a lot of people playing brass instruments, and they didn’t like the idea of a machine where the whole point was invisibility. But sneakery is my kind of warfare. The first inkling your enemy has that you’re there is when he is treading water in a big puddle of blazing engine oil. Perfect.
There’s more. In the army, from the moment you get up in the morning, which is always o’crikey o’clock, to the moment you go to bed at night, it’s all shouting and bugling. There is never any peace and quiet.
But in a submarine everything is done with a whisper. The reactor is quiet. The prop is quiet and orders are given quietly too. There are no bugles on a sub. And you don’t wade into battle playing the Ride of the Valkyries. Submarines are brilliant.
And I’m not talking about some crappy diesel-electric boat. Nobody wants to go to war in what, essentially, is an aquatic Toyota Prius. No. I’m talking about a nuclear-powered hunter-killer. Or, better still, one of the missile boats. Imagine being on one of those. You sit absolutely still for six months. And then, when the order comes through, your captain pushes a button that kills everyone on earth. Except you. Fantastic.
The trouble is, of course, that for these missile boats to be relevant, one of them has to be at sea constantly, ready to respond at a moment’s notice. And to do that, in shifts, with servicing to be factored in, the navy must have four boats. That means four crews. Four nuclear reactors to be serviced. Four lots of Trident missiles. The cost, including plans for replacements, over the coming years could be as much as £100 billion.
You may say that this is a complete waste of money because we don’t need nuclear submarines to fight an enemy that’s coming at us with a £3 AK-47 assault rifle and a pair of sandals. But you’re wrong. We must always prepare for the next war. Not the one we’re fighting now. And who knows what the next war might involve? It might be the Greeks. I hope so.
There’s another reason it’s important for the navy to maintain its fleet of boomers. Having a nuclear submarine in your arsenal is what makes a country important. Take that away and what is Britain left with? A lot of potholes, a health system that doesn’t work and a bunch of political leaders who have to make after-dinner speeches to make ends meet. We’d have to be twinned with Ethiopia.
So. Problem. We have to have our boats for defence and for self-esteem. And we can’t afford them. And that’s why I was so pleased to hear the other day about an offer from the French, who are in the same boat, so to speak, to join forces.
Gordon Brown said it was important for each country to maintain its own nuclear deterrent. But, as we know, Gordon Brown is wrong about many things. And I think he’s wrong about this too. Because, why not?
Of all the countries that we are likely to fight in the coming century, France must hover pretty close to the bottom of the list. So it makes sense, financially and politically, for each of us to run two nuclear missile subs, and for us to take it in turns to be on patrol.
The only problem I can see is military. Because let’s just say the Argies get uppity again, and that this time we simply don’t have the ability to go down there and give them a bloody nose. And let’s just say, I don’t know, that I am in No 10 at the time. Frankly, I’d want to nuke them.
And here’s the tricky bit. If I rang the captain of a French submarine and asked him to destroy Buenos Aires, would he oblige? Similarly, would one of our chaps be happy to wipe Libya from the map if Nicolas Sarkozy decided his wife had run off with Colonel Gadaffi? This is the crucial question.
And the answer, I think, is probably no. But the important bit of that answer is “probably”. Uncertainty is what makes nuclear weapons work. Not knowing whether the response to your attack will come in the shape of a mushroom.
Britain being protected by Capitaine de la Mer, with his stripy jumper and his onions, makes the prospect of us being able to mount a nuclear response less likely. But it is still a threat. And that’s what matters.
It’s what matters to me as well. Because in a time of war I might well end up on a French submarine, which is probably no bad thing. Yes. The homosexuality might become a bit boring, but I’m sure it’d be very stylish, and I bet they pack in fewer missiles than our boats because the crewmen need the extra space for all their recipe books and ingredients.
You do the ragoût, mon capitaine; I’ll do the nuking | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online
If there were to be another war, and I mean a real one against an army with boots rather than flip-flops, I would volunteer to serve in the submarine fleet. The army, I’m afraid, is right out because there’s too much running about, and while the RAF offers many opportunities to hang about behind the lines, drinking tea, there’s always the danger that at some point I’d be asked to go in a plane. And the problem with a plane is: it’s big and the enemy can see it.
It’s the same story with surface vessels in the navy. We saw in the Falklands that one jet fighter, flown by a mustachioed man called Gonzales, can sink a destroyer. Because it’s visible. And if I were to be on such a thing, in charge perhaps of the guns, then it’d be even more of a sitting duck because I’d be hanging over the railings throughout the attack, vomiting.
Submarines have none of these drawbacks. You can fight while sitting down in air-conditioned comfort, under the seasick zone, and the enemy can’t fight back because it doesn’t know where you are.
When military submarines were first mooted, the Royal Navy top brass dismissed them as “underhand and unfair”. They had grown up with the notion that you charged at your enemy in red coats, with a lot of people playing brass instruments, and they didn’t like the idea of a machine where the whole point was invisibility. But sneakery is my kind of warfare. The first inkling your enemy has that you’re there is when he is treading water in a big puddle of blazing engine oil. Perfect.
There’s more. In the army, from the moment you get up in the morning, which is always o’crikey o’clock, to the moment you go to bed at night, it’s all shouting and bugling. There is never any peace and quiet.
But in a submarine everything is done with a whisper. The reactor is quiet. The prop is quiet and orders are given quietly too. There are no bugles on a sub. And you don’t wade into battle playing the Ride of the Valkyries. Submarines are brilliant.
And I’m not talking about some crappy diesel-electric boat. Nobody wants to go to war in what, essentially, is an aquatic Toyota Prius. No. I’m talking about a nuclear-powered hunter-killer. Or, better still, one of the missile boats. Imagine being on one of those. You sit absolutely still for six months. And then, when the order comes through, your captain pushes a button that kills everyone on earth. Except you. Fantastic.
The trouble is, of course, that for these missile boats to be relevant, one of them has to be at sea constantly, ready to respond at a moment’s notice. And to do that, in shifts, with servicing to be factored in, the navy must have four boats. That means four crews. Four nuclear reactors to be serviced. Four lots of Trident missiles. The cost, including plans for replacements, over the coming years could be as much as £100 billion.
You may say that this is a complete waste of money because we don’t need nuclear submarines to fight an enemy that’s coming at us with a £3 AK-47 assault rifle and a pair of sandals. But you’re wrong. We must always prepare for the next war. Not the one we’re fighting now. And who knows what the next war might involve? It might be the Greeks. I hope so.
There’s another reason it’s important for the navy to maintain its fleet of boomers. Having a nuclear submarine in your arsenal is what makes a country important. Take that away and what is Britain left with? A lot of potholes, a health system that doesn’t work and a bunch of political leaders who have to make after-dinner speeches to make ends meet. We’d have to be twinned with Ethiopia.
So. Problem. We have to have our boats for defence and for self-esteem. And we can’t afford them. And that’s why I was so pleased to hear the other day about an offer from the French, who are in the same boat, so to speak, to join forces.
Gordon Brown said it was important for each country to maintain its own nuclear deterrent. But, as we know, Gordon Brown is wrong about many things. And I think he’s wrong about this too. Because, why not?
Of all the countries that we are likely to fight in the coming century, France must hover pretty close to the bottom of the list. So it makes sense, financially and politically, for each of us to run two nuclear missile subs, and for us to take it in turns to be on patrol.
The only problem I can see is military. Because let’s just say the Argies get uppity again, and that this time we simply don’t have the ability to go down there and give them a bloody nose. And let’s just say, I don’t know, that I am in No 10 at the time. Frankly, I’d want to nuke them.
And here’s the tricky bit. If I rang the captain of a French submarine and asked him to destroy Buenos Aires, would he oblige? Similarly, would one of our chaps be happy to wipe Libya from the map if Nicolas Sarkozy decided his wife had run off with Colonel Gadaffi? This is the crucial question.
And the answer, I think, is probably no. But the important bit of that answer is “probably”. Uncertainty is what makes nuclear weapons work. Not knowing whether the response to your attack will come in the shape of a mushroom.
Britain being protected by Capitaine de la Mer, with his stripy jumper and his onions, makes the prospect of us being able to mount a nuclear response less likely. But it is still a threat. And that’s what matters.
It’s what matters to me as well. Because in a time of war I might well end up on a French submarine, which is probably no bad thing. Yes. The homosexuality might become a bit boring, but I’m sure it’d be very stylish, and I bet they pack in fewer missiles than our boats because the crewmen need the extra space for all their recipe books and ingredients.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Barny, good job but I was just a twinkly but would have been off if I could.
I still do not understand why we think we can even begin to afford this lot? We can’t even afford simulation for in-service helicopters and I had heard they were important !!!
If you were in the sub, where the hell do you think you could get off it if you fired one of these - it would be the biggest nuke ping-pong match since 1956 - apparently? To expensive – some one has to make the 1st (well second if you count the Ukraine!!) move – let it be us (we could sell them and pay off the national debt?)
I still do not understand why we think we can even begin to afford this lot? We can’t even afford simulation for in-service helicopters and I had heard they were important !!!
If you were in the sub, where the hell do you think you could get off it if you fired one of these - it would be the biggest nuke ping-pong match since 1956 - apparently? To expensive – some one has to make the 1st (well second if you count the Ukraine!!) move – let it be us (we could sell them and pay off the national debt?)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Critical Reaction: The Bang for our Buck Trident: Is there a cheaper alternative? by Eric Grove
A very good American friend of mine had a neighbour in Arizona.
Outside his house was a sign which said:
Wossat called then?
Outside his house was a sign which said:
"There ain't nothin' in this house worth dyin' for".
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Althought Trident is costly, whilst we have Iran, who are striving to produce war grade plutonium to produce a nuclear war head, and North Korea, who already have a nuclear weapon, the world is not a safe place. Far better to have a nuclear weapon at our disposal, rather than none at all. Trident is no longer a deterrant - it can be use as a first...strike missile, or it can be used in retaliation.
The cost of ending the production of the Trident war head would run into trillions of pounds. And for those who want to get rid of Trident, I suggest that they please do inform us of what they would do with the exsisting nuclear war heads, the manufacturing facilities, the storage facilities, etc?
The cost of ending the production of the Trident war head would run into trillions of pounds. And for those who want to get rid of Trident, I suggest that they please do inform us of what they would do with the exsisting nuclear war heads, the manufacturing facilities, the storage facilities, etc?
The re-furbished Tridents on Diego Garcia idea bears some thought too
This week the British government, backed by nine of the world's largest environment and science bodies, including the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, the Royal Society, the RSPB and Greenpeace, is expected to signal that the 210,000 sq km area around the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean will become the world's largest marine reserve.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only realistic threat is a rogue launch from the likes of Russia or a terrorist attack, neither of which would be deterred by Trident (or any of the other systems people have proposed, for that matter). The entire concept of deterrence is deeply flawed and a throwback to a bygone era.
you have answered your own question!
As already stated, Trident may be be used in retaliation - rather than a deterrant.
you have answered your own question!
As already stated, Trident may be be used in retaliation - rather than a deterrant.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chilling out on the water if it's warm enough
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only realistic threat is a rogue launch from the likes of Russia or a terrorist attack, neither of which would be deterred by Trident (or any of the other systems people have proposed, for that matter). The entire concept of deterrence is deeply flawed and a throwback to a bygone era.
you have answered your own question!
As already stated, Trident may be be used in retaliation - rather than a deterrant.
you have answered your own question!
As already stated, Trident may be be used in retaliation - rather than a deterrant.
Do you really think politicos of any party (fringe loonies aside) would have the balls to press the button?
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems (for me) in deciding whether I think we should replace the Trident system with a similar system is that I have no idea what the real cost of this would be. Large sums of money are often quoted but do they (for example) recognise the income tax paid by all the individuals involved in this programme in whatever capacity.
Another problem is that if we binned it would the money actually go to anything more worthwhile?
What about the industrial and scientific base associated with the total Trident system - does it have no other useful spin-offs? Would there be unexpected consequences to binning all that?
I SUSPECT that the above points might actually be quite important so in the absence of knowing the first thing about any of this my gut feel would be to keep it.
Another problem is that if we binned it would the money actually go to anything more worthwhile?
What about the industrial and scientific base associated with the total Trident system - does it have no other useful spin-offs? Would there be unexpected consequences to binning all that?
I SUSPECT that the above points might actually be quite important so in the absence of knowing the first thing about any of this my gut feel would be to keep it.
YouTube - Yes, Prime Minister - Nuclear deterrent
Funny how you wait long enough and it becomes as relevant as it was previously.
Funny how you wait long enough and it becomes as relevant as it was previously.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've stayed out of this as my views are well known, and in this company, heretical.
The basis of the Trident replacement decision is that it is a deterrent. This means it must be survivable and difficult to detect and track, and unless we are intending to go down the route of a strategic triad (which we're not, given the cost) then the only sensible thing - if a deterrent is needed - is a submarine based system large enough to ensure continuous-at-sea-deterrence (CASD). If there is a break in the continuous nature of it, then it's of limited value as a deterrent, especially if it is predictably not at sea.
Given this, a ballistic system is more likely to get through defences coming in at 15,000 mph (Mach 23) or so than a cruise system coming in at M0.9. More importantly, however, the flightpaths of ballistic and cruise missile are rather different, and therefore if your nuclear payload is only on a ballistic missile, then the country on the receiving end of cruise knows that they are not about to get nuked - which in those critical minutes could result in a different decision not to fire off nuclear missiles in response, especially if it's use it or lose it.
Given this, if the decision is that we need a deterrent then probably the correct choice is an SLBM, and buying Trident is going to be far cheaper than any other option - still massively expensive at £100bn over 25 years, but cheaper than developing our own.
So the question then is two-fold; do we need a deterrent? And should we afford it in tight financial times?
On the first, the issue is that for deterrence to work, it has to deter. So it means that:
- the people it is trying to deter need to be deterrable - and therefore rational.
- They also need to have territory - meaning that they have to be States.
- They have to be intent on attacking the UK and not be deterred by the threat of retaliation from allies (decoupling of the US nuclear umbrella)
The number of rational States that want to attack to the UK and believe in decoupling the US nuclear umbrella is vanishingly small. In fact, I can't think of any.
So on this basis, there is nobody to deter - and before someone goes off on Iran/North Korea etc etc, there is no evidence that they want to blackmail the UK. And as for rogue launches, they are inevitably non-deterrable, so it wouldn't matter if we had Trident or not.
If there is nobody to deter, then it does rather raise the question of why we're proposing to spend these vast amounts of cash on replacing Trident, especially when binning it within the framework of global nuclear arms reduction is sensible policy.
Can we afford it? Yes, but only at the cost of other capabilities. Should we? In my view, no. We should concentrate on using UK expertise to develop the verification regime to allow us to move towards nuclear zero.
I'm sure many of you will disagree, but it's time for the UK to have the debate on this.
S41
The basis of the Trident replacement decision is that it is a deterrent. This means it must be survivable and difficult to detect and track, and unless we are intending to go down the route of a strategic triad (which we're not, given the cost) then the only sensible thing - if a deterrent is needed - is a submarine based system large enough to ensure continuous-at-sea-deterrence (CASD). If there is a break in the continuous nature of it, then it's of limited value as a deterrent, especially if it is predictably not at sea.
Given this, a ballistic system is more likely to get through defences coming in at 15,000 mph (Mach 23) or so than a cruise system coming in at M0.9. More importantly, however, the flightpaths of ballistic and cruise missile are rather different, and therefore if your nuclear payload is only on a ballistic missile, then the country on the receiving end of cruise knows that they are not about to get nuked - which in those critical minutes could result in a different decision not to fire off nuclear missiles in response, especially if it's use it or lose it.
Given this, if the decision is that we need a deterrent then probably the correct choice is an SLBM, and buying Trident is going to be far cheaper than any other option - still massively expensive at £100bn over 25 years, but cheaper than developing our own.
So the question then is two-fold; do we need a deterrent? And should we afford it in tight financial times?
On the first, the issue is that for deterrence to work, it has to deter. So it means that:
- the people it is trying to deter need to be deterrable - and therefore rational.
- They also need to have territory - meaning that they have to be States.
- They have to be intent on attacking the UK and not be deterred by the threat of retaliation from allies (decoupling of the US nuclear umbrella)
The number of rational States that want to attack to the UK and believe in decoupling the US nuclear umbrella is vanishingly small. In fact, I can't think of any.
So on this basis, there is nobody to deter - and before someone goes off on Iran/North Korea etc etc, there is no evidence that they want to blackmail the UK. And as for rogue launches, they are inevitably non-deterrable, so it wouldn't matter if we had Trident or not.
If there is nobody to deter, then it does rather raise the question of why we're proposing to spend these vast amounts of cash on replacing Trident, especially when binning it within the framework of global nuclear arms reduction is sensible policy.
Can we afford it? Yes, but only at the cost of other capabilities. Should we? In my view, no. We should concentrate on using UK expertise to develop the verification regime to allow us to move towards nuclear zero.
I'm sure many of you will disagree, but it's time for the UK to have the debate on this.
S41
Agreed S41 
.......
....... with the proviso we should concentrate on using the dosh saved to enhance the capability of our conventional forces, who will ne needed, as far as I can see, well into the forseeable future.
.............. with the proviso we should concentrate on using the dosh saved to enhance the capability of our conventional forces, who will ne needed, as far as I can see, well into the forseeable future.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P2K4
Agreed. Sorry, should've made that clear. But the SDR will probably see the blood on the floor lapping around people's ankles, so make sure you pack your wellies.
S41
Agreed. Sorry, should've made that clear. But the SDR will probably see the blood on the floor lapping around people's ankles, so make sure you pack your wellies.
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 2nd May 2010 at 11:29.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chilling out on the water if it's warm enough
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S41 - couldnt have put it better myself.
The people it is trying to deter need to be deterrable - and therefore rational.
They also need to have territory - meaning that they have to be States.
There is no doubt that our biggest threat is from "stateless terrorist groups".
I would suggest that Trident would have no deterrent effect at all on such groups and, as such, could not be financially justified.
The people it is trying to deter need to be deterrable - and therefore rational.
They also need to have territory - meaning that they have to be States.
There is no doubt that our biggest threat is from "stateless terrorist groups".
I would suggest that Trident would have no deterrent effect at all on such groups and, as such, could not be financially justified.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a point on the numbers; the £15-20bn is the 2006 White Paper costings for the capital costs of replacing a four boat fleet. It doesn't cover the running costs of the existing boats and the operating costs out to 2040ish. See p.7 of the White Paper (it's a .pdf on the MoD website).
In other words, the £15-20bn figure is disingenuous.
However, it is also disingenuous to claim that scrapping Trident will save £100bn soon. It will, but not quickly - the capital spend will run from 2012 and 2027 (White Paper, p.7), and the ongoing running costs will be spread as well.
So the economics of the question is not a show stopper - it could be afforded. But £2-3bn a year in replacement costs - plus the costs of Aldermaston (£750m p.a. in 2007, according to House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence at note 83), Faslane and Coulport (no idea), then the cost to defence is likely to run to £3 - 4bn a year in the middle years of the next decade.
Given the pain that we're going through to make savings to balance the current budget, if we don't need the deterrent, we should take the savings, and take them now.
S41
In other words, the £15-20bn figure is disingenuous.
However, it is also disingenuous to claim that scrapping Trident will save £100bn soon. It will, but not quickly - the capital spend will run from 2012 and 2027 (White Paper, p.7), and the ongoing running costs will be spread as well.
So the economics of the question is not a show stopper - it could be afforded. But £2-3bn a year in replacement costs - plus the costs of Aldermaston (£750m p.a. in 2007, according to House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence at note 83), Faslane and Coulport (no idea), then the cost to defence is likely to run to £3 - 4bn a year in the middle years of the next decade.
Given the pain that we're going through to make savings to balance the current budget, if we don't need the deterrent, we should take the savings, and take them now.
S41
Savings from scrapping Trident would be negligible
This is part of the Guardian's coverage of the nuclear deterrent issue -which can be found here.
Chainkicker
There is no doubt that our biggest threat is from "stateless terrorist groups".
Isn't there?
I would suggest that Trident would have no deterrent effect at all on such groups and, as such, could not be financially justified.
But....
How many nuclear weapon states are there? Not many, which suggests that producing nuclear weapons is less than easy. A lot of scientific and industrial capability is needed. See this FAS page.
Therefore, we could conclude that terrorists would find it hard to produce nuclear device without state sponsorship, which brings up the issue of deterrence.
This is part of the Guardian's coverage of the nuclear deterrent issue -which can be found here.
Chainkicker
There is no doubt that our biggest threat is from "stateless terrorist groups".
Isn't there?
I would suggest that Trident would have no deterrent effect at all on such groups and, as such, could not be financially justified.
But....
How many nuclear weapon states are there? Not many, which suggests that producing nuclear weapons is less than easy. A lot of scientific and industrial capability is needed. See this FAS page.
Therefore, we could conclude that terrorists would find it hard to produce nuclear device without state sponsorship, which brings up the issue of deterrence.