Scrap it and but more typhoons. Guess where I work 😀

Hello Konabunny.

My comments are purely bored Friday afternoon so keep that in mind. Most of the UK's food is imported (and the % is getting higher each year), how do we protect that supply? Is the danger to that supply higher than any nuclear threat? Given that a strong Navy has in the past been used to secure the UK's access to it's suppliers, what use will a nuclear missle be when I want my toast. Since the Navies ships all require some sort of energy supply to power them as do all the worlds farmers with thier tractors what will be do feed 60 odd million people needing food?

It will soon be 4 so am off home.

Interestingly there are about the same numbers of people employed making Korma Sauce as there are involved in the UK weapons industry, we don't worry about their employment prospects…

Why have a nuclear deterrent? Look at the Permanent members of the UN security Council…therein lies the answer.

It's a "relatively" small price to pay for having that sort of influence. Whether we should have that influence is another argument, probably

With a smaller Navy and Airforce Trident is a must surely? Our forces have been severely depleted over the years there is no way we could mount a campaign like the Falklands now.i think we need a nuclear threat to complement our shrinking forces and standing as a world power

Guys, Trident isn't a "weapon" in the normal meaning of the term, you have to stop thinking in terms of this thing being used, it's an entry ticket to a club…It separates those "with influence" and those "without".

Now certainly you can have a debate about whether the UK should wield that sort of influence, what with the balance of economic power shifting to the East, but as long as the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office remains one of the first people that an incoming PM talks to, we'll have a Nuclear weapons programme…

Most of the UK's food is imported (and the % is getting higher each year), how do we protect that supply?

Most of everything is imported, at least partially. Martin Luther King said "Before you've finished your breakfast, you will have relied on half the world", and that was fifty years ago!

How do we protect that supply? I dunno – what's the biggest threat?

It separates those "with influence" and those "without".

on the "Big Bully Club" ? Why would one want to be in ?

Was this not a long running joke with Yes Minister and the Yes, Prime Minister? Is there a 3rd series to come about due to this Trident thing?

Guys, Trident isn't a "weapon" in the normal meaning of the term, you have to stop thinking in terms of this thing being used, it's an entry ticket to a club…It separates those "with influence" and those "without".

Quite right.
Couldn't we just lie about it?
Have the "deterrent" and the club pass and save the money?

Couldn't we just lie about it?
Have the "deterrent" and the club pass and save the money?

Didn't work very well for Saddam. He took the "beware of the dog" sign down and denied he had a dog, but carried on playing a tape recording of barking in the garage. Didn't stop the US breaking in on the pretext of getting rid of the imaginary dog.

We don't even build the trident missles – they are bought in from the states (as was polaris

So what does AWE aldmerston do?
The UK build's the majority of the trident weapon system. IIRC some parts are bought from the states.

I need to learn? really? I never argued that a Submarine with a nuclear payload was the same as one powered by either a PW1 or PW2 nuclear reactor. I said that by killing the replacement program you kill the workforce. When Barrow was building the Trafalgar class, they were designing the Vanguard class, as the Vanguard class was being built, they were designing the Future Attack Sub, which became Astute (they also designed and built 2 RFA support ships) During the Astute build phase, they are currently designing the Successor program, during that build program they design the replacements for the Astute class.

To be fair, you're original post does *imply* that you thought that a nuclear powered and a nuclear armed sub are one and the same. The industry could survive designing / making only SSN's, probably in much smaller numbers than it employs now though.

My job would go if Trident wasnt replaced, Still think it should be scrapped though. Waste of money, IMHO.

Didn't work very well for Saddam. He took the "beware of the dog" sign down and denied he had a dog, but carried on playing a tape recording of barking in the garage. Didn't stop the US breaking in on the pretext of getting rid of the imaginary dog.

Fair one, but we have no desirable natural resources.

but we have no desirable natural resources

….not withstanding the fine women of slough. 😉

…excluding the womanfolk of slough obviously.

Couple of points:-

Big diffrence between nuclear armed and powered subs

Not a squadron of Typhoons at Port Stanley just Flt 1435 of 4

Awe is now run by Lockhead Martin

As befits the offspring of an Army officer and a CND activist, I **** well refuse to rationalise nuclear weaponry – not least the white elephant pile of sh1te that is Trident. Split the difference between conventional forces and hospitals (inc looking after the chaps and chapesses who saw us through the last big lot of bother – it's the WWII generation who fill our under-resourced elderly care wards, FFS). Just make sure that we have sufficiently-trained bods to slot any radical getting rad with a dirty suitcase – that is where the threat comes from, imo.

I dinnae have any quarrel with the ordinary folk of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. Still less do I want the means to turn 'em into dust. We should simply bring back the Panhellenic Games – and let the **** politicos fight it out with each other on the sportsfield.

Waste of money. Get rid.

I rather like the idea of having an English nuclear deterrent based in an independent Scotland….

I wonder what the rent would be?

Awe is now run by Lockhead Martin

Correct, but the weapons are still built in the UK.

Big diffrence between nuclear armed and powered subs

Not in terms of design.

Big diffrence between nuclear armed and powered subs

Not in terms of design

i dont think anyones talking about the design of the subs here Daffy.

The "big differnce" comment was made in response to the implied suggestion that all submarines carried a nuclear detterent.

Why have them and not use them. Come on guys their just sitting there gathering dust at least let one banger off
😆

noteeth – Member

I **** well refuse to rationalise nuclear weaponry – not least the white elephant pile of sh1te that is Trident. Split the difference between conventional forces and hospitals

Just make sure that we have sufficiently-trained bods to slot any radical getting rad with a dirty suitcase – that is where the threat comes from, imo.

I dinnae have any quarrel with the ordinary folk of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. Still less do I want the means to turn 'em into dust. We should simply bring back the Panhellenic Games – and let the **** politicos fight it out with each other on the sportsfield.

Waste of money. Get rid.

spot on, noteeth. You've got my vote

konabunny – Member

Most of the UK's food is imported (and the % is getting higher each year), how do we protect that supply?

Most of everything is imported, at least partially. Martin Luther King said "Before you've finished your breakfast, you will have relied on half the world", and that was fifty years ago!

How do we protect that supply? I dunno – what's the biggest threat?

Hi Kona, That is the big question is Trident part of the answer? Or would the money be better spent on other things given the unstable world?

So, can one of you Janes-defence trainspotter types confirm or deny what I mentioned earlier, that we need American approval for the launch codes?.
Because its worse than a white elephant if that's true.

west kipper – Member
So, can one of you Janes-defence trainspotter types confirm or deny what I mentioned earlier, that we need American approval for the launch codes?.
Because its worse than a white elephant if that's true.

And as a hemp wearing hippy (seeing as we're making unfounded assumptions), can you? I've certainly never heard that, why would it be the case?

Tree – I have heard that – that trident cannot be launched without US approval. this has been specifically denied by UK ministers tho. I find it very hard to see a situation where it would not be used with US consent.

I would imagine that as a part of NATO, the EU and various treaties we would be expected to discuss with our allies the use or potential use of nukes, but tbh I can't see a time when we would need to use them on our own initiative. Still, the threat is there, and as long as it is the deterent is viable in my opinion. Whether it's Trident, or a newer weapon delivery platform is open to debate.

Documentary a while back on R4 revealed that UK nuclear deterrent does not rely on computer authorisation codes and Permissive action links like the Americans, but on good old fashioned Royal Naval heritage and two separate keys.

Personally, I find it reassuring that the ultimate harbinger of a nuclear holocaust is the fact that if, at a time of international crisis, a submarine surfaces and cannot pick up the BBC world service, then they're to assume the UK has been destroyed and open the sealed envelope with written instructions from the prime minister to stick or twist…

Trident is an independent nuclear deterrent and the warheads are produced entirely in the UK but supposedly part based on US design. The warheads can also be wound up from a tactical nuke to small city destroyer and each missile can also carry multiple warheads.

The missiles however are US built and a missile that has been in a US sub can later find itself in a UK sub. The UK did have it's own missile program in the 1960's but due to spiraling costs once the US offered Polaris it was sensible to take that. The UK missile program did eventually put a single satellite into orbit but was closed down in the 1970's and the designs given to France. The French/EU space agency rockets are descendants of this.

Politically trident presents the UK with an ability to negotiate(or bully) with other countries and also implies that we could nuke a large airbase (or other installation) without necessarily turning a whole country into a mutant infested wasteland or putting large numbers of conventional forces at risk.

In an ideal world would we have it, no of course not.

A good (if out of date website) is here http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html