Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Revealed: UK develops secret nuclear warhead. Monday's session of Parliament will be fun...
Carl D.    3/12/2006 11:49:10 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2081800,00.html The Sunday Times - Britain The Sunday Times March 12, 2006 Revealed: UK develops secret nuclear warhead Michael Smith Full text of Trident report by Foreign Policy Centre http://www.times-archive.co.uk/onlinespecials/wmdmar10final.pdf BRITAIN has been secretly designing a new nuclear warhead in conjunction with the Americans, provoking a legal row over the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The government has been pushing ahead with the programme while claiming that no decision has been made on a successor to Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent. Work on a new weapon by scientists at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire has been under way since Tony Blair was re-elected last May, and is now said to be ahead of similar US research. The aim is to produce a simpler device using proven components to avoid breaching the ban on nuclear testing. Known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), it is being designed so that it can be tested in a laboratory rather than by detonation. “We’ve got to build something that we can never test and be absolutely confident that, when we use it, it will work,” one senior British source said last week. The secret programme to build a new warhead in close co-operation with the Americans will spark anger among Labour opponents of any replacement of the Trident programme, which is estimated to have cost nearly £10 billion. Developing a new weapon would also, according to expert advice from Cherie Booth’s Matrix chambers, be a material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The office of Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, refused to comment on whether it had been asked for legal advice by No 10. Both Labour backbenchers and the Liberal Democrats accused the government of introducing a replacement nuclear weapon by the back door without a parliamentary debate. Paul Flynn, a Labour backbencher who has drafted parliamentary motions questioning the need for a Trident replacement, insisted there had to be a proper debate. “The Trident missiles will last for another 20 years,” he said. “Who on earth are we going to take on with them anyway? Replacing them wrecks any standing we have when we preach non-proliferation to countries like Iran.” Michael Moore, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, called for a statement. “This work would appear to pre-empt the proper debate the prime minister has promised,” he said. The controversy is set to ignite this week with an embarrassing report by the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), set up under Blair’s patronage, calling for Trident to be scrapped and not replaced. On Tuesday the defence select committee will take evidence from experts, most of whom are expected to say that there is no need for a new nuclear deterrent. The FPC report says that Britain’s independent deterrent is an illusion. The missiles are stored in the United States and have to be collected by a British submarine before it goes on patrol. Aldermaston is run by a consortium headed by Lockheed Martin, a US company, and there are 92 Americans working there, including the managing director and four of his senior managers. “The UK should cease to try to keep up appearances and adopt a policy based on the reality that it is not an independent nuclear power,” the FPC report concludes. “Trident should not be replaced and should be phased out now.” Blair is said to want to decide on Trident’s replacement before he steps down. “It is a huge decision for the country and it will probably be done in a far more open way than the decisions have been taken before,” he said last month. As he spoke, work was well advanced at Aldermaston on designs for the RRW. The US Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear laboratories began a competition to produce an RRW last May. But Washington sources say the British have been designing their own Reliable Replacement Warhead and “are now ahead of the Americans”. One possible way to avoid breaching the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is for Blair to announce that the new deterrent will have fewer warheads. We currently have about 200.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Yimmy    RE:Revealed: UK develops secret nuclear warhead. Monday's session of Parliament will be fun...    3/12/2006 2:22:25 PM
Load of ball crap. a) We need to have a reliable and workable nuclear warhead and delivery system. b) There is no reason why we should reduce our number of weapons in total. We only break the friggin treaty if we build new weapons AND keep the old ones. And who cares what Iran thinks?
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest    UK develops new physics package   3/13/2006 10:28:57 AM
If these devices sit on shelves and are never tested this is a non-issue in IMHO. If these devices are put atop SLBM's and deployed instead of the existing warheads then I think they should be tested underground - ignore the treaties, the worlds moved on from balance of terror to just terror ruling the roost. Lets us be the terrorizers. AWE has spent alot on diagnostics to verify warhead performance. All the code and flash diagnostics don't substitute for a experimental program. A vital question to ask the LockMart/AWE management is why we cannot maintain our existing warheads in tip-top condition? When fully operational the present warhead is capable of yield selection, from a few kT to ~100kT. Further does the UK need to fill an Agent Defeat requirement? Will a small weapon optimized for prompt radiation meet the need? Do we need to deploy tactical nukes within our forces to counter-act the effect of reduced ranks? Why don't we scrap the SSBN/SLBM force - replace it with shiny cruise missile, air-land and sea launched? A counter view - have the military decided that nuclear weapons are actually to be used in future conflict and such must actually work - 100% of the time as we will only assign one per target! Thus all the high tech strategic grade weapons have become useless. Something robust and simple must be deployed.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:UK develops new physics package   3/13/2006 2:16:26 PM
Two points: 1) Reasons indicate capabilities. Therefore it is unlikely that you'll get the real ones. 2) There is no such thing as a tactical nuke, unless one takes the, somewhat cynical, Cold War view that a tactical nuke is one that goes off in Germany.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:UK develops new physics package   3/14/2006 12:40:45 AM
"There is no such thing as a tactical nuke,...." That was an argument often made during the Cold War. Without rearguing old debates, the people who favored this position generally insisted that any use of nuclear weapons, whatever, would inevitably escalate to a general exchange. And, so, they argued, since usage could not be limited, any use of any kind of weapon was inherently strategic and final. However, that argument was made with respect to a Soviet Union whose nuclear arsernal was very large. There was little discussion outside theoretical circles which were largely outside the politcal arena about a tactical use against a country with either a small nuclear arsenal or no nuclear weapons, at all. Does anyone really believe that the current proposals are intended to address the possibility of a resurgent Russia? If not, then the possible uses would likely involve countries with small nuclear arsenals, and, so, the whole debate is due to be revisited. "...unless one takes the, somewhat cynical, Cold War view that a tactical nuke is one that goes off in Germany." That was always a suggestion made either by the French or as a description of French policy.
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest    RE:UK develops new physics package   3/16/2006 6:04:28 AM
Should the UK be part of the US Agent Defeat program and designing a physics package for such an application the interested parties may wish to read. Science and Global Security, 12:69–89, 2004 Copyright C_ Taylor & Francis Inc. ISSN: 0892-9882 print DOI: 10.1080/08929880490464739 Nuclear ‘‘Bunker Busters’’ Would More Likely Disperse Than Destroy Buried Stockpiles of Biological and Chemical Agents, Robert W. Nelson [To paraphrase BSL] Q. When is our use of “Tactical” Nuke(s) not a declaration of un-restricted (i.e. lobbing ~100kT packages at each other) warfare between us and the enemy? [Neo con hat ON!] Answer: When the enemy is disabled entirely by the strike(s) before their C&C can effect a response. Because un-restricted warfare can only take place between two or more parties, if only one remains it can’t happen. [Neo con hat OFF!] The “logic” above does seem so apply today – that’s why I say “let us be the terrorizers”. Whether the UK even needs strategic nuclear weapons capability in today’s world is a moot point in my opinion. That statement may seem treasonous so I’ll attempt to justify by calling up a Chinese PLA document (is that a first?). “Unrestricted Warfare”, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999) Section entitled: “What Means and Methods Are Used to Fight?” […] “The difference between the concepts of "non-military war operations" and "military operations other than war" is far greater than a surface reading would indicate and is by no means simply a matter of changing the order of some words in a kind of word game. The latter concept, MOOTW, may be considered simply an explicit label for missions and operations by armed forces that are carried out when there is no state of war. The former concept, "non-military war operations," extends our understanding of exactly what constitutes a state of war to each and every field of human endeavor, far beyond what can be embraced by the term "military operations." This type of extension is the natural result of the fact that human beings will use every conceivable means to achieve their goals.” […] “Today, when nuclear weapons have already become frightening mantelpiece decorations that are losing their real operational value with each passing day, financial war has become a "hyperstrategic" weapon that is attracting the attention of the world. This is because financial war is easily manipulated and allows for concealed actions, and is also highly destructive.” […] “…we can clearly see the role played by various types of foundations that were set up by transnational groups and millionaires with riches rivaling the wealth of nation states. These foundations control the media, control subsidies to political organizations, and limit any resistance from the authorities, resulting in a collapse of national order and the downfall of the legally authorized government. Perhaps we could dub this type of war "foundation-style" financial war. The greater and greater frequency and intensity of this type of war, and the fact that more and more countries and non-state organizations are deliberately using it, are causes for concern and are facts that we must face squarely.” […] “the "Falange Armed Forces" [Changqiangdang Wuzhuang 022 2847 7825 2976 5944] group in Italy is a completely different class of high-tech terrorist oganization. Its goals are explicit and the means that it employs are extraordinary. It specializes in breaking into the computer networks of banks and news organizations, stealing stored data, deleting programs, and disseminating disinformation. These are classic terrorist operations directed against networks and the media. This type of terrorist operation uses the latest technology in the most current fields of study, and sets itself against humanity as a whole. We might well call this type of operation "new terror war." “Faced with a nearly infinitely diverse array of options to choose from, why do people want to enmesh themselves in a web of their own making and select and use means of warfare that are limited to the realm of the force of arms and military power? Methods that are not characterized by the use of the force of arms, nor by the use of military power, nor even by the presence of casualties and bloodshed, are just as likely to facilitate the successful realization of the war's goals, if not more so. As a matter of course, this prospect has led to revision of the statement that "war is politics with bloodshed," and in turn has also led to a change in the hitherto set view that warfare prosecuted through force of arms is the ultimate means of resolving conflict. Clearly, it is precisely the diversity of the means employed that has enlarged the concept of warfare.” […] “Moreover, the enlargement of the concept of warfare has, in turn, resulted in enlargement of the realm of war-related activities. If we confine ourse
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:UK develops new physics package   4/10/2006 6:28:19 PM
"Why must we be able to stir-up the dust with “our” weapons after the US warheads have already serviced our need for revenge?" In Suez 1956 US failed to protect UK against a potential Russian strike and UK withdrawn from Egypt. How can you think you are still a world power with freedom of action if your deterrent is not independant? Do you think that US will really avenge you agaisnt a nuclear power which had stiken you (especially on a tactical level against your military forces) if US did not agree with your military opreation (like in Falkland) and if US could be subjected also on nuke destruction? What a joke! Without nukes you are a third rate power.
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest    lightningtest to french stratege   4/12/2006 4:57:35 AM
french stratege, the point I intended to make needs the two sentences following to be ready together. "The US undoubtedly would destroy anybody who launched ballistic missiles at Western Europe. Why must we be able to stir-up the dust with “our” weapons after the US warheads have already serviced our need for revenge?" You asked; >"Do you think that US will really avenge you against a nuclear power which had stiken you (especially on a tactical level against your military forces)..." Please permit me to divide your question into two; 1.A ballistic missile strike at UK home bases and cities. 2. A strike at UK armed forces deployed overseas. 1. Missiles the boost and mid course phase of the strike will not have had their impact point determined by US space command sufficiently accurately that an attack on vital US installations can be excluded. For example the "golfballs". So the US will have to act fast either to neutralize the missile warheads when they are up in the ionosphere by clever physics or some sort of hit to kill BMD. Additionally the US will want to make sure that the launching country doesn't do it again. Where does the UK SLBM force fit into this picture - I contend it does not. 2. If a tactical nuclear weapon is used now isolated UK armed forces then how would the UK presently respond? Should a SLBM be launched with a unitary warhead fused to provide a proportionate response - that appears to be the UK's only option? Can the UK launch an SLBM unilaterally in such circumstances? I think not. Why, because this event will not happen in isolation and the UK will need to clear the launch with its allies and other enemies alike beforehand in order to prevent uncontrolled escalation. Furthermore will we give away the location of part of our strategic defense over a tactical event. I wouldn't. I served in a unit that knew we would be attacked by nuclear tipped ballistic missiles early in any conflict so I am not saying this lightly. >"In Suez 1956 US failed to protect UK against a potential Russian strike and UK withdrawn from Egypt." "...if US did not agree with your military operation (like in Falkland) and if US could be subjected also on nuke destruction? What a joke!" The UK has not, in my opinion, ever conducted combat operation that the people who control the USA didn't approve of since before WW1! Take Suez intervention, I say it was a tag team fight that got the canal back under control - another discussion perhaps, I look forward to it and will probably learn a lot. In the Falklands conflict the government/military of the US was not neutral, it supported UK significantly. If we had got a tactical nuclear weapon dropped on us in San-Carlos Water then I have no doubt we would have had to go home + would not have destroyed Buenos Aires. We or the US may have destroyed a large fraction of the enemy mainland bases with a salvo of SLBM warheads but that wouldn't have changed the outcome would it! We would still have lost. So what does revenge via an SLBM force gain us in that circumstance? >”How can you think you are still a world power with freedom of action if your deterrent is not independent?” "A world power"....A much better man than I said "if America is to share with other nations the development of atomic weapons, this could be done only within an indissoluble association, in which no nation will be free to “change sides” in consequence of external or internal developments." I believe it to be the case now. I personally don't think anybody on the surface of this rock has "freedom of action". Some of us may have temporary freedom from directly feeling the consequences of our actions. But it isn't the same thing! Most of all I would like those who can do us all significant harm if they delude themselves into thinking have got "freedom of action" locked in a deep hole with radios that don't work! >Without nukes you are a third rate power. I would go and help build a set of 1kT to ~30kT pure fission free fall and short range weapons tomorrow if lawfully ordered to by a democratically elected government of my peers (I really hate corrupting influence of the way we do it now!). I'd even participate in testing them in the safest and cleanest way possible. Then I would aid in integrating them onto the platforms in the safest and most reliable way possible. I am not arguing against the existence of WMD in the arsenal used to defend the UK. I am arguing against the pork used to perpetuate a useless SSBN/SLBM system and further extend warhead design by science based stockpile stewardship. I say - let the engineering knowledge to build and maintain thermonuclear weapons be lost by natural wastage. We have precision targeting capabilities now which negate the need for such weapons except when killing million of civilians. The powerful countries need to set an example for the entire world and choose to remove from service thermonucle
 
Quote    Reply

eon    RE:Two (somewhat late) observations   7/26/2006 2:52:04 PM
1. The British intent is to develop a weapon that they are >certain< will work, but never actually >test< it to see if it does? How very Monty Python. For an SF example of this carried to its logical conclusion, see the novel "The Programmed Man" by Jeff Sutton. 2. I don't think it's a good idea to let our "knowledge of how to build H-bombs fade away from wastage." There might come a time when we'd need that knowledge very badly indeed. Going back to SF, read "Footfall" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. In space combat, a 1MT+ fusion warhead is definable as a >tactical< weapon. Cheers. eon
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan    new UK nukes    7/26/2006 7:40:28 PM
You certainly can't be without nukes if Iran has them (or the French ;-))
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest    RE:Two (somewhat late) observations   7/28/2006 1:47:06 PM
"1. The British intent is to develop a weapon that they are >certain< will work, but never actually >test< it to see if it does? How very Monty Python. For an SF example of this carried to its logical conclusion, see the novel "The Programmed Man" by Jeff Sutton." Thanks for the book reference, don't be so sure we won't test it though. I reckon a special mix of isotopes instead of the weapons grade Pu would allow the weapon to be expolded in fully assembled config but with very little yield. "2. I don't think it's a good idea to let our "knowledge of how to build H-bombs fade away from wastage." There might come a time when we'd need that knowledge very badly indeed." It may cost the UK and US several billion dollars per year to insure against natural wastage - that is if the method used is to periodically replace SLBM/SSBN combinations every 30-40 years and ICBM's every 50 years or so. If only the knowelege of how to design build and test the physics package is to be maintained then you could reduce that insurance premium by a factor of 10. A advantage buying the cheaper insurance policy is that you don't have lots of weapon systems optimised for the last war floating around taking up scarce human resources. "2. I don't think it's a good idea to let our "knowledge of how to build H-bombs fade away from wastage." There might come a time when we'd need that knowledge very badly indeed. Going back to SF, read "Footfall" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. In space combat, a 1MT+ fusion warhead is definable as a >tactical< weapon. Cheers." I think the best place to put our thermonuclear weapons and high G delivery systems (in the independance day senario) is at Lagrange points, then we can use them for short notice interplanetary warfare. IMHO the human race has got to learn to resolve resource shortage by talking to each other before we even deserve to start screwing up other planets. eon
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics