[Closed] Trident submarines without the missiles

[img] [/img]

Got to admit it makes a good photo when launched at night.

Time for Dr. Strangelove

Dr. Strangelove recommends that the President gather several hundred thousand people to live in deep mineshafts where the radiation will not penetrate. He suggests a 10:1 female-to-male ratio for a breeding program to repopulate the Earth when the radiation has subsided.

Turgidson, worried that the Soviets will do the same, warns about a "mineshaft gap"

😀

Corbyn has no choice but to go for this approach - Labour is after all the working man's party and he can't exactly make his manifesto pledge "lose ten thousand jobs in the defence sector".

With the secretive nature of all things nuclear how about this. We tell everybody were building some really big nuclear torpedoes or whatever. In actual fact they are fakes (but we keep that bit quiet)... Hey presto...We have the deterent but just saved a few quid!

Would an option not be 'No ballistic missile subs but I'll build a fleet of air craft carriers / destroyers / whatever that'll keep the same jobs without threatening to nuke the world'?

I wonder how many jobs were lost when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missle? and we had to retire the V bomber fleet.

The reason we have a sub launched US designed and controlled Polaris system is that they decided not to continue making the aircraft launched bomb we were using before...

Independent system my arse.

That, and the realisation that subs are much, much more secure than using air or land launched systems

The reason we have a sub launched US designed and controlled Polaris system is that they decided not to continue making the aircraft launched bomb we were using before...

It's really not.

The submarines offer a much more effective strategic deterrent.

It's a terrible idea coming from the school of Blairs third way, that in the effort to appease everyone, instead makes no one happy.

Why is he even commenting on it anyway surely he should be saying 'cheers for the question but until the Labour defence review is complete, policy remains as it was'.

Not true RAF continued with a nuclear delivery role.

Main reason was sound, manned bombers were unlikely to penetrate Russian airspace and deliver their weapons. Also aircraft were likely to be destroyed in a first strike. ICBMs in subs pretty much undetectable and safe from nuclear first strike and so was a credible deterrent.

Our deterent is independent. We just use thier systems. They have no control over our systems. IMHO if your going to go nuclear and can buy off the shelf then you save a lot of tax payers money.

Vulcans and Victors continued on in RAF service way past there sell by date as tankers and bombing the Falklands

Agree with dragon.

Tornado GR1 was still carrying free fall nuclear bombs until 1998.

Vulcans and Victors continued on in RAF service way past there sell by date as tankers and bombing the Falklands

Wait...are you suggesting that things designed to do one thing, could be perhaps reconfigured to do something else? Maybe we could think of something else we could do that with..? Something that currently carries nuclear weapons perhaps, I mean if we've done it once already?

Our deterent is independent.

But this is not convincing. In the days when Bruce Kent led CND, one of the great hawks of the era, Air Vice-Marshal Stuart Menaul wrote, in 1980: "Britain no longer has an independent nuclear deterrent ... strategic considerations as far as Britain is concerned are no longer relevant ... it could only be used after authority for the use of nuclear weapons had been conveyed from the President of the United States to SACEUR [the US general at Nato]." Even further back, in 1962, Robert McNamara, then US defense secretary, stated that the UK did not operate independently.

The absorption of the UK into the US nuclear force was made explicit only this year. Stephen Johnson, the American admiral in charge of the US Trident programme, gave his annual progress report to Congress. Among his top accomplishments for "sustainment of our [ie the US] sea-based deterrent" was sending HMS Victorious to sea after a refit. He does not list the British Trident submarine separately. No, the British Trident submarine is simply listed with the American ones under the heading "Today's Force".

Well it is independent in that after we make the initial purchase of the system we have the industry, skills, capability to maintain it over its entire life. We practice drills and strategies to actually deploy them. This is something we can't switch off and switch on as and when we feel like it - if we ditch Trident then that is it for a UK nuclear deterrent/threat forever. We can't just pick it up in 20 or so years if the worlds outlook turns worse than we guessed/hoped (or Corbyn is guessing) and the Nuclear equipped Chinese, ****stani's, Indians, Russians, North Koreans and who know's who else, starts to get a bit frisky with the rest of the world We. That would leave only the Americans and the French - so that means just the Americans in reality as the French will just surrender. And then there is no guarantee that the Americans won't just feed us to the wolves and sit back and defend themselves - sacrifice us. Not a particularly fantastic situation for a future world we cannot predict at threat to be in.

Also with all these other nations with Nukes how will we negotiate with them to disarm if we don't have them (there are constant negotiations/discussions going on all the time around minimising and reducing the worlds global stockpile of nukes). We will have no negotiating power.

Land based and airborne based nukes are useless - aircraft will be shot down long before they are in a position to deploy the weapon, ground based forces are constantly monitored and tracked and will be taken out. At least with sub Bourne nukes you have half a chance of retaining a weapons system to deal with whatever the aftermath might be from a nuclear strike.

Unfortunately Pandora's box has been opened and we've passed the point of no return. So as effective or ineffective the system really is I would prefer to have it just in case. Cornyn's is just trying to impose his own personal agenda, trying to cut a deal with his Union puppet masters to help him impose his own will and to hell with democracy.

Well it is independent in that after we make the initial purchase of the system we have the industry, skills, capability to maintain it over its entire life.

nope the missiles go back to the US Navy at Kings Bay, Georgia, USA for servicing

At least with sub Bourne nukes you have half a chance of retaining a weapons system to deal with whatever the aftermath might be from a nuclear strike.

what? Mass murder masquerading as revenge?

What a great footnote in History to leave, "Britain was evaporated, but in the world's most pointless and futile gesture it annihilated millions of innocent civilians in a desperate act of vengeance, and even more of earth was rendered uninhabitable thanks to the most ridiculous act of petulance the world has ever seen"

Kings Bay, MOD pays £12 million a year towards the running cost of the base.

Land based and airborne based nukes are useless

someone should tell france, usa, russia, china, israel, ****stan, india and north korea.

Our deterent is independent. We just use thier systems. They have no control over our systems. IMHO if your going to go nuclear and can buy off the shelf then you save a lot of tax payers money.

Thought one of the major downsides of Trident is that the Americans can veto a launch decision.

Double post. Stupid forum.

Nickc

Yes but why would we now, knowing Corbyn would not put nuclear weapons in them and not pull the trigger, spend the huge amount of money to deploy a less than best solution?

Why not buy another couple of Astute subs? His policy, cancel Trident replacement completely, is at least rational. Saddling us with a number of huge expensive submarines duplicating existing capabilities just doesn't make sense. Unless as dragon says above, he's trying auto appease everyone?

I wonder how many jobs were lost when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missle? and we had to retire the V bomber fleet.

Not as many as when Labour cancelled Blue Streak I'll bet... (For which Skybolt was the intended replacement) even though that wasn't why v-force got retired.

Why is he even commenting on it anyway surely he should be saying 'cheers for the question but until the Labour defence review is complete, policy remains as it was'.

Very good question, perhaps because there's a risk that they will come up with the 'wrong' answer? (as reinforced by his mealy mouthed inability to give precedence to the Falkland Islanders right to self determination)

ballistic missile subs but I'll build a fleet of air craft carriers / destroyers / whatever that'll keep the same jobs without threatening to nuke the world'?

only 3-5% of the MOD budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent, Nukes are infinitely cheaper than running a conventional military with global reach.

What a great footnote in History to leave, "Britain was evaporated, but in the world's most pointless and futile gesture it annihilated millions of innocent civilians in a desperate act of vengeance, and even more of earth was rendered uninhabitable thanks to the most ridiculous act of petulance the world has ever seen"

Which is why they will never be used by either side. As mad as MAD is , it's preferable to the no nuke option.

I said this on here before, there were a lot of people objecting to the money spent on Fighter Command radar and new aircraft in 1935. Good job they didn't win the argument.

No they don't have any control over ours. The decision to fire can be made by the submarine Captain using the authority of the final letter which the Prime Minister alone writes and is carried in each boat.

Our weapons are under NATO command but w still have the final say or can withdraw them from their use if we feel it's in the national interest.

What a great footnote in History to leave, "Britain was evaporated, but in the world's most pointless and futile gesture it annihilated millions of innocent civilians in a desperate act of vengeance, and even more of earth was rendered uninhabitable thanks to the most ridiculous act of petulance the world has ever seen"

Unfortunately that's about right. The reason for hiding your nuclear deterent somewhere deep in the Atlantic or wherever is that it will survive a pre emptive strike designed to destroy our nuclear forces before they can retaliate. Thus they can't be sure they will destroy your nuclear forces and we will have the option to strike back. QED MAD and deterrence. We all sincirely hope the deterent affect works which is why it needs to remain credible or you should scrap all your weapons and save the cash.

[quote=gobuchul ]As mad as MAD is , it's preferable to the no nuke option.Which is precisely why nuclear non-proliferation has been the worst policy adopted since WW2. If all the countries that have been fighting each other since then had been given nuclear weapons, we'd have had world peace for the past 60 years.

Yes but why would we now, knowing Corbyn would not put nuclear weapons in them and not pull the trigger, spend the huge amount of money to deploy a less than best solution?

TBH Speccing one thing and then taking delivery of something completely different, not as capable and four times the cost, and 15 years after it was actually needed; has been the MOD modus operandi for as long as it's been in existence. Corbyn's idea fits into that pretty well I'd have thought. There must be civil servants in Admiralty house looking for the leak right now...

Shooting blanks....

Ha ha ha yeah nickc

reason for hiding your nuclear deterent somewhere deep in the Atlantic or wherever is that it will survive a pre emptive strike designed to destroy our nuclear forces before they can retaliate.

Except it's been known since the 90's that it's a bit of a stretch of imagination that the deterrent is totally secure from being pre-emptively taken out.

Most true military nuclear deterrents have multiple platforms for this very reason. Ours is simply political.

Rachel

I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here? Captain Blackadder: [whistle blows] Good luck, ...

Except it's been known since the 90's that it's a bit of a stretch of imagination that the deterrent is totally secure from being pre-emptively taken out.

I'm sure no deterent is 100%. But all the major protagonist have invested in this method. I'm sure none of us really knows how secure it is. But given everyone is doing it then it leads me to think that it's still the best option.

tinybits - Member

Would an option not be 'No ballistic missile subs but I'll build a fleet of air craft carriers / destroyers / whatever that'll keep the same jobs without threatening to nuke the world'?

Well, a key part of the argument is that we need to keep making nuclear submarines for ourselves because it's the only way we can preserve that unique skillset which is only useful for making nuclear submarines... for... ourselves.

Hmm.

We do employ a lot of white elephant handlers, breeders and feeders but do we really believe it'd be impossible for them to do anything else? We could just invent some other bullshit industry and spend the same amount of money having half of them build spitfires and the other half take them apart, or similar. Or, y'know, support a useful industry, invest in infrastructure, that sort of thing. If that seems unreasonable, then I suppose we could train 10000 doctors but pay them to not treat any patients, and call them disease deterrants, and declare the scheme to be a success in 20 years because the human race didn't die out.

we will keep trident and they will build Successor as its the only reason we keep a permanent seat on the un security council.

we will keep trident and they will build Successor as its the only reason we keep a permanent seat on the un security council.

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but this nails it...

Jambo that might be something to do with the fact ive been serving on the things for 16 years LOL

If Corbyn had said I'm scrapping Trident and nuclear weapons and will invest the X billions in NHS, education, infrastructure etc etc it would I feel have been attractive to the voters. And would I think have won votes. But the current proposal has all the costs and none of the benefits and as such is unconvincing and I think a vote loser.

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but this nails it...

myth, it has nothing to do with Weapons, they are the victors of WW2, that's it and TBH it's completely undemocratic and pointless anyway, as any of the members has a veto, so it's achieved...pretty much nothing.

Vxrob agreed, mentions punching above our weight

Which is precisely why nuclear non-proliferation has been the worst policy adopted since WW2. If all the countries that have been fighting each other since then had been given nuclear weapons, we'd have had world peace for the past 60 years.

Yeh...but...were a proper grown up country that would never use its military for unsavoury purposes.

jam bo - Member

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but this nails it...

Does it? We have our permanent seat as a victor of ww2, and we obtained it while owning no nuclear weapons. No permanent member has ever been added or removed since and the existing permanent members jealously guard that, preventing expansion or modernisation at all costs (arguably the greatest threat to the institution) And plainly being a nuclear power doesn't grant you a seat. It's commonly claimed that disarming would lose us this seat but there doesn't seem to be any substance to the claim, or any methodology for this to happen.

But leaving that aside, why do we care? It gains us a veto that we've used not once in the last 20 years. Germany, India, Brazil etc all want fairer representation but they inexplicably survive without being permanent members.

Trident submarines without the missiles

Does that mean we can turn it into tourists attraction?

Northwind - Member
We do employ a lot of white elephant handlers, breeders and feeders but do we really believe it'd be impossible for them to do anything else?

Never been to Barrow I take it?

vxrob - Member

Jambo that might be something to do with the fact ive been serving on the things for 16 years LOL

*goes looking for 3 month gaps in vxrob's posting history*

legend ive been on a v boat LOL