Of course, Russia with its 6,000 warheads is only not invading us because we have 200 of them ready to strike back.
I'm not a fan of nuclear weapons, but I think its a gross simplification to suggest that its just Russia that is a concern. Iran, N Korea, China, Israel are all a bit too unhinged and capable of nuclear attack. (The US is also not entirely on my non-unhinged list - its saying something when India and Pakistan are closer to sensible!). I'd much rather we all found a way to get on rather than flex our muscles.
We only really need half a dozen likely to hit their target and we have a credible counter threat. If someone in NATO is going to have them - I'd rather it wasn't just the Americans.
They are however a ridiculous waste of money - especially if they can't actually reach their target.
And that’s just from U.K. subs
But I think I am right in saying that is OUR entire nuclear deterent? We have no other way to launch them? So IF there is a fundamental flaw we have no actual deterant; therefore we would be better doing something useful with the money.
Also how has technology affected the security of the submarines – can you still hide a missile boat and if so for how much longer?
I think so - it appears you can hide conventional weapons well enough on land that the UK/US are unable to eliminate the risk in the red sea coming from Yemen.
Failures occur, that’s why trials occur, for a war type of scenario they’d just spin up another one and fire it.
Worth noting that this isn’t two in a row for failures of Trident, it’s just two in a row for UK subs, the US have trialled a few since 2016 without incident.
Did they just supply us with all the duds? Trials are supposed to happen BEFORE the system is deployed live.
Sub Captain… “That Grant Shapps is on board today – now just make it plop in the sea a few hundred yards away. Then I can show him how underfunded we are and tap him up for more coin!” 🙂
Well presumably the trial was classified so someone let it slip to the Sun!