BS: Trident

Subject: BS: Trident
From: Stu
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:48 AM

From what I've seen of the public debate on the future of the Trident programme, the government have already made up their minds they are going to replace the system.

As a free debate is not happening in the public arena, I thought we'd have one here.

So should we renew Trident or not?


I'll start: No.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:55 AM

Ok - debate obviously closed then...

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:15 AM

England's always punched above its weight in international affairs - delusions of empire - or just the consequences of an economy that has to keep expanding to keep pace with an expanding population.

Whatever the reason, a natural consequence of that, is that we have rolling programme of getting involved with adventures like The Falklands, and Iraq. And if we don't have a nuclear deterrent, then it gives the Galtieris and and Saddam Husseins an incentive to get hold of a nuclear device to get them out of a tight spot.

I don't see either of the major political parties planning a major politcal rethink on this point. Why should they, when Neil Kinnock got a very bloody nose, for trying to imagine an England without a nuclear deterrent.

Basically the Murdoch empire will line up behind the armaments industry and blow any major politician's head off - anyone who dares to put their head above the parapet on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Grab
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:07 AM

Not so sure, WLD. Back in the 80s, the Cold War was still very much active. It was only 10 years since Vietnam; Reagan was doing his best to provoke the USSR with his SDI nonsense; and the main fear was still the Russians coming over the plains of Europe.

Things are a bit different now though. Nuclear weapons simply won't deter terrorists/freedom-fighters, and their use in areas which inevitably have huge civilian populations would be madness. Even if some nutter uses WMDs (most likely chemical or biological), I think the UK people simply wouldn't stand for nuking the entire country. I hope the US is the same.

The priority now seems to be troops on the ground with technological superiority, and neither the US nor the UK can afford vast nuclear arsenals *and* lots of troops on the ground *and* schools/hospitals/other public services. The cost of Trident would get you an awful lot of regular cruise missiles or trained soldiers (or conversely some serious improvements in schools and hospitals, but that ain't likely).

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:34 AM

'their use in areas which inevitably have huge civilian populations would be madness'

I don't think this weighs too heavy with a certain kind of person.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: bubblyrat
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:14 AM

I am ex- Royal Navy, and for many years, I supported Polaris ,and then Trident. But the main threat ,as a counter to which both systems were developed, ( The Soviet Union ), no longer exists, and perhaps the time has come to have a serious rethink on the continuing need for such vastly expensive 'defences' ,especially given the presently pressing need for research into new domestic energy sources. The great paradox about the increasingly complex & expensive weapons systems proliferating in the current theatres of operations is that they do not seem to confer any significant advantage upon the user.I cannot see the logic in spending billions of pounds on equipping a so -called modern army with SA 80 rifles,Blackhawk helicopters,body armour, infra-red sights,Satellite tracking & surveillance,----(the list goes on )when they are still unable to subdue an enemy who wears robes & sandals, and is kitted out with nothing more sophisticated than the WW2 design AK 47 & the equally venerable RPG 30 grenade launcher. Why don"t we try dressing & equipping our troops in the same way ??? It would certainly be more economical !!

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Schantieman
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:30 AM

I'm associated with the RN too and have long been rather uncertain about nuclear weapons. Yes - we probably do still need a deterrent and yes, RN submarines are the way to deploy them.

BUT 60 billion squid to replace them? Not on your nelly! Why can't the existing system be overhauled and updated? Given that we're never going to use them, any potential enemy knows that we're never going to use them and we know that.....etc., it doesn't make sense to spend more than we have to on them.

That dosh - or half of it - would indeed buy a lot of teachers/nurses/policemen/prisons/etc. etc.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Stu
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:37 AM

If you have nucelar weapons then you must be prepared to use them. Whilst some would argue the lunacy of Mutally Assured Destruction kept the West safe from the Red hordes during the cold war, the principal simply does not make any sense in the current global political and military climate.

In a scenario where a successful pre-emptive attack was launched on the Britain by (for example) Iran using nuclear weapons and they managed to explode a warhead on a British town or city, would the response of then launching a nuclear strike on Tehran be justified? Given the loss of life would be almost completely civilian, can the use of a nuclear retaliation over conventional be considered? Is killing more civilians the correct course of action to take when the civilian loss of life would already be catastrophic?

If there is a nuclear threat, it'll come from a terroist with a suticase bomb rather than the unlikey launch of an attack from Iran or North Korea, and no amount of expensive hardware silently stalking out in the Atlantic will prevent that.

Remember, Geoff Hoon (a man so devoid of moral integrity he makes Norman Tebbit look like a hand-wringing liberal) said the government would not rule out using nuclear weapons on the battlefield - if we replace Trident, then we give the lunatic the button to press.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Scrump
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 08:08 AM

It would make more sense for the government to spend a small amount of money on fake, dummy nuclear weapons. This fact would be kept in the utmost secrecy, and only known to s very small number of people.

This would fool everyone including the great majority of the British public, that we had an active nuclear deterrent that we would deploy if we needed to.

As others have said, we will never actually use them, so why spend a fortune producing real weapons, when fake ones will do just as well?

It's the perception that we have nuclear weapons that's important, not the actual ownership of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 08:29 AM

Trident is not being replaced. What is being replaced are the submarines that carry it.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Scrump
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:18 AM

Trident is not being replaced. What is being replaced are the submarines that carry it.

Even better. There would be no need to produce any submarines at all. The government could just pretend that they had submarines deployed underwater in various strategic places, with anti-radar screening, and nobody would be any the wiser.

They could scrap the old ones and save the taxpayer a fortune.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:30 AM

A better option (to my mind) would be Submarine-Launched, Nuclear-Tipped, Cruise Missiles.... can be deployed from 'conventional' subs (not needing a 'dedicated' vessel) - effectively making EVERY British submarine a deterrent (in that it wouldnt be known to a potential agressor whether a given vessel had the nuclear Cruise aboard) thats if we really do still need one - which is a matter for further debate anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: folk1e
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:02 AM

The current threat is not from traditional armies but from a range of opponents as varied as individual terrorists to warlords!
It would seem that the best solution is to apply ecconomic pressure on them and their supporters. Trident (as I understand it) is a complete missile system using Nuclear warheads. I fail to see how this system could be used with any degree of legalitty or indeed usefullness!
The concept of Trident is however different in that it includes R+D.
This is a whole new ball game! Who knows what the spinoffs from this will be?
HOTOL? ..... a scramjet missile just big enough to carry a nuclear payload at mach 20.
Tactical Battlefield Nukes ....(1) If your enemy is clustered in one area Kablamm! Problem solved
                                           (2) EMP your enemy and they are defensless for a while
                                           (3) .... Small nuke in a mountain pass and the radiation has blocked the whole area!
Nitrigen bomb ..... Enough short wave radiation to sterilise an area and allow the troops to occupy all that infrastructure.
I do not have all the answers but I do have some ideas and they all point to us keeping the nukes in one form or another! {8¬O)

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Grab
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

The problem is that Mutually Assured Destruction only works if you're scared of it. If the enemy are *already* in your country, shooting your friends, what have you got to lose? That's why I'm amazed some enterprising Iraqis haven't come up with attacks on US cities. The one thing the US and UK have to help them there is that've allowed a bloody civil war to start, so there's more concentration on Sunnis shooting Shias and vice versa, instead of the entire country rising up against the US and UK troops.

Bubblyrat, check out Vietnam, and check who kicked whose arse - and also at what cost in casualties. All the gear and training gets you a soldier who's many times more effective than the other guy. But if he's only 5 times more effective, and the other side is prepared to throw 10 guys at him, he's dead. But all that gear is the reason US/UK casualties are around twelve hundred instead of twelve thousand.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:49 AM

Unfortunately for your idea Paul, the UK doesn't have any "conventional" boats in the Fleet.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM

I think he used 'conventional' to mean attack sub, as opposed to a dedicated missile sub, rather than conventional as opposed to Nuclear powered.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:54 AM

Refer to my post of 05 Mar 07 - 08:29 AM

"Trident is not being replaced. What is being replaced are the submarines that carry it."

The entire "weapons system" consists of three parts:
- The nuclear warheads (Not due for replacement at present - but may need modification at a later, as yet unspecified date)
- The missiles that carry the warhead (Not due for replacement at present - current thinking is that the present missiles will last until 2040)
- The submarines that carry the missiles and act as the launch platform (These are what the discussion in Parliament is about. Britains "Vanguard" Class SSBN's are coming to the end of their lives, they need to be replaced. For the British Government to do this it has to address the matter now)

Britain is not replacing or developing another generation of nuclear weapons - i.e. warheads

Britain is not replacing or developing another generation of missiles.

Britain is thinking about building three new submarines.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:07 AM

And there was me thinking this was about a new brand of chewing gum just making its way out onto the market here in the UK, advertised by various types of actors rapping in fairly heavy Jamaican accents - mastiycayshun for de nayshun.

Or is it about the Metropolitan Police crack down on gun crime (aimed at a certain ethnic group in the population) called Operation Trident?

Ah well.... back to the radio.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:29 AM

"Britain is thinking about building three new submarines."

Well cleared-up Teribus. It's interesting to note the misconception amongst the popluation that we are building new nucelar missiles - not often covered in the media though.

I suppose the point is we have the opportunity to get rid of weapons we apparently will never use, and spend the money on something a little more constructive.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: alanabit
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:35 AM

I do not see the point of having an "independent deterrent" if we do not have a foreign policy, which is independent of the USA. It is an illusion - and a dangerous one at that - to imagine that Britain has the ability to "deter" aggression on its own. We are not able to use Trident without American permission anyway, certainly not politically and almost certainly not practically. We are therefore in the ridiculous position of being a perfectly legitimate nuclear target, while at the same time, we are not able to determine how our weaponry is used.
We need well armed, well trained armed forces. That way we can play our part in world affairs to protect our interests. All the nonsense about "independent deterrent" and "global player" serves only to endanger our security. We pay a lot of money for these dagerous illusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: bubblyrat
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:04 AM

This is, of course, a very valid point !! What IS the point of having any sort of nuclear capability ,if one doesn"t have the autonomy to use it ?? Far better to spend the money on some "conventional " (diesel-electric ) submarines, a brace of new carriers ( I"m biased ! ) and some more appropriate kit for our soldiers , if the government MUST keep our dwindling army bogged down in God -forsaken places like Afghanistan,where,the experience of the last 100 years or so clearly indicates, they can NEVER win against the Pathan, or the Taliban, or whoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: number 6
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:12 AM

"What is being replaced are the submarines that carry it. "

Don't forget, we (Canada) get first bid on those subs.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:24 AM

alanabit, is mistaken in his post of 06 Mar 07 - 08:35 AM

"We are not able to use Trident without American permission anyway, certainly not politically and almost certainly not practically. We are therefore in the ridiculous position of being a perfectly legitimate nuclear target, while at the same time, we are not able to determine how our weaponry is used."


Firing Trident does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (i.e. the United States) and that therefore it is fully operationally independent.

However, that having been said, Britain is technically dependent on the United States. For cost reasons, British Trident missiles are serviced at a US port in Georgia. Should the decision be taken to extend the lives of the current Trident D5 Missiles then this work will have to be a US/UK collaboration. Once the current missiles become obsolete (technically) in the 2040's, the UK would have to work with the US when the US develops a replacement for the D5 missile. Should Britain decide to modify the warheads themselves, that work too would rely heavily on US participation as the warhead components would be theirs and the computer models used also belong to the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:29 AM

Thanks Bunnahabhain, I did indeed mean that.

Teribus, I assumed many on here might not understand if I used the terms SSBN, SSN, & SSK...hence I put the word 'conventional' in inverted commas. Maybe I should have explained it better.

I'm aware our last Diesel-Electrics ('Upholder' class, by name, yes?) were sold off, to Canada....I remember it being talked about on here.

Number 6/biLL...what happened to the subs I've just mentioned...were they scrapped?

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: alanabit
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:44 PM

If push came to shove, and Britain were rash enough to use Trident without American permission, I can't imagine that it would take the president of the day more than half an hour to sign the necessary documents to freeze the flow of US money to the UK - or to freeze UK assets in the US. Then we would find out just how autonomous our foreign policy really is. We just are not players on that scale and it is folly to kid ourselves that we are.
Personally, I have always opposed the possession of nuclear weapons anyway. Their use is not justifiable in any circumstances. However, even if I were to concede that it was, I would still not see how we could view Trident as an "independent" deterrent, when we are dependent on technology from other countries to make it operational.
Teribus, with all respect,I think we are going to see this one differently. My father was also a navy man (engineering officer) - and he took a view similar to yours. I would expect former service personnel to take a different view - especially those who served at a time when British prestige and influence was so much greater. I think the reality of our position internationally, is that we are a moderately sized and moderately successful European nation. We are neither the best nor the worst of nations. It is fair enough for us to be proud of our accomplishments and our culture. I do fear that we look a little foolish when we pretend that we still stalk the world as giants. We deserve better than to make ourselves look ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: open mike
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM

I support Trident gum,
www.tridentgum.com/trident.html
Neptune's trident, (Poseiden)
historical.benabraham.com/html/neptune_with_trident.html
but am not for nuclear missles, or submarines--
if that is what this is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: number 6
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:28 PM

Paul from Hull ... all 4 of them are currently going through major overhalls ... I took some photos last April of the The HMCS Chicoutimi up on drydock in Halifax ... this is the sub which was stricken with fire off of Scotland a couple of years ago.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:32 PM

Aha, yes....I remember the news about the fire aboard, I think...as well as the thread here.

Thanks for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Schantieman
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

...caused, if I remember correctly, by being operated in roughish weather with the bridge hatches open so a wave came in and hit the control room electrics, causing the fire. ??

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:03 PM

If we fired all the tridents and they all got where we wanted them to go - how much of the world could we obliterate?

Subject: RE: BS: Trident
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:02 PM

Enough of it to stop anyone providing a thrid party with a bomb to smuggle it into the UK to detonate.

For a better explanation of how this works, read up what Jacques Chirac's take on it is. The french Navy have already reconfigured one third of the warheads on their missiles to counter exactly such a threat. They did that as soon as Iran started their latest round of games with the IAEA and the NPT. Mind you it must have come as one hell of a shock to France when it was discovered how far Libya's nuclear programme had progressed (Courtesy of Dr. A. Q. Khan).