35bn trident costs..what a waste of money

[mjw47]

The subs are built and maintained in the UK but based on a US design, the warheads are build in Britain, and the rockets are leased from the US. The sub contains a safe and in that safe is a sealed letter from the PM, the letter gives the commander instructions on what to do in the event that the UK is attacked and the PM and government wiped out. Only the PM knows what is in the letter, it might tell the commander to retaliate, it might tell him to surrender or could say use your own discretion. At that point the commander can launch and is very unlikely to give a crap what America thinks.

 

The letter says " Adopt the fetal position, force your head as far as you can between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye ".

 

Or at least that was the instruction given to me and my fellow ATC cadets as what to do in the event of a nuclear attack by our Flight Sergeant back in the early 60s when we were assured that it was a distinct possibility.

 

So, when the commander tries to launch at his target how is the missile going to be guided there, without cooperation from the US?

 

As far as the yanks are concerned we are just useful fools, who in order to keep in the 'special relationship' () are prepared to spend taxpayers money on equipment we can't afford and which they ultimately control.

[tzijlstra]

They are a waste of money, argued it before, will continue to argue it.

[loraward]

The letter says " Adopt the fetal position, force your head as far as you can between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye ".

 

Or at least that was the instruction given to me and my fellow ATC cadets as what to do in the event of a nuclear attack by our Flight Sergeant back in the early 60s when we were assured that it was a distinct possibility.

 

So, when the commander tries to launch at his target how is the missile going to be guided there, without cooperation from the US?

 

As far as the yanks are concerned we are just useful fools, who in order to keep in the 'special relationship' () are prepared to spend taxpayers money on equipment we can't afford and which they ultimately control.

 

After it attains a low orbit it uses its inertial guidance system and an additional star sighting system to get it to its per-programmed target area.

 

Once in position over its targets the warhead are released to free fall onto the target, where they detonate according to one of a number of pre-set fuse options.

[The Joker]

What is keeping Sweden, Norway, Holland, Italy, Spain, Germany plus many others safe?

 

So we are paying £35billion we don't have, so ze germanese don't have to ??

 

No wonder they don't want us to leave the EU

[mjw47]

After it attains a low orbit it uses its inertial guidance system and an additional star sighting system to get it to its per-programmed target area.

 

Once in position over its targets the warhead are released to free fall onto the target, where they detonate according to one of a number of pre-set fuse options.

 

In which case why do we need the US controlled satellite intelligence to guide them?

 

Presumably the targets are laid down in the letter and require presetting prior to launch?

 

At which point the US guidance assistance is needed.

 

This link is to a parliamentary select committee report.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFAQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm200506%2Fcmselect%2Fcmdfence%2F986%2F98607.htm&ei=MFcpVai6K62v7Ab1kIGYCg&usg=AFQjCNHDCv2VjIjgHZ2CHFqV_T6OsDf91g&bvm=bv.90491159,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Claims are made both that it is independent and that it isn't.

 

The main expert claiming that it is independent is Commodore Hare but he gives the game away in section 83.

 

Which is why the French opted to pay more to achieve true independence.

[loraward]

In which case why do we need the US controlled satellite intelligence to guide them?

 

Presumably the targets are laid down in the letter and require presetting prior to launch?

 

At which point the US guidance assistance is needed.

 

This link is to a parliamentary select committee report.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFAQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm200506%2Fcmselect%2Fcmdfence%2F986%2F98607.htm&ei=MFcpVai6K62v7Ab1kIGYCg&usg=AFQjCNHDCv2VjIjgHZ2CHFqV_T6OsDf91g&bvm=bv.90491159,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Claims are made both that it is independent and that it isn't.

 

The main expert claiming that it is independent is Commodore Hare but he gives the game away in section 83.

 

Which is why the French opted to pay more to achieve true independence.

 

That's a collection of unsubstantiated opinions mostly from Greenpeace, and at the end of the report they call upon the MoD to clarify the technical dependencies of the UK's Trident system upon the United States and to respond to the argument that the UK's nuclear deterrent is not truly independent.

 

There is no evidence contained within that report which states that they can't be fired and hit their intended targets without the aid of the USA.

[mjw47]

So we are paying £35billion we don't have, so ze germanese don't have to ??

 

No wonder they don't want us to leave the EU

 

They can spot a patsy when they see one.

 

---------- Post added 11-04-2015 at 19:53 ----------

 

That's a collection of unsubstantiated opinions mostly from Greenpeace, and at the end of the report they call upon the MoD to clarify the technical dependencies of the UK's Trident system upon the United States and to respond to the argument that the UK's nuclear deterrent is not truly independent.

 

There is no evidence contained within that report which states that they can't be fired and hit their intended targets without the aid of the USA.

 

Do you accept that the people called to give their views on the subject all have backgrounds which lend a credence to their opinions which your opinion and mine both lack?

 

Professor Colin Gray commented at 75 accepted the UK dependence on the US but wasn't concerned about it, bully for him.

 

Commodore Tim Hare claims that it is independent but at 83 destroys his own argument by stating that only applies if we don't become estranged in our relationship with America and " They decide to rat on their agreements ".

 

That is not a definition of independent that I recognize, it is rather an arrangement that we can do exactly as we please on the proviso that we haven't upset the US in some way, in which case we can't.

 

What happens if the estrangement comes about over the reason why we wish to launch?

 

The situation regarding our kowtowing to the Americans is bad enough as it stands but this cements it in place permanently.

 

A statement was made in that document that several of our European allies regard the UK as "a vassal state" of the US.

 

There is plenty of evidence which says they are correct.

[Obelix]

So, when the commander tries to launch at his target how is the missile going to be guided there, without cooperation from the US?

 

What guidance from the US?

 

The subs have an inertial navigation system, they know exactly where they are without GPS especially since GPS doesnt work underwater. If they can they will surface and get a better fix to improve positioning by a few hundred meters but that's not necessary.

 

Once launched the missile goes into the boost phase and then the MIRV bus seperates after the boost phase. The missiles position is setup by means of a star sighter that looks for specific bright stars like Sirius and Canopus. They are used to position the bus for release of warheads which are then allowed to fall ballistically onto the target.

 

There is no input needed into the system once the sub sails. At that point the captain and four other officers can launch. ni input needed, no codes, no secret handshake nothing. If Radio 4 goes offline and they cannot raise base, they will follow the orders and launch as per directions given by the NCA.

 

There is no input into the missile once launched. If there were, someone could theoretically get in and disable it.

 

Once launched, the missile is not stoppable. It needs no input from anyone, anywhere at all. It is fantastically single minded in that respect.

[I1L2T3]

They are a waste of money, argued it before, will continue to argue it.

 

Absolutely.

 

As part of NATO the Netherlands is/was hosting nuclear weapons that were ultimately under control of the USA but nonetheless rely on Dutch military personnel for maintenance and launch.

 

Other countries too, as part of NATO, have had some nuclear capability as part of nuclear sharing at a fraction of the cost to us for Trident

 

The UK has in theory more independence but ultimately our weapons could in practical terms only ever be used as part of NATO strategic action. Trident is not a tactical weapon we could use independently without authorisation from NATO. Its pretty unthinkable we would ever be in a position to ever need to do so. And, as others have pointed out it is likely there would be some kind of override capability by the USA. Our weapons would only ever be used when and against targets that the USA wanted them to be used against.

 

Yep, total waste of money.

[loraward]

Absolutely.

 

As part of NATO the Netherlands is/was hosting nuclear weapons that were ultimately under control of the USA but nonetheless rely on Dutch military personnel for maintenance and launch.

 

Other countries too, as part of NATO, have had some nuclear capability as part of nuclear sharing at a fraction of the cost to us for Trident

 

The UK has in theory more independence but ultimately our weapons could in practical terms only ever be used as part of NATO strategic action. Trident is not a tactical weapon we could use independently without authorisation from NATO. Its pretty unthinkable we would ever be in a position to ever need to do so. And, as others have pointed out it is likely there would be some kind of override capability by the USA. Our weapons would only ever be used when and against targets that the USA wanted them to be used against.

Yep, total waste of money.

 

Only when your opinion is based on the false premiss that they are useless and can't be used without American authorisation.