BS: Demise of the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:35 PM

"Great Britain and France made sure that they would have their own independent nuclear deterrents because Suez showed that the USA could not be trusted."

Brilliant.. does that mean we get to target both the commie east and the yanks.."!!!???

fairs fair... Little Britain, World Apocalypse referee... 🙄


..about those Sub jobs... Keep building 'em....

The Ark idea aint so unrealistic... dedicated onboard Labs storing frozen sperm and eggs,
seeds, plantlings, and a photo library of what our green and pleasant land used to look like before the end came...

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:40 PM

With the greatest of respect Teribus, isn't it about time we stopped talking in terms of Mutually Assured Destruction.   We are facing a huge terrorist threat, our economies can be attacked at will by tiny groups of terrorists, soon they will move on to biological terror, even the threat will be enough to check our economic revival.
We should be concentrating on this real and present danger, rather than threatening one another with MAD. The whole concept is MAD.

We need co-operation on security in the whole developed world, if these madmen are not stopped now by every means at our disposal including rigorous checks on immigrants.......our future looks bleak.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 02:04 PM

"Oh and please, please, please let just one of you clowns chirp up and say that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent, as I will paint the room with you."

The UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 04:03 PM

Stu - 19 Jul 16 - 02:04 PM

"The UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent."

1: Your reasons for making that statement.

2: Do you actually believe it?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 05:25 PM

I want an independent nuclear deterrent..

If everybody in the UK over the age of 18 had their own independent nuclear deterrent
we could all live in eternal universal peace...!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 06:39 PM

does that mean we get to target ... the yanks.."!!!???

Too right, if The Trumpshit gets elected!

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 02:35 AM

"We are facing a huge terrorist threat, "
How on earth will our having nuclear weapons make the slightest difference to that?
Don't you think it's time that you people responded to exactly why we are facing a terrorist threat?
Will it, like the damage done by Brexit, all sort itself out, given time?
What a bunch of destructive, hate-filled tossers you people are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 04:37 AM

"1: Your reasons for making that statement."

1) Threats have to be challenged. I still don't see any 'Stu' coloured walls here.

2) Calling people names like 'wanker' is not nice and has no place in a forum like this. If that's as imaginative as your insults get, then you have my pity.

3) The Beatles are still better than the Stones (although I love both deeply).



"2: Do you actually believe it?"

Yes. See here: Trident: is our nuclear deterrent really independent?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 08:47 AM

From the link supplied by Stu, to explain why he thinks that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.

The article points out that although we have our own submarines and our own warheads the missiles that carry those warheads to their targets are American, built by Lockheed-Martin. The weapon is therefore not totally independent according to the writer of the article.

The article does refer to what the writer calls "Operational Independence" - which is really all you require to have an independent deterrent.

"Under the terms of a missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently" - Ministry of Defence Statement

The writer refers to the common pool of missiles kept and maintained by Lockheed Martin across in the USA. What the writer does not say in his article is that 48 of those missiles are either in the UK at RNAD Coulport or loaded in the "at sea" SSBN, 16 missiles used to be carried but that number was reduced to 8 missiles carrying 40 warheads in 2010.

The writer towards the end of his piece then gives away his lack of knowledge by stating the following:

"We are told if a UK prime minister presses the codes for launch from a Vanguard then Washington cannot do anything."

What he is describing here is the American PAL system. No such link exists in the British system:

"At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy installed devices on its submarines to prevent rogue commanders from persuading their crews to launch unauthorised nuclear attacks. These devices prevent an attack until a launch code has been sent by the chiefs of staff on behalf of the U.S. president. The Ministry of Defence chose not to install equivalent devices on Vanguard submarines on the grounds that an aggressor might be able to eliminate the British chain of command before a launch order could be sent."

There are no codes that can be sent by the Americans to self-destruct missiles, the missiles carried on the RN's SSBNs rely on no external system for guidance so cannot be redirected once launched.

Don't know about you Stu, but that seems pretty independent to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 09:54 AM

We're technically dependent on the US, which means it's not truly independent. Still waiting to start on the walls.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 10:54 AM

I remember exactly this happening over 30 years ago....

The tories banging on about the importance of owning nukes and how weak labour would be defending us from the russkies...

All the time exploiting the issues as a cynical strategic distraction from more essential domestic social problems that they were failing to address rationally... 😣

Still.. it worked.. got 'em back in power for one more go..


I also remember the sheer underlying culture of terror and depression, as a mass phenomena, for any of us under 25;
trying to start out in life fully aware we could be incinerated or radiated at any time the crazies in power pressed the self destruct button...

Like many others at that time, I vowed to not bring kids into that unstable world of not knowing if there would be a tomorrow...
or what kind of post apocalyptic nightmare would be inflicted on any survivors.

These were real crippling fears at that time, not just fanciful paranoid adolescent hysteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 11:02 AM

Serious Question.

"so cannot be redirected once launched" What about before launching?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 11:48 AM

"We're technically dependent on the US"

The number of operational and fully functional missiles that we require to fully arm at least three of our submarines are in the UK at any given time. That's enough for us to blow up anything we might have to, or to serve as a deterrent against anyone thinking of attacking us.

We do not have any specific missiles allocated to us there is a "pool" of missiles our Vanguard Class share with USN Ohio Class SSBNs

So in what way are we "technically" dependent on the US Stu?

You were wrong PFR IT WAS just fanciful paranoid adolescent hysteria.


The answer to your question Raggy - The five MIRV warheads per missile are individually targeted while on the submarine. Once target information has been fed to the warhead it continually up dates as the submarine moves through the water. As neither the missile or the warhead relies on any further interaction with any other system the intended targeting of each warhead cannot be interfered with.

I see that our MPs voted 472 to 117 in favour of renewing Trident.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 11:58 AM

Teribus - I expected that answer...

I also googled "submariners mental health"..

Far too much to even begin reading on such a hot uncomfortable day...



.. 2 computers running in a small room. Even with a turbo fan aimed up at my tackle, it's unbearable heat..

In this regard submariners have my full respect for their physical endurance in the most oppressively stifling conditions..

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 05:43 AM

"We do not have any specific missiles allocated to us there is a "pool" of missiles our Vanguard Class share with USN Ohio Class SSBNs"

So they're not even our missiles? They're hardly independent of they're shared. Lordy. You haven't even sanded down the skirting board yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 06:12 AM

"The answer to your question Raggy - The five MIRV warheads per missile are individually targeted while on the submarine. Once target information has been fed to the warhead it continually up dates as the submarine moves through the water"

Thank You. OK next serious question. Who decides upon the targets for those individual missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 07:30 AM

"Who decides upon the targets for those individual missiles."

..ooooh... we all should...!!!

That't be a great idea for the next UK public voter's referendum... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:09 AM

I would imagine that that would depend very much under what circumstances a decision regarding firing them would be taken.

1: Specific threat to the UK;

2: Threat to NATO.

Well past the skirting board Stu - just about to apply the second top coat.

Base coat "48 of those missiles are either in the UK at RNAD Coulport or loaded in the "at sea" SSBN, 16 missiles used to be carried but that number was reduced to 8 missiles carrying 40 warheads in 2010."

Second coat "The number of operational and fully functional missiles that we require to fully arm at least three of our submarines are in the UK at any given time. That's enough for us to blow up anything we might have to, or to serve as a deterrent against anyone thinking of attacking us."

Top coat The five MIRV warheads per missile are individually targeted while on the submarine. Once target information has been fed to the warhead it continually up dates as the submarine moves through the water. As neither the missile or the warhead relies on any further interaction with any other system the intended targeting of each warhead cannot be interfered with.

Final coat No PAL link as suggested by the writer of the article you linked to.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:20 AM

The missiles are leased form the USA, we don't own them. You can post all flam you want to but the fact is they are not our missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:28 AM

This is the reality Stu:

At present there is a Royal Navy Vanguard-Class SSBN on patrol at sea.

It is probably carrying 8 fully operational Trident missiles each armed with 5 MIRV nuclear warheads.

These missiles can be fired should the order to fire those missiles is given

If that order was given then there is nothing any outside power or agency could do to stop those missiles from reaching their targets.

Now how much more independent would you want it?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:39 AM

..so basically.. it's like when we used to lease our tellys from Radio Rentals....???

There used to be a very sympathetic lady in our local branch..
she was very understanding if we couldn't afford to pay on time, or owe a couple of months..

Doubt if the Yanks will be so easy going if we can't keep up payments on their missiles...???

That Trump is making unhelpful noises about Nato friendships..

Maybe he'd send the bailiffs in for all the newest missiles, and let us hold on to a few rusty old ones,
until we could find the cash again.....???? 🙄


It probably wouldn't be so easy to pawn the missiles between payments like some folks used to with their rented tellys....

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:48 AM

Btw.. would that be the Sub that just just pranged a ship in a careless collision...

Great knowing we can have so much confidence in our sea going "End of the world capability" crewmen....????? 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:57 AM

No it was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 09:02 AM

...phew... ??

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 10:08 AM

"Now how much more independent would you want it?"

How about as independent as India's? Or China's? Or France's? Actual independence, not some lease from someone who can pull the plug when they want because they own, fix and maintain the actual missiles.

You do know which mad fuckwit could well be president in November? You want someone like him deciding he wants to change the terms of the lease or maintenance agreement?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 10:31 AM

Maybe he'd send the bailiffs in for all the newest missiles, and let us hold on to a few rusty old ones,
until we could find the cash again.....????

Not really taken in a word that's been said then pfr - nice to know that you are so far off the mark.

I think in terms of costs it comes to about 5.5% of our total Defence Budget, but costs for Trident should never have been placed there in the first place. I think that change was brought about by Osbourne in the 2010 Review - before that it had always come out a separate budget.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 11:03 AM

I take it Teribus that your source of information is the article on Wikipedia.

If you are going to use Wikipedia as a source please quote or link to the article instead of trying to mislead us you are quoting from a "reliable" source.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 11:32 AM

From the professor deciding that the submarine in question was not carrying nuclear weapons:


"No it was not"

The truth of the matter is that we don't actually know.

The Tomahawk Cruise Missiles carried by HMS Ambush (the latest design of nuclear powered sunmarine)can be adapted to carry an array of warheads including a nuclear option.

Although production of the given nuclear warhead ceased some time ago almost 2000 were produced and MAY be in service still.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 02:20 PM

The vessel can not carry or launch Trident, the subject of this discussion and of PFR's question.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 02:31 PM

So what exactly are the orders for nuke sub crews after they have unleashed Armageddon...???

.. make immediately for the Antarctic and hope they can live off penguin eggs and seal meat for a few decades
until they get a carrier pigeon message saying it's almost safe to come back home...????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 02:40 PM

after they have unleashed Armageddon.

They are not a first strike weapon.
The point of them being at sea is that they would survive any strike and retaliate, so that enemy is deterred from unleashing Armageddon.

After firing, their work is done and it does not matter much what they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 03:19 PM

"and it does not matter much what they do."


.. so they don't even have the future certainty & job security of a terr0ist suicide bomber...??? 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 04:04 PM

If you notice professor I mentioned Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

TOMAHAWK


Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh !

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 02:59 AM

"They are not a first strike weapon."
This becomes bizarrely, you sound more and more like THIS with every line.
It is totally insane to believe that people fanatically driven enough to wrap a bomb around themselves will be deterred by the nuclear threat.
Nuclear weapons threaten all of us - the only people to have used weapons such as these have been the Americans and the only time it has been seriously suggested in wartime that they be used again was when General Westmorland proposed that the Vietnamese should be "nuked back to the Stoneage".
People like you are as mad as the suicide bombers Keith, maybe, like them, you believe that blowing everybody to your Kingdom Come is to be welcomed.
MAD AS A BAG OF CATS - listen to yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 03:44 AM

Raggytash - 21 Jul 16 - 11:03 AM

Ah so time actually spent in the Royal Navy and personal knowledge and experience wouldn't count then Raggy.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 04:02 AM

punkfolkrocker - 21 Jul 16 - 08:48 AM

Btw.. would that be the Sub that just just pranged a ship in a careless collision...

Nope the sub currently tied up alongside the wall in Gib is an Astute-Class SSN and contrary to what some think -----

Raggytash - 21 Jul 16 - 11:32 AM

From the professor deciding that the submarine in question was not carrying nuclear weapons:


"No it was not"

The truth of the matter is that we don't actually know.

The Tomahawk Cruise Missiles carried by HMS Ambush (the latest design of nuclear powered submarine)can be adapted to carry an array of warheads including a nuclear option.

Although production of the given nuclear warhead ceased some time ago almost 2000 were produced and MAY be in service still."

The nuclear weapons carried by RN Submarines have all been built in the UK. The UK has never developed a nuclear warhead for the US supplied Tomahawk Cruise Missile. The USN did make modifications to existing "Tactical" warheads for possible use but these were all "retired" some time ago. The Royal Navy never had access to these weapons.

It would be the height of folly to mount a nuclear weapon on a cruise missile for glaringly obvious reasons. Possibly why the US "retired" those weapons years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 04:16 AM

Sheeesh ! ! ! You must have been one important cook to still have access to naval deployments after all these years.

Just when was it you left the navy?