Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Britain may replace Trident--
Herc the Merc    11/26/2006 5:29:41 PM
NUKEWARS Britain To Unveil Plans To Replace Nuclear Missile System File photo: Trident missile launch. by Staff Writers London (AFP) Nov 22, 2006 Britain is to publish proposals by the end of the year on how to replace its ageing nuclear deterrent Trident missiles, Prime Minister Tony Blair told lawmakers Monday. Blair confirmed a question from the leader of the smaller opposition Liberal Democrats Menzies Campbell that the government's position on whether to maintain the Trident missile system would be set out by the turn of the year. He also said he was "sure" lawmakers would get a chance to vote on the issue. "I believe it is important that we maintain the independent nuclear deterrent," he told Campbell during the weekly "prime minister's questions" in the lower chamber House of Commons. The issue of whether to scrap Trident -- which will become obsolete with the four Vanguard class submarines that carry them in the mid-2020s -- is a deeply divisive issue among Blair's governing Labour Party. Scrapping nuclear weapons -- and also nuclear power -- was a totemic issue for the left-wing party in the 1980s but the policy was dropped before the 1997 general election, when Blair's revamped centre-left "New Labour" was elected. Instead, its manifesto pledged to retain Trident. Blair's likely successor, finance minister Gordon Brown, has previously said he, too, is in favour of keeping Britain's nuclear deterrent. But a number of senior ministers, including Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, reportedly have concerns about it. Anti-nuclear campaigners are currently lobbying hard against any replacement, including via an online petition on the prime minister's own website. By Wednesday, there had been more than 2,000 signatories supporting the motion: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by not replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system."
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Yimmy       11/26/2006 7:27:22 PM


By Wednesday, there had been more than 2,000 signatories supporting the motion: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by not replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system."


Sure.... and why don't we go handing out big sticks and bend over while we're at it.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Yimmy-Britain has no enemies-George Michael is enuff to scare anyone   11/26/2006 7:30:51 PM



By Wednesday, there had been more than 2,000 signatories supporting the motion: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by not replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system."



Sure.... and why don't we go handing out big sticks and bend over while we're at it.

 


LOL
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    OOPs- Boy George.   11/26/2006 7:31:15 PM
//
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest       11/27/2006 10:42:58 AM



By Wednesday, there had been more than 2,000 signatories supporting the motion: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by not replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system."



Sure.... and why don't we go handing out big sticks and bend over while we're at it.

 


Yimmy, Do you think a SLBM force will reduce the number of UK dead in any conflict during which our enemy uses WMD?  UK taxpayers pay for it.  Lets see the defense industry or perhaps you justify the investement in SLBM and SSBN tech based on what it does for the person who pays for it!
 
Against the Russians, Chinese and French.  I reckon if the UK buys a selection of decommissioned silo's in the American midwest or builds new ones in Falklands / South Georgia and stuffs them full of MIRV ICBM's it might be the cheapest and most maintainable delievery solution and it'll give us an equally independant and survivable deterant to the SSBN force.  We can spend some of the money saved on subs to patrol around the silo's.  If the silo's do get taken out by first strike then you can bet you bottom dollar that the US ICBM's will already be on route to vapourise the subjects of whoever launched the first strike.
 
Against the threats we face now a true deterent would be a bio weapon which targets people according to their genetic heritige.  Fielding and pointedly testing such a set of weapons (say by releasing it upon them with a payload that merely makes them smell bad) might actually deter them.
 
Fancy chating about how independant the bit that goes off with a big bang is.  That could do with a close look before we bend over to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       11/27/2006 11:20:34 AM
That is simply absurd.
 
You suggest we use silos instead of SSBN's.... depriving us of a nucelar deterrent (as our assets would not survive a first strike by an enemy), and you assume we can count on the Americans?
 
We can not leave the most important aspect of our states defence to other states!
 
Yes, I do think our having the four Vangard class SSBN's reduces the number of British dead, as because of their superb second strike capability no other state will engage with us in nuclear war in the first place.
 
The only flaw in MAD as we know it, is what happenes if a terrorist organisation were to detonate a lone nuclear warhead, in say London.
 
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest       11/30/2006 5:30:11 AM
"That is simply absurd." -  I can see I got some way to go before your convinced!
 
"You suggest we use silos instead of SSBN's.... depriving us of a nucelar deterrent (as our assets would not survive a first strike by an enemy), and you assume we can count on the Americans?"
 
If the silo's are in the US midwest we can count on the Americans.  If silos are not we must ensure a successful first strike on them is very difficult and nobody who attempts it can be sure it'll work.  Nuclear tipped ABM anybody?
 
"We can not leave the most important aspect of our states defence to other states!"
 
I start with the premise that people with power to use nucs have money and enjoy spending that money in a working 21st century society - not an radiation strewn charnel house.   How would a UK with no nucs be anymore unsafe than say Spain, Sweden or Turkey.  Historically we (NATO) needed nucs to defeat a threat.  The UK has a proud history of developing the tools to counter the threat,  That particular threat still exists so NATO still needs nucs to counter it.  Why don't we accept a US assurance and take the position of Spain or Turkey?  We can then use the money saved to develop tools to counter the pressing threat now.
 
"Yes, I do think our having the four Vangard class SSBN's reduces the number of British dead, as because of their superb second strike capability no other state will engage with us in nuclear war in the first place."
 
Our present capability is second strike so what import is it if a US or UK weapon destroys the enemy people a hour, week, month or twenty years later.  It make no differnence to the attacker the nationality of weapon which avenges.  In fact nationallity and states are dated concepts in todays threat enviroment as you alluded below.
 
"The only flaw in MAD as we know it, is what happenes if a terrorist organisation were to detonate a lone nuclear warhead, in say London."
If our weapons are under NATO control day to day and only when London is dust does National defense come into it then how much do the launch tubes the UK paid for alter the balance of power now?  I contend not an iota.  If however I am wrong and the enemy knows that the US assurances of nuclear protection are worthless whern called upon ... but the enemy haven't killed us yet - why not?  It's because they don't see any long term advantage in it.
 
UK SSBN's will not be invisible when on patrol (indeed if they are now) once certain kinds of nuclear radiation detectors get optimised and lofted.  Isolated silos can at least be defended long enough to launch, or at least the perception they can be protected can be imprinted upon the enemy leaders mind.
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest       11/30/2006 6:08:56 AM
"If however I am wrong and the enemy knows that the US assurances of nuclear protection are worthless whern called upon ... but the enemy haven't killed us yet - why not?"
 
should read: ...but the enemy haven't killed those who rely solely on US assurances - why not...
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       11/30/2006 2:18:13 PM
I suspect that safeguarding a fixed silo anywhere the UK might put it would cost a great deal more than four new missile boats and missiles.

The UK strategic force may not alter the current balance of power, but the balance may well change in the two decades before trident goes out of service, let alone in the fifty years after that a successor deterrent would be lifed for.
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest       12/4/2006 10:14:08 AM

I suspect that safeguarding a fixed silo anywhere the UK might put it would cost a great deal more than four new missile boats and missiles.

The UK strategic force may not alter the current balance of power, but the balance may well change in the two decades before trident goes out of service, let alone in the fifty years after that a successor deterrent would be lifed for.
But if we put the silo's out of the way in South Georgia [1]...might be easier to defend with them with nuclear tipped ABM over there. 
[1] Either the place the USMC goes to bootccamp or the place the penguins go to warm up - same difference.
 
Flammingknives: Can we agree the UK weapons don't alter the balance of power now.. but the SSBN and SLBN/MIRV take so long to build (and training the crews is so difficult) that we can't aford to gap the capability?
 
We can move the debate onto how to maintain surge capability most efficently.  If we were to send our crews to the US and they were to operate one of the new US boats that would maintain our ability to man subs when we need to recreate the capability.  It would also cement our transatlantic relations into the future.  But crucially at lower cost.
 
Quote    Reply

Tale       12/4/2006 11:46:19 AM
According to this MoD article the intention is to extend the life of the Trident missile system and replace the current subs. Apparently the funds for carrying this out won't come from the conventional procurement budget. Call me a cynic but I suspect that while it won't be coming out of the conventional budget that budget will be reduced by an amount almost exactly commensurate with the cost of renewing Trident.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics