[Closed] So, Trident...

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?

It's only 30-odd years since the last invasion of our territory.

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

Given they could just use ICBMs to do this, it's not a new threat. ICBMs would be much harder to intercept than a sub floating up the Thames Estuary and getting stuck in the tidal barrier...

It's only 30-odd years since the last invasion of our territory.

FWIW, if the Russians wish to invade the Falklands by Sub, they're welcome to it.

If we do give up Trident then this is absolutely where the money shouldn't go [health and social services). 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.

This

I'm in favour of Trident, not becuase of the bonkers notion of a nuclear deterent but becuase its a great way to ensure the money isn't just spunked up the wall.

If we canned Trident and instead spent the money on research into nuclear fusion or something else equally game changing that would be better but since that wouldn't happen then Trident is a good thing.

Schools and hospitals need funding but not by cutting investment in this kind of stuff.

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

Given they could just use ICBMs to do this, it's not a new threat. ICBMs would be much harder to intercept than a sub floating up the Thames Estuary and getting stuck in the tidal barrier...

Unfortunately a conventional ICBM looks a lot like a nuclear ICBM - giving the benefit of the doubt might not work so well when you see one going up.

The sceptics looked into converting some boats a while back as the missile hitting the ground at 18,000mph makes a hell of a mess even with no warhead at all. I believe that it was the Ruskies that pointed about that they weren't happy to sit back and see how big the bang was before doing anything

Perhaps we keep them but offer them to the EU as part of the EU army they want to form. That way we can get all the members to pay for them and it doesnt look such an expensive option that way. I find it hard to forsee when the UK would use them in isolation from either the EU or NATO

[i][b] "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."[/b][/i]

This pledge was made by the UK government in 1968.

This commitment under international law was reaffirmed as recently as 2010 when the UK fully endorsed a Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference conclusion that :

[i][b]Reaffirms the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals

Calls on all nuclear-weapon States to undertake concrete disarmament efforts[/i][/b]

To develop and commission a new generation of nuclear weapons is in complete violation of international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Other countries which violate international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran and previously Iraq is alleged to have done, can except to have crippling sanctions imposed if they are lucky, or bombed if they are less lucky.

To develop and commission a new generation of nuclear weapons is in complete violation of international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Which is why they are not doing that. To be honest , whilst anti any more trident spending, I acknowledge they are very carefully not developing or commissioning new nuclear weapons. It's the vessels that are knackered and need replacing - the missiles are still box fresh.

To develop and commission a new generation of nuclear weapons is in complete violation of international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

New subs are still Trident 2 aren't they? Nothing new being developed there and iirc the warheads are also the same?

Which is why they are not doing that.

shhh. facts have no place here...

Utter waste of money. We don't need it and shouldn't want it. Wanting to be part of the club, and pretend to be a global player in defence harks back to empire and Britain that doesn't exist anymore.

under the current government we have seen [i]concrete disarmanent efforts,[/i] as in line with SDSR the UK has begun the reduction of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40 (of a potential 192) and the operational stockpile of warheads from 160 to 120 (from a believed total of about 225)

would a formal sdsr delivered pre GE be too open to abuse?
seems to me each party is happy to play defence politics pre election, safe in the knowledge that whatever the coming sdr defines is not subject to immediate public vote.

Replacing Trident would be in violation of the terms of the NPT. It would be a violation of the UK's unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of its nuclear arsenal.

the missiles are still box fresh

All the more so that developing and commissioning new delivery systems to deploy them puts the UK in complete violation of its unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of its nuclear arsenal. A requirement under international law. Note the binding commitment to "concrete disarmament efforts".

There's lots of useful R&D that comes from the warhead programme. The Orion laser would not have been built otherwise; it's just too big for any other agency to do. 15% of its running time is allocated to academic research outside of AWE. The new MENSA facility is the only one of its kind in the world, truly world class and even better than the Yanks have (well, it will be if it ever gets finished, which is a whole other story). All this work develops & retains cutting edge skills & technology in the UK.

Suggesting the same would happen if the money was diverted into education or anywhere else is a complete fallacy. It would get spread out so far that you'd barely notice it. As already mentioned, £3bn pa sounds like a lot in isolation but it's less than £50 per person in the UK. If the government spent an extra £1/week on you, would you even notice ? Really ?

Trident is actually pretty good value.

And even if the plug were to be pulled tomorrow, there won't be brand new schools & hospitals springing up next year. All that "spare" cash won't materialise for decades while the decommissioning takes place. The costs of that will be utterly mind-boggling - and I say that as someone who just shrugged off £3bn as good value. Huge can of worms there.

I lean more toward the "keep it" side of things.

[b]Do we need Trident?[/b] Not right now, but it's more about the next 50 years than right now. My crystal ball is pretty hazy when looking [i]that[/i] far into the future.

Even if we don't need trident, we do need the nuclear attack submarines as part of the Navy. If trident is not built, the skills and infrastructure required to design and manufacture them will be lost.

Trident will cost £20bn to manufacture and £30bn to maintain over 30 years excluding the facilities required for the upkeep of the nuclear submarine fleet which we'd have to pay anyway. The design cost is partially footed by the Americans, so the true manufacture cost is actually lower.

Still, that means that a cost of £1bn per year, + decommissioning... Which is 1% of the budget for the NHS....

The non-proliferation treaty also prevents us for looking at some of the more lateral solutions to the problem as the type and number of weapons that we have must remain fixed...

I'd prefer to see a more flexible force with more attack submarines using a longer range, tactical nuclear deterrent than a direct Trident replacement.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Geneva Convention as they are too undiscriminating.

Trident = a £130bn prosthetic willy.

Trident is a bit of a contradiction given the current shower of sh*t we have in power at the moment.

Its a status weapon that allows us to sit at the top table of the UN security council. At the same time, this lot are in the process of dismantling our conventional armed forces diminishing our world status, and they are also severely damaging our relationship with the rest of the EU with their appeasement to the right. We are becoming irrelevant.

We don't need a 100bn weapon system to defend ourselves from our enemies...we voted our own worst enemies into power.

I'd prefer to see a more flexible force with more attack submarines using a longer range, tactical nuclear deterrent than a direct Trident replacement.

There is nothing tactical about a nuclear weapon. Unless, Armageddon has become a tactic. And besides, if you are referring to using nuclear armed cruise missiles, that would render the "deterrent" as next to useless.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Geneva Convention as they are too undiscriminating.

That's not the opinion of the ICJ, who ruled quite specifically tha it was unable to rule definitively on the legality or illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in an extreme circumstance of self defence

nevermind

That's not the opinion of the ICJ, who ruled quite specifically tha it was unable to rule definitively on the legality or illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in an extreme circumstance of self defence

In an advisory opinion of July 8, 1996 the International Court of Justice concluded that :

"the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law".

inferring that health and education is spaffing said money up an elevation?

Yep!

If you win the 200k on the lottery do you thow the lot at a Ferarri but then get shafted when it needs servicing or do you invest it so that one day you can afford a Ferarri and the repair bills?

Health and education do need to be funded sufficently to ensure we have a high enough quality of life and a skilled work force but they aren't an investment. In terms of return on investment scentific research is about as good as it gets for a govenment.

If we can't be world leaders in threatening to blow shit up, lets be world leaders in selling people expensive stuff they actually need.

Complete waste of cash and here's why

1. if we ever wanted to use it we would have to ask the US first and there the people we buy it from.

2. so if we did use it its only because the US wanted us to, so we are just saving the US from firing or being seen to be standing with the US.

Let face it since the Falklands our armed forces just back up the US military on its Military jaunts.

Money would be better spent on other infrastructure projects or our armed forces maybe the second carrier

So Ernie, if you already knew that, why didn't you originally type

the use of tactical nuclear weapons [b]would generally[/b] be a violation of the Geneva convention...

Instead of the absolute and uncaveated statement you did make??

It's an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that the use of tactical nuclear violates international law, they say there might be exceptions in a case of extreme self-defence but they are not sure/can't decide.

I said the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, that claim is true.

I said the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, that claim is true.

But since you posted it, you googled a bit more and found out it wasn't quite as simple as you first thought?

All this talk of Geneva convention is hugely irrelevant. The moment we, or any body else come to that, launches a modern day nuclear weapon we are back in the dark ages. The niceties of a 'convention' of any sort would be lost on all sides - it would just be a race to the bottom. Geneva might well have ceased to exist so won't be particularly fussed if the convention named after it has been violated or not!

Ming the Merciless - Member
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.

Isn't the UK one of the bullies with Trident one of the sticks?

China and the US and Russia have so many of these things, that if it did get to the stage of actually throwing them at each other, ours would make such a pointless difference, we may as well not bother.

So let's not bother.

New subs are still Trident 2 aren't they? Nothing new being developed there and iirc the warheads are also the same?

Sort of - the Yanks have changed the diameter of the ICBM chassis, so there is quite a lot of re-design work going on to accommodate this.
The new submarine (successor) is actually going to be simpler than the current V-boats.
The Vanguard-class boats are a 'do it all' design that also carries the deterrent, however the replacement is basically being designed for a single role...

I was working at the VSEL site in Barrow when Lady Di turned up to name one of the (current) Vanguard subs. Her helicopter landed in our car park so we had to park up off site and walk in <shakes fist>.

But since you posted it, you googled a bit more and found out it wasn't quite as simple as you first thought?

No, it's just as simple as I first thought. The use of tactical nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. The fact that the ICJ hasn't got round to making a decision concerning a case of extreme self-defence doesn't change that.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons was a violation of the Geneva Convention before the advisory opinion of ICJ of July 1996. The fact that they haven't yet given an opinion in cases of extreme self-defence doesn't make it legal.

.

convert - Member

All this talk of Geneva convention is hugely irrelevant. The moment we, or any body else come to that, launches a modern day nuclear weapon we are back in the dark ages. The niceties of a 'convention' of any sort would be lost on all sides - it would just be a race to the bottom. Geneva might well have ceased to exist so won't be particularly fussed if the convention named after it has been violated or not!

Not necessarily in the case of tactical nuclear weapons, they were developed precisely so that they could be used without creating the scenario which you outline. The US at the moment is developing bunker busting tactical nuclear weapons which presumably it is considering possibly using one day.

I am with @convert on the Geneva Convention / legality issue. IMO wars are fundamentally illegal things and to suggest we'd not fire a nuclear missile because of a convention is daft.

Geneva convention is only applicable in wars when the winner(s) agrees otherwise ashes cannot complain. 🙄

I say arm yourself to the hilt! 😈

IMO wars are fundamentally illegal things and to suggest we'd not fire a nuclear missile because of a convention is daft.

You've clearly missed my point. Here it is again :

[i][b]Other countries which violate international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran and previously Iraq is alleged to have done, can except to have crippling sanctions imposed if they are lucky, or bombed if they are less lucky.[/i][/b]

Britain violates treaties which it has freely signed and which it expects other countries to fully comply with.

Let me emphasise the point again. If Britain was a small country which wasn't best buddy with the world's number one bully it could expect crippling sanctions to be imposed on it for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or possibly bombed.

ernie_lynch - Member
Let me emphasise the point again. If Britain was a small country which wasn't best buddy with the world's number one bully it could expect crippling sanctions to be imposed on it for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or possibly bombed.

Therefore, winner(s) set the rules. Simple. 😯

Classes of nuclear weapons:

Battlefield - bunker busters, tank squadron killers etc.

Tactical (one that lands in Germany and before anyone rants that's from a German)

Strategic - city killers, actually MIRV warheads are used to carpet bomb the area rather than one big bang.

Backyard (courtesy of Edward Teller father of the H-Bomb, one that's so big it doesn't matter where you detonate it there's nothing left).

Actually there is no point going over 50MT as any larger just tends to lift a chunk of atmosphere up rather than going any further outwards.

Ok, so, for the sake of clarity, [u]exactly[/u] which aspect of the NPT do you claim Britain is in breach of Ernie?

We do all realise that war is awful don't we? And that spending billions of pounds on something that some human beings use to kill other human beings is also awful? And that schools and hospitals are good? Right?

If we've been involved in fewer conflicts because we have nukes then the only sensible thing to do is to make them freely available to everyone.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you world peace.

@kayla1 - No unfortunately not.. A lot of the overgrown little boys on here still seem to get little hard-ons about economics and guns..

It's pretty ****ing fruity

If we've been involved in fewer conflicts because we have nukes then the only sensible thing to do is to make them freely available to everyone.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you world peace.

Don't be daft, we all know that the only countries that can be trusted with nuclear weapons are the only one that's ever used them, and their mates.

ninfan - Member

Ok, so, for the sake of clarity, exactly which aspect of the NPT do you claim Britain is in breach of Ernie?

I've already made the point. Go back and read my posts.

big missiles and submarines are both pretty cool

Ok then

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty [u]undertakes to pursue negotiations[/u] in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."

Right, so, has the UK pursued negotiations or not?

The NPT does not say that those negotiations will necessarily be successful, or set out a timeline for their completion - the only undertaking is to pursue negotiations.

Reaffirms the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals

Calls on all nuclear-weapon States to undertake concrete disarmament efforts

Fine, what was the timetable set out for total elimination of the arsenal?

Oh, there wasn't one, so, we are still working towards it and have quite unequivocally not broken it, in addition to this we [b]have[/b] undertaken concrete disarmanent methods, reducing our destructive power by about 75% since 1998, and as already mentioned, cut the number of both deployed and operational weapons again in the current parliament

So, again, exactly what part of the NPT are you claiming we have breached Ernie?

Stop trying to waste my time by talking nonsense and ignoring things which I have already clearly stated.

You've not clearly stated anything, just waffled on with hyperbole

So come on then

Exactly what has the UK done that [u]specifically[/u] breaches the NPT?

Closest you've come so far was

To develop and commission a new generation of nuclear weapons is in complete violation of international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

However nowhere in the NPT does it prevent any existing nuclear power developing or commissioning 'new' weapons

I am with @convert on the Geneva Convention / legality issue.

Like what are they going to do? After we've laid waste to 1/4 of the habitably planet (inc Geneva) in a Nuclear Holocaust, are they going to arrest the corpses and send them to the Hague?

CaptJon - Member

Isn't the UK one of the bullies with Trident one of the sticks?

In the eyes of much of the world - yes. Many people on this thread seem to be unaware of just how unpopular the UK is in large parts of the world - "the Great Satan" (used interchangeably with the US) to Iran, "the Old Fox" to the remainder of the Middle East, the old colonial power who appropriated swathes of their natural resources to much of the globe.

We're therefore not just a small island in the North Atlantic that no one cares about - we're the world's sixth largest economy with global interests. We achieved this by judicious trading, diplomacy (often involving gunboats) and good old fashioned invasion over the last few centuries so it's hardly surprising that we're not that popular - and that's not just with developing countries like Iran and North Korea but also old strategic rivals (and fellow nuclear powers) like Russia and China. Our involvement in recent conflicts as the prime ally of the US probably hasn't helped either but actually in my experience it's our colonial actions that the rest of the world really remembers.

So why retain Trident? It's not impossible to imagine a scenario where the US slips into isolationism and reduces its commitment to NATO - particularly given that the remaining allies aren't meeting their 2% spending commitments. An independent British nuclear deterrent acts as an insurance policy against another World War starting in Europe and (combined with effective conventional forces) gives us a reasonable chance of holding on to what we acquired over the last two centuries.

Or to put it another way - if we put the stick down lots of other bullies are going to try and take our dinner money.

An independent British nuclear deterrent acts as an insurance policy against another World War starting in Europe and (combined with effective conventional forces) gives us a reasonable chance of holding on to what we acquired over the last two centuries.

Or to put it another way - if we put the stick down lots of other bullies are going to try and take our dinner money.

Well said! That's what I was going to say this morning, that it's 'insurance' of sorts.
I didn't get time to post this morning cos I went fishing. 🙂

Its occured to me once or twice that both we (NATO) and the Russians may have tacitly agreed to pretend that we have active warheads at some time in the past, but actually don't. Instead, the money has been diverted....[i]elsewhere[/i]

How would we ever know?

Amazed that education isn't seen as an investment and as something that won't move Science and Tech industries on. 🙄

Is there a not a more efficient way of blowing up lots of people than firing missiles from a submarine?

given that the [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/7969017/Russian-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html ]ruskies probably have a good idea where our subs[/url] are at all times then yes,

Is there a not a more efficient way of blowing up lots of people than firing missiles from a submarine?

Hmmm, you could always hijack some airliners & crash them into some massive buildings full of people. Only I don't think even a nuclear deterrent would stop that. If only.

Like what are they going to do? After we've laid waste to 1/4 of the habitably planet

This, rather than the legality, is really the crux of it.

Assuming the disaster of a failure of nuclear deterrence and a strategic nuclear weapons launch by one belligerent against another, what is the purpose of the targeted state retaliating? Can it possibly be said to be moral to deliberately and indiscriminately destroy swathes of land and kill thousands upon thousands of people, for no better reason than revenge, or because we promised we would if they did?

As a moral proposition, the idea that making sure that the UK gets the last word in a nuclear exchange trumps the preservation of some sort of functioning human civilization in the future is pretty appalling. And threatening to do something that is not morally permissible is pretty poor form.

Fascinating (and scary) subject this.

Just to add my tuppence worth;

1)The UK deterent is independent. US support is needed to maintain it, but targeting and firing are controlled by the UK. So yes, if we had a PM with big enough balls, or a mental impairment, we could use it without Washingtons approval.

2)It is almost a certainty that the UK warheads have variable yields ranging from around 8-10kt (smaller than the hiroshima bomb) to around 100kt (large city and surrounding area gone).

3)If two subs are put to sea anywhere on Earth is in range.

Whilst nuclear weapons are IMO evil things, a purely conventional force would need to be massive to be able to threaten a potential enemy with near instant destruction of key assets. This is the draw for nuclear tipped missiles - cheap almost instant destruction.

When facing non-nuclear armed states I am sure the UK governemt (at least under Maggie) were happy to leave foriegn dictators wondering at what point the UK would consider using them. There is certainly enough evidence Maggie believed Saddam understood what the consequences of using chemical weapons against the allies in 1990/1 would be.

Should we replace Trident? My view is that with the current proliferation, Putin in the Kremlin (and the possibility of ever more hhardline nationalists) and the decay of our conventional armed forces I don't think we really have a choice.

And finally, France has them, need I say more 😉

Klunk - Member
given that the ruskies probably have a good idea where our subs are at all times then yes,

that's just not even remotely close to being true. Submarine hunting is very hard indeed, even if you have an acoustic signature.

BigDummy - Member

As a moral proposition, the idea that making sure that the UK gets the last word in a nuclear exchange trumps the preservation of some sort of functioning human civilization in the future is pretty appalling. And threatening to do something that is not morally permissible is pretty poor form.

The point of Mutually Assured Destruction is that it stops either side from using nuclear weapons. It ceases to be a moral decision (noting that Hitler, Stalin and various other famous despots weren't particularly renowned for their strong sense of morality) and becomes a simple strategic one i.e. if we destroy them then they'll destroy us. This assures no one launches a nuclear attack. In order for this to work all sides need a credible nuclear capability and the belief that the opposition will use it in extremis.

The problem with unilateral disarmament is that it relies on the "morality" of the remaining nuclear powers - if they decide it's moral to wipe out opposing countries, for example to reduce global overcrowding or because they follow a different "morally corrupt" doctrine or religion, they can. Human history has many examples of genocide and nuclear weapons just provide a more efficient means of achieving the aim.

The best solution would be for no country to have nuclear weapons but given we've opened Pandora's box we need a balance of power that maintains the status quo and guarantees nuclear weapons are not used - Trident is the UK's contribution to that balance.

that's just not even remotely close to being true.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision ]the actual areas used by ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) are in reality limited, and overlap (alleged to often be between Malin Head and Rockall Bank).[/url]

Klunk - Member
the actual areas used by ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) are in reality limited, and overlap (alleged to often be between Malin Head and Rockall Bank).

wikipedia and the telegraph don't make you knowledgeable about anti submarine warfare. That happened because it's a good place to hide, so lots of subs use the area, and because when a sub is being quiet the chances are you wouldn't ever know it's there.

[quote=jaaaaaaaaaam said]
wikipedia and the telegraph don't make you knowledgeable about anti submarine warfare.

Don't you know who Klunk is man!

[img] [/img]

wikipedia and the telegraph don't make you knowledgeable about anti submarine warfare.

exactly but the russian military is so i repeat my assertion

given that the ruskies probably have a good idea where our subs are at all times then yes,

Klunk - Member
that's just not even remotely close to being true.
the actual areas used by ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) are in reality limited, and overlap (alleged to often be between Malin Head and Rockall Bank).

Klunk - that story just highlights how difficult subs are to detect when they're trying to be stealthy. The collision occurred because neither sub could detect the other - i.e. the opposite to the point you're trying to make.

Klunk - that story just highlights how difficult subs are to detect when they're trying to be stealthy.

he's behind you

[img] [/img]

Give me a ping Vasily

One ping only

Who needs subs anyway? Russia demonstrated it's new stealth capacity about six months ago in Sweden.
[img] [/img]

exactly but the russian military is so i repeat my assertion

I'm ex-Navy intelligence so perhaps a bit more knowledgeable than most on here. While it's of course possible the Russians have tracked our missile subs on occasion it's thought to be fairly unlikely. In fact reading between the lines of that article I'd view it as the Russians saying they'd been trying but hadn't managed yet.

A lot of hilarity in here.

1. Disposal - aside from the reactors which are decommissioned as normal (and being modular far more easily than their predecessors) the warheads area actually pretty clean. Plutonium is highly radiotoxic but can be safely handled with the appropriate PPE. We have a warehouse full of if just sitting in Sellafield.

2. We don't need the permission of the USA to launch. All systems are under our control.

3. I doubt anyone here or on wiki knows anything about the patrol areas. My old man was a Coxswain on the bomber boats and if the driver doesn't know where he was going I doubt many others do.

4. I don't see much of a threat to Barrow in any case, it'll still be building as long as we need subs. Same for Faslane, it'll still be hosting subs.