Poll: Do you believe the UK should have its own Nuclear Deterrent?

[Rroff]

I don't know the potential weight of a payload based on NK's latest nuclear tech even assuming it was viable but potentially their latest missile tech could deliver a half ton payload to between 7,200 and 9,000km putting them in reach of London on the extreme end of their range. Whether they actually have a viable working version of that tech is another matter entirely. Based on the fact someones been selling them half decent tech recently I wouldn't be too sure on betting on it. (mk4/5 versions of their "own brand" tank have much more recent versions of Chinese tech than previously assumed, intercepted weapons shipments from NK to places like Syria also showing a level of quality not previously expected of them).

 

[Pumpkinstew]

Procurement, refit and support all provide lucrative profits for what essentially was even at the time outdated technology by their standards. The cash amount of that program could be used in a far more beneficial way at home. We could certainly multiply the 500 jobs significantly by spending hundreds of millions on more conventional roles and (useful) arms. If we were to look at the money spent, and to be spent, UK wide then it's billions of pounds.

Billions of pounds for 500 jobs and a bunch of useless shiny things?

Now I'm confused. Whilst I agree with the argument that a major overhaul of our conventional forces might possibly be a better use of the Trident budget, where does the 500 jobs come from?

You can't possibly design, build and support a fleet of submarines using 500 people. That's barely enough people to crew them. Including supply chain it must be over 10 times that number.
And that's just the subs, there will also be posts at AWE to support the warheads.

 

[Dr Jack]

Do I believe the UK should maintain a nuclear program? Yes. Do I think it should maintain a current Trident style plan? No.

The only value of being a nuclear power is that it gives a chip on the world stage. We're not going to use it; none of the current threats to our nation are meaningfully deterred by it. It's an investment in having more global influence; that is all. We do not need a 24hr, 365 day, rapidly deployable nuclear deployment system for that. And we certainly don't need to be building a replacement right now to do that.

 

[Xordium]

Yes I think we should without a doubt I also think it should be a submarine based system for obvious reasons.

 

[Cold_And_Miserable]

I'd rather £20 billion was spent on nuclear weapons that are never used, even if the USA effectively controls those missiles, than spending more on questionably useful civil servants, MPs expenses and protecting scum like Abu Qatada.

 

[Biohazard]

Now I'm confused. Whilst I agree with the argument that a major overhaul of our conventional forces might possibly be a better use of the Trident budget, where does the 500 jobs come from?

You can't possibly design, build and support a fleet of submarines using 500 people. That's barely enough people to crew them. Including supply chain it must be over 10 times that number.
And that's just the subs, there will also be posts at AWE to support the warheads.

If you read the quoted article above, the underlined sections are links, and the 500 relates to the number of jobs attributed to the trident missile system at Faslane. The context was economic benefit to the UK.

That's not a lot for billions of pounds per year.

 

[Rroff]

rapidly deployable nuclear deployment system for that. And we certainly don't need to be building a replacement right now to do that.

Problem is its not something you can get up and running in a short space of time should we actually need it - the realistic options are either scraping it entirely (which would be insane*) or continously maintain and upgrade where necessary.


* You have to be extremely naive and ignore the bulk of human history to think that theres no chance we could need it in the future and/or that unilateral disarmament of your biggest deterrents is anything other than a very bad idea that plays right into the hands of the unscrupulous. This kind of discussion really should be about the principles and remove the nuclear element from it which only ever gets bogged down in emotional fallacies that are a knee jerk reaction to the word nuclear.

 

[Pumpkinstew]

If you read the quoted article above, the underlined sections are links, and the 500 relates to the number of jobs attributed to the trident missile system at Faslane. The context was economic benefit to the UK.

That's not a lot for billions of pounds per year.

Both articles refer to the removal of current Trident if Scotland votes for independence - I don't see how the figures are at all relevant to the argument for renewal of a submarine based nuclear programme which would support thousands of technical and skilled manufacturing jobs.
The context is not economic benefit to the UK it's very local to single naval base in Faslane.

A Freedom of Information request by Scottish CND revealed that 520 civilian jobs at the Clyde Naval Base were directly dependent on the Trident programme.

And what about the indirect and non-civilian posts?

Also, your own quote says £400m per year, not billions.

 

[McBain]

Of course.

 

[GolfNovember90]

my opinion on nuclear weapons as a deterrent is similar to blackadders view on the first world war in blackadder goes forth.

that being said i wholeheartedly believe we should retain a nuclear arsenal.

 

[Biohazard]

Both articles refer to the removal of current Trident if Scotland votes for independence - I don't see how the figures are at all relevant to the argument for renewal of a submarine based nuclear programme which would support thousands of technical and skilled manufacturing jobs.
The context is not economic benefit to the UK it's very local to single naval base in Faslane.

500 jobs currently at Faslane on Trident, Independence aside, that isn't much for a few billion a year. The context was economic benefit to the UK, the reply of mine you quoted was in response to this;

Why doesn't it apply to Trident? Because the missiles themselves aren't made in Britain?

And what about the indirect and non-civilian posts?

Also, your own quote says £400m per year, not billions.

£400m per year for Scotland's contribution, the UK's is about £2.3bn.

 

[Strife212]

I'd rather £20 billion was spent on nuclear weapons that are never used, even if the USA effectively controls those missiles

They don't though. Trident could flatten Washington DC and they couldn't do anything about it.

 

[Biohazard]

UK'S TRIDENT SYSTEM NOT TRULY INDEPENDENT

33. Acquiring Trident gave the UK a greater nuclear weapons capability than it could ever have achieved on its own. This enhanced capacity, however, had significant consequences.

34. The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. The USA would see such an act as cutting across its self-declared prerogative as the world's policeman, and would almost certainly make the UK pay a high price for its presumption. The fact that the UK is completely technically dependent on the USA for the maintenance of the Trident system means that one way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

I think they could do a few things about it.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Is that likely now?

How much longer is it appropriate for us to continue to directly relate our nuclear stance with 'flattening Moscow'?

Highly unlikely given that the BAOR is being disbanded but with the Soviet collapse and friendlier terms coming along, other threats have emerged in North Korea and Iran.

My point referred to the Cold War which ended twenty or so years back.

 

[kissenger]

I'd rather £20 billion was spent on nuclear weapons that are never used, even if the USA effectively controls those missiles, than spending more on questionably useful civil servants, MPs expenses and protecting scum like Abu Qatada.

So you think it's a good idea to sack all civil servants before we give up trident? C'mon son!

 

[Biohazard]

Degree of US dependency;

System Degree of dependency

Warhead The UK warhead is a copy of the US W76 warhead.

Arming, fusing and firing system This triggers the explosion. The model used in UK warheads was designed by the US Sandia Laboratory and is almost certainly procured from the USA.

High-explosive (HE) This starts the nuclear explosion. The UK uses a different HE to the USA. Key explosives calculations for the US warhead cannot simply be duplicated so US labs assess the UK HE's long-term performance.

Neutron generator This initiates nuclear fission. The neutron generator used in UK warheads is the MC4380, which is manufactured in the USA and acquired "off the shelf".

Gas reservoir This supplies tritium to boost the fission process. It is most likely that the reservoir used in UK warheads is manufactured in the USA. UK gas reservoirs are filled with tritium in the USA.

Re-entry body shell This is the cone-shaped body which contains the warhead. The UK purchases the Mark 4 re-entry body shell from the USA.

The D5 missile The UK does not own its Trident missiles—they are leased from the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.
Guidance system The Mark 6 guidance system used on the UK's Trident D5 missiles is designed and made in the USA by Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.

Submarines UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines are UK-made, but many aspects of the design are copied from US submarines and many components are bought from the USA.

Navigation The high accuracy of the Trident D5 missile depends on the submarine's position being precisely determined. This is achieved using two systems: GPS, which relies on satellites, and the Electrostatically Supported Giro Navigation System (ESGN), which uses gyroscopes. In both cases UK Trident submarines uses the same US system as the US Navy submarines. The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.

Targeting Target packages are designed and formatting tapes produced on shore, then stored on the submarine—using US software at each stage.

Onshore targeting The software installed in the computers at the Nuclear Operations and Targeting Centre in London is based on US models and is probably derived from the US Navy's Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Integrated Planning System.

Weather and mavity data The US Navy supplies local gravitational information and forecasts of weather over targets, both of which are vital to high missile accuracy, to US and UK submarines.

Fire control system (FCS) Used to assign targets to the warheads on the submarines. UK submarines carry a slightly different model to that on US submarines. However, all the hardware and software used by the system is US-produced. The hardware is produced by General Dynamics Defense Systems. The contracts show that the UK uses similar, if not quite identical, software.

Management British nuclear warheads are designed and made at Aldermaston near Reading. Aldermaston is part managed by the US corporation Lockheed Martin. Repairs to Britian's Trident submarine are carried out at Devonport, which is part managed by another US corporation, Halliburton.

Research and development There is extensive cooperation between Aldermaston and America's nuclear weapon laboratories—Los Alamos in New Mexico and Sandia and Lawrence Livermore in California.

Testing The W76 warhead was tested at the US nuclear test site in Nevada in the early 1990s. The UK has no test site of its own. The missiles are test launched from British submarines under US supervision at Cape Canaveral off the Florida coast. These tests are analysed by the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University and by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.

I don't think it's 'independent'; and I think it to be quite obvious that as shown above in evidence to parliament that the vast majority of the programme is beneficial to the US industrial complex, not the British.

 

[estebanrey]

UK'S TRIDENT SYSTEM NOT TRULY INDEPENDENT

34. The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. The USA would see such an act as cutting across its self-declared prerogative as the world's policeman, and would almost certainly make the UK pay a high price for its presumption. The fact that the UK is completely technically dependent on the USA for the maintenance of the Trident system means that one way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea.

That's a pretty lame argument against the UK's claim to having an independent nuclear weapons system. The first point is just silly, if America get annoyed by anyone else launching one because of some egotistical view that they are the only ones that are allowed to applies to all the countries with weapons, and has nothing to do with the UK's claim to an independent system.

You don't have your own weapons system because if you use it you'll annoy somebody else? Sorry but don't follow that logic.

The second reason, technical support, holds a little more water but still doesn't debunk the UK's claim to independence. It's like saying you don't own your car because you rely on mechanics to do MOTs on it. Also, if America ever did stop supporting us in a technical capacity then someone else would.

 

[Biohazard]

That's a pretty lame argument against the UK's claim to having an independent nuclear weapons system. The first point is just silly, if America get annoyed by anyone else launching one because of some egotistical view that they are the only ones that are allowed to applies to all the countries with weapons, and has nothing to do with the UK's claim to an independent system.

Of course it does?

Anyway as shown the technical specifications display a near whole scale reliance upon another nation for the technology and maintenance of the system, that Britain could unilaterally start throwing ICBM's out in fury is a little bit far fetched. It's hubris we're dealing with here.

You don't have your own weapons system because if you use it you'll annoy somebody else? Sorry but don't follow that logic.

No one is denying the weapon system exists, but it is by the grace of the Americans and the tag 'independent' is quite a misnomer.

The second reason, technical support, holds a little more water but still doesn't debunk the UK's claim to independence. It's like saying you don't own your car because you rely on mechanics to do MOTs on it. Also, if America ever did stop supporting us in a technical capacity then someone else would.

We would need to buy a whole new nuclear weapons platform if anyone is selling, no one else could maintain American technology bar the Americans.

We are completely 'dependent' technologically and also politically when it comes to nuclear exchanges, that is the opposite of 'independence'.

 

[Castiel]

It is only the missile delivery system (the missies are leased) that is American and maintained as part of a Trident Pool encompassing all UK/US Trident deployments, the Warheads(designed as part of a technical and materiel exchange) and Submarines are not, there is a little thing called the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement which as well as being a joint bilateral agreement on Nuclear Weapon research and co-operation also guarantees British (and American) independence in the deployment and use of its respective Nuclear Arsenal.

 

[Biohazard]

It is only the missile delivery system (the missies are leased) that is American and maintained as part of a Trident Pool encompassing all UK/US Trident deployments, the Warheads(designed as part of a technical and materiel exchange) and Submarines are not,

Submarines UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines are UK-made, but many aspects of the design are copied from US submarines and many components are bought from the USA.

Warhead The UK warhead is a copy of the US W76 warhead.

Arming, fusing and firing system This triggers the explosion. The model used in UK warheads was designed by the US Sandia Laboratory and is almost certainly procured from the USA.

Re-entry body shell This is the cone-shaped body which contains the warhead. The UK purchases the Mark 4 re-entry body shell from the USA.

etc

Very limited sections of the programme are British based or originated, the 'independence' in theory is a little bit more contested and complicated than that in practice. There are few situations where it could even arise, it's unlikely to in any event.