[Closed] So, Trident...

You'd think they'd let just one off every now and then, so I could feel like I was getting my moneys worth.

Without it Barrow would be a desolate hopeless wasteland filled with economic zombies, drug addiction, petty violent crime and misery. Like now, but a bit worse.

I would rather see the same money spent on conventional weaponry that we could actually use.

Defence spending is a good thing. Defence spending on a weapon that almost no-one imagines would ever be used, even when deterrence has failed, is bizarrely wasteful.

Waste of money. We'll never fire one.

In my view worth it to occasionally see those subs but I love the comment about letting one off to get money's worth!

[i]I would rather see the same money spent on conventional weaponry that we could actually use.

Defence spending is a good thing
[/i]

I'd rather we concentrated on DEFENCE not OFFENCE, and then we wouldn't need to spend anywhere near what we currently spend.

As b r says- we aren't under active attack, and aren't likely to be so most military spending is a waste of money, let alone something as costly and horrific as Trident. Someone needs to break the nuclear arms circle first, why not us? If we drop it hopefully others will too.

I don't really see the advantage in blowing up other countries at our expense when we have an NHS that needs many more billions of pounds injecting into it.

Here's an idea: why not get rid of nuclear weapons but pretend that we still have them? It seems that those countries where we are not sure if they have nuclear weapons are the most dangerous.

I don't really know why we have such a national obsession with having global military influence. Germany, for instance, doesn't

Well, if you look at the last two times they tried, it's easy to understand why they've given that particular avenue a miss for a while, isn't it?

wanmankylung - Member
Here's an idea: why not get rid of nuclear weapons but pretend that we still have them? It seems that those countries where we are not sure if they have nuclear weapons are the most dangerous.

Or maybe they have..... Maybe those are just placebo subs that we see.

Could we not just say we have it... but actually build schools?

Trident has proved so useful in all the wars the UK has been involved in recently.

Look what good it did for Poseidon. Some touchy, feely, life ever lasting God comes along and suddenly your Trident and power of the Deep counts for nought.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/tories-pledge-to-use-next-lot-of-trident-missiles-2015040997173 ]Daily Mash on it[/url]

Trident has proved so useful in all the wars the UK has been involved in recently.

And even more useful in the ones we haven't had to fight because of Trident's deterent?

Who exactly are we supposed to be deterring?

It's not a waste of money at all, even if we don't need it. All the money gets spent in the UK on R&D and maintaining the fleet, so it's all recirculated locally. It's no different to spending on any infrastructure. We get the actual warheads from the US, but everything else, submarines, propulsion, maintenance is all UK designed and built.

But it also imposes incalculable costs on generations to come as a result of disposing of the spent nuclear reactors, warhead materials, and other wastes associated with the construction and maintenance of the systems.

But it also imposes incalculable costs on generations to come as a result of disposing of the spent nuclear reactors, warhead materials, and other wastes associated with the construction and maintenance of the systems.

Given we have nuclear power plants, the marginal cost of the very small extra spent fuel from subs is in the noise.

IIRC We return the warheads to the US for maintenance / recycling.

unklehomered - Member

Could we not just say we have it... but actually build schools?

sshhh! - keep it quiet, or the Ruskies will figure out that we already did that...

(Trident subs don't actually exist, they're just 'ducks' with a body kit and grey paint)

Who exactly are we supposed to be deterring?

Given recent events Russia and North Korea would be fairly obvious candidates. With Russia it's probably less about deterring and more about the influence that the deterent confers.

I read a book a few years ago by one of our former Prime Ministers who explained that our permanent seat on the UN Security Council was entirely based on our possession of a nuclear deterent and that that permanent seat did afford us a lot of geopolitical influence.

Trident = a £130bn prosthetic willy.

Indeed, the issue of the disposal of the waste is equally an argument against nuclear power. Far from being 'marginal' the costs will mount over time; what a toxic legacy to leave to our descendants.

If this project goes ahead will the UK continue to lecture Iran and the DPRK about nuclear proliferation?

I really can't see why anyone would have them... all it does is escalate tensions and introduce the potential for some very nasty consequences that no species should have the right to inflict on a rare planet which has the wonderful ability to sustain life.

[i]Well, if you look at the last two times they tried, it's easy to understand why they've given that particular avenue a miss for a while, isn't it? [/i]

Of course it is, and they've put that behind them and got on with being a global industrial and economic force (see also Japan). We however still keep banging on about how well we did in those last two times, and to the time when we had an Empire, and using that as the basis for our need to remain as a global military power.

You could argue that Germany's learnt the lesson that we need to.

[i]All the money gets spent in the UK on R&D and maintaining the fleet, so it's all recirculated locally. It's no different to spending on any infrastructure. [/i]

It's a fair point, but why not spend it on useful infrastructure, rather than white elephants?

It's no different to spending on any infrastructure.

Except that when you spend on roads, railways, hospitals etc. you end up with something *useful*.

We get the actual warheads from the US, but everything else, submarines, propulsion, maintenance is all UK designed and built.

We get the missiles from the Americans, the warheads are our own (to a largely American design)

Rachel

It's not a waste of money at all, even if we don't need it .... so it's all recirculated locally.

Sounds [i]quite[/i] wasteful compared to spending the same money on something useful, assuming the same "local recirculation" of the money.

EDIT: too slow... 😉

Far from being 'marginal' the costs will mount over time

It is still marginal compared with running power station reactors 24/7 generating 10s GW.

What I find amusing is that the portrayal of Putin as some kinda meglomanic hell bent on restoring the soviet union!

i'll willing to bet a large wad of cash that as soon as the trident contracts are signed, Putin and Russia will disappear into obscurity! 😆

[i]and that that permanent seat did afford us a lot of geopolitical influence. [/i]

Which gains us what? Many successful, prosperous nations do not have such a seat and, it would seem, don't need it.

ohnohesback - Member

what a toxic legacy to leave to our descendants.

which will be tiny compared to the toxic legacy our Grandparents have left us from the early days of the Nuclear industry.

Once we agree where to bury all of that, the waste from the Next generation of Trident will look like an after8 mint.

It's not a waste of money at all, even if we don't need it. All the money gets spent in the UK on R&D and maintaining the fleet, so it's all recirculated locally. It's no different to spending on any infrastructure. We get the actual warheads from the US, but everything else, submarines, propulsion, maintenance is all UK designed and built.

That argument is rolled out every time and still makes no sense. It's a bit like saying we could employ an extra half million road workers not to actually maintain roads but dig random holes in fields and fill them in again. They are all gainfully employed and the money we pay them is recirculated back into the local economy......... except we don't need a bunch of holes dug and filled in again and we could spend the same amount of money employing people to do stuff that we actually want and the money we spend would STILL get recirculated back into the economy.

It's a fair point, but why not spend it on useful infrastructure, rather than white elephants?

I agree that Nuclear Subs might not be as socially useful as say Hospitals, but the money isn't completely wasted, a huge amount of the spend comes back as revenue in taxes (salaries, VAT, rates) as it's all spent locally. So you aren't just throwing it away with nothing to show for it, you get jobs, taxes, regional development (Nuclear Subs aren't in the well off SE).

Deterrence of Russia is genuinely interesting at the moment.

I doubt anyone thinks they're poised to invade Germany, or even Poland.

Does anyone think our government would even seriously consider nuking Moscow to protect Latvia from partial Russian annexation?

At a technical level, the Trident missile is a very impressive piece of engineering:-

[quote=From Wikipedia]The launch from the submarine occurs below the ocean surface. The missiles are ejected from their tubes by igniting an explosive charge in a separate container which is separated by seventeen titanium alloy pinnacles activated by a double alloy steam system. The energy from the blast is directed to a water tank, where the water is flash-vaporized to steam. The subsequent pressure spike is strong enough to eject the missile out of the tube and give it enough momentum to reach and clear the surface of the water. The missile is pressurized with nitrogen to prevent the intrusion of water into any internal spaces, which could damage the missile or add weight, destabilizing the missile. Should the missile fail to breach the surface of the water, there are several safety mechanisms that can either deactivate the missile before launch or guide the missile through an additional phase of launch. Inertial motion sensors are activated upon launch, and when the sensors detect downward acceleration after being blown out of the water, the first-stage engine ignites. The aerospike, a telescoping outward extension that halves aerodynamic drag, is then deployed, and the boost phase begins. When the third-stage motor fires, within two minutes of launch, the missile is traveling faster than 20,000 ft/s (6,000 m/s), or 13,600 mph (21,600 km/h).

The missile attains a temporary low-altitude orbit only a few minutes after launch. The Guidance System for the missile was developed by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory and is maintained by a joint Draper/General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems facility. It is an Inertial Guidance System with an additional Star-Sighting system (this combination is known as astro-inertial guidance), which is used to correct small position and velocity errors that result from launch condition uncertainties due to errors in the submarine navigation system and errors that may have accumulated in the guidance system during the flight due to imperfect instrument calibration. GPS has been used on some test flights but is assumed not to be available for a real mission. The fire control system was designed and continues to be maintained by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems.

Once the star-sighting has been completed, the "bus" section of the missile maneuvers to achieve the various velocity vectors that will send the deployed multiple independent reentry vehicles to their individual targets. The downrange and crossrange dispersion of the targets remains classified.

[Posted only for interest into how the thing works]

BigDummy - Member

I doubt anyone thinks they're poised to invade Germany, or even Poland.

lots of People in Poland will be reassured by your confidence.

I just do not buy the North Korea threat. Their scientists may help proliferate weapons technology for a price but that couldn't be stopped by Trident.
Putin, etc. I can see as being a concern but I'd rather have the money spent down a blind alley to go on conventional shiny planes and ships and uniforms. Though how much the Harrier equivalent tech will cost for the carriers would add up quickly.

We have 'used' nukes as allegedly Thatcher threatened to nuke Argentina if the French didn't hand over the info for the Exocet missiles

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/books.france ]Guardian linky[/url]

Lets face it the Yanks, Russian's, Israelis, India and ****stan are all unlikely to give them up, so I don't see how us giving them up making a jot of difference in terms of global dis-armament.

That argument is rolled out every time and still makes no sense. It's a bit like saying we could employ an extra half million road workers not to actually maintain roads but dig random holes in fields and fill them in again

Not a bad idea, you could use it as a replacement for benefits - much better than just paying people not to work 😉

Without the fear of mutual destruction we would have lost many many lives again since the last two world wars.

No one is going to enter a full on fight knowing you can't win.

Its all about proxy's. For that reason I think Trident is worth every penny.

lots of People in Poland will be reassured by your confidence.

Assuming my confidence is indeed unwarranted, do you think the British government would seriously consider a nuclear strike on Russia in the event of a Russian invasion of Poland?

[i]do you think the British government would seriously consider a nuclear strike on Russia in the event of a Russian invasion of Poland?[/i]

I refer the gentleman to my opening post... 🙂

Waste of money if we never fire one? You're missing the point, It's worth the money if we never fire one - its failed weapons system and therefore a waste of money if we do fire one.

The concept of mutually assured destruction is the essence of the deterant - it effectively renders the weapon useless. It is in that regards the most effective peacekeeping tool ever envisaged by mankind.

It's not just about protecting our shores, its about being part of NATO and a defence structure that has kept the peace and halted the advance of dictators over the past 60 years. The money it costs us is a small price to pay, which at the end of the day is a tiny proportion of what we spend as a nation on the NHS and Benefits - we only spend something like 4% of GDP on our whole armed services so forget any notion that by cancelling Trident will suddenly move the dial on any othe area of public spending. Its a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.

The cold war wasn't that bad in hindsight - at least the Russians understood the concept of mutually assured destruction, but the future we face is one of the real possibility of religious fundamentalists getting hold of them. Now more than ever is not the time to be giving them up.

Go on i'm not going to convince any of the doubters and am fanning the flames for another epic STW debate. I'm staggered at the willingness of some to relinquish our hard earned power and influence in the world. It's lunacy of the highest order. You can argue that we might not weild our power and influence well and could do more good with it, that's a different debate, but who in their right mind would willingly give up power and influence in a world where so many other nations are spilling blood to acheive it, and wether you like it or not, the fact we've got Nukes puts us in a position of power and influence.

[quote=wobbliscott said] but the future we face is one of the real possibility of religious fundamentalists getting hold of them. Now more than ever is not the time to be giving them up.

But they're not going to give a monkey's about trident.

and halted the advance of dictators over the past 60 years

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I see spending on Trident in the same way as spending on the UK Space Program or Higher Education Research, you're pumping money into the local economy, employing a range of highly skilled technical people, developing new technology (with potential non military spin-offs eg GPS).

If we canned it all, you'd have loose a whole load of skills, shut a massive ship yard and have the skills emigrate looking for work elsewhere or just sit on the dole in Barrow etc.

Without the fear of mutual destruction we would have lost many many lives again since the last two world wars.

No one is going to enter a full on fight knowing you can't win.

Its all about proxy's. For that reason I think Trident is worth every penny.

The world has become a lot more 'global' since the one and only time (well times technically, but in the same period of history) we let off one of these, and it was a poxy tiddly thing in comparison to todays weapons. Today we have a much better understanding of the collateral damage a nuclear explosion can have in a huge radius around the blast site. I am struggling to think of a location you could safely nuke without doing significant damage to yourself or one of your world allies. I just don't believe there would ever be a day when a UK leader would be prepared to order a launch, not because of the damage to the enemy but the self inflicted damage, which makes the threat they generate and any sort of world peace they have been previously credited with an entirely moot point in the modern global world order.

Can someone explain to me in simple, or complex terms, why trident needs replacing?
I.e. What's worn out on it from over use?

/Actually scrap that. I assume the people are talking about the submarines rather than the missiles.

Deterring smaller 'non-nation' groups is a red herring. Say ISIS get nuclear capability - who you going to nuke without MASSIVE collateral damage? They would know this and no amount of Trident would deter them from deploying their dirty bomb.

I am struggling to think of a location you could safely nuke without doing significant damage to yourself or one of your world allies

If you read [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-State-Whitehall-Cold/dp/0141008350 ]The Secret State[/url] it describes Russian and US simulations of a Nuclear War. The UK and all of Western Europe would be pretty much wiped out and uninhabitable, whereas the USA and Russia are so vast that there would survive (to some extent, although massively changed).

[quote=IanMunro said]Can someone explain to me in simple, or complex terms, why it needs replacing?
I.e. What's worn out on it from over use?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6454273.stm

What's worn out on it from over use?

Subs reaching end of life, bit like a VW Passat with 200k miles on it. Only no molgrips to keep it going.....

the headline figure of £30-£40Bn is the lifecycle cost over 20 years and in today's monetary cost. The actual cost of trident replacement is around £2Bn a year - so about £48-£64 for every working taxpayer. That's about one pint of beer a month for the guarantee the UK will always be safe from invasion.

I would not renew personally
Expensive white elephant vanity project

[quote=just5minutes said]That's about one pint of beer a month

Speak for yourself 🙂

Thanks allthepies.

BigDummy - Member

do you think the British government would seriously consider a nuclear strike on Russia in the event of a Russian invasion of Poland?

I have no idea. I'm no fan of Trident, i'm just trying to understand/appreciate as many angles as i can.

Poland* is a Friend and Neighbour. If by spending money on Trident, we can help calm their concerns (if only a little), then surely that must be considered.

(*extend to include Ukraine, Finland, etc.)

I'm grateful that i don't have to make a decision, i don't think it's an easy one.

There are far more countries in the world without nuclear weapons than with them, and I don't see Russia taking its chances invading Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Spain, Canada etc. etc. The idea that a small island pottering the east Atlantic about with no real idea about the outside world is such a goal compared to the other 3/4 of the globe is pretty daft.

[img] [/img]

I love the way people boldly state that nukes have prevented countless wars as if it's a fact, with absolutely zero evidence.

I also think it's pretty ****ing tragic that we are so concerned with 'global power and influence' and that we think the best way of going about it is spending billions taking part in an international dick-waving contest.

it gets even more bizarre,[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort ] even having them we might not use them[/url] !

I don't want to be a resident/citizen of a country that fires a nuke at [i]anybody[/i] so I'd be a lot happier if we gave up trident and spent the money on something much more useful. Health and education would be favourite. I think the deterrence thing is a load of balls, anyone who it would deter would still be deterred by the rest of the international community, those it won't deter (IS and other nutjobs) obviously don't matter. Unless we are planning on suddenly pissing off the rest of the world we don't need nukes.

If Barrow and other communities are based on the industry then obviously something would need to be done to help them, don't want a thatcher-esque destruction of communities.

it gets even more bizarre, even having them we might not use them !

yep, that's in Peter Hennesay's book, only one PM has said what was in his letters and that was don't retaliate!

That map up there ^^ is misleading, firstly South Africa has no nuclear weapeons since the collapse of the Apartheid regime, and secondly it includes NATO countries such as Turkey and Germany which do not have so-called "independent" nuclear weapons like Britain allegedly has, but it excludes Canada which has full NATO membership. I don't know what that's all about.

Ernie- it's a bit unfair that the image doesn't come with its key, but all of that is true and explained. The green colour of South Africa denotes a former nuclear power.

That map up there ^^ is misleading, firstly South Africa has no nuclear weapeons since the collapse of the Apartheid regime, and secondly it includes NATO countries such as Turkey and Germany which do not have so-called "independent" nuclear weapons like Britain allegedly has, but it excludes Canada which has full NATO membership. I don't know what that's all about.

EDIT : I've figured it out, it's an old map showing where nuclear weapons were stationed, although I don't know why Kazakhstan is a different colour to Russia.

I'd be a lot happier if we gave up trident and spent the money on something much more useful. Health and education would be favourite.

If we do give up Trident then this is absolutely where the money shouldn't go. If we are going to use that money then we should spend it on Science and Engineering, with the aim of creating a new ARM, Google, Oxford Instruments etc.

Ernie-

Map of nuclear-armed states of the world.

Light blue- NPT-designated nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States)

Red- Other states with nuclear weapons (India, ****stan, North Korea)

Yellow- Other states believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)

Dark blue- NATO nuclear weapons sharing states (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey)

Green- States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa)

Sorry I don't know what happened there with a double post as the result of trying to edit my post.

States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa)

Mmm, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, were not formerly states and I don't know how that's relevant anyway. And I don't understand how Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey, are "NATO nuclear weapons sharing states" but Canada is not.

Still, I get the gist of your point so no worries 🙂

and maintaining the fleet,

Personally, I'd be more worried about the fact we have zero capability in the RN or RAF to find suspected submarines in our territorial waters - we have to borrow planes from the French, Yanks and Canadians to do it.

Pointless having whiz bang weapons systems if the dirty ruskies/koreans/ISIS/whatever can sit off Holy Loch with impunity.

Well, yes, that's minutiae- regardless of the accuracy of the map the point stands that many countries, and two (three if you ignore French Guiana) entire continents, are not being nuked as a result of them not having nukes. And many have far more desirable resources than we do.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the fact we have zero capability in the RN or RAF to find suspected submarines in our territorial waters - we have to borrow planes from the French, Yanks and Canadians to do it.

This is very true. In my days in the mob (early 90s) anti submarine warfare was our specialist nato role with much of our naval fleet dedicated to that role. For that capability to be so diminished because it was an old school cold war need, yet to invest such a sizeable chunk of our defence budget on the very things we are unable to now catch is an irony that is somehow lost on the political parties.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the fact we have zero capability in the RN or RAF to find suspected submarines in our territorial waters - we have to borrow planes from the French, Yanks and Canadians to do it.

The whole premise of a retaliatory force (such as Trident) is that you don't need to be able to detect / prevent a first strike, just have a big enough stick which you can deploy in response.

The whole premise of a retaliatory force (such as Trident) is that you don't need to be able to detect / prevent a first strike, just have a big enough stick which you can deploy in response.

And you are of the belief that submarine warfare is only about nuclear threat?

And you are of the belief that submarine warfare is only about nuclear threat?

No, but I am of the belief that if the Russians really want to send their subs into our territorial water, it doesn't really matter. What are they going to do, launch an invasion?

What are they going to do, launch an invasion?

🙂 probably better methods than that!

However, the vast majority of active submarine use since WW2 has been the firing of conventionally armed missiles at land based targets.

Pro Trident (with my name what do you expect!)

Too many "school bullies" with sticks with nails in them in the world playground for us not to have it.

On a grim note, if I was watching a mushroom cloud rise I would really be wishing whoever launched it was also going to be having a miserable day.

Interesting thread, I like the explanation of how it works.

Yes trident should be replaced and yes we should spend 2% of GDP on defence as per he NATO commitment.

As @footflaps said the money is spent on design/build/maintainence, this is a high tech project and building a road, school or hospital isn't going to advance our technology or support high tech industries.

No, but I am of the belief that if the Russians really want to send their subs into our territorial water, it doesn't really matter. What are they going to do, launch an invasion?

with a single submarine you can easily close a shipping channel, decimate a surface navy, generally cause havoc.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril."

As we're part of NATO though, we have the big stick with nuclear weapons in the form of France and USA who have oodles more nukes than us so it's not like we have no deterrence without it.

If there was ever a situation (whatever that may be be) that involved having to send off some nukes, France and USA are hardly going to sit there and go "lets leave this to Trident, it's about time it got some use", they're going to send off their massive barrage. So having trident makes no difference. The money's better spent on other tech to bolster NATO, e.g. jets and ground troops