Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[Cyclone]

In the 2015 general election, over 75% of the votes were for parties that supported Trident. If that isn't a majority, I don't know what it.

 

A logical fallacy, that supporting a party automatically means that you support all it's policies.

The vast majority of voters were not voting with reference to trident, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2017 at 09:51 ----------

 

 

So I wouldn't upgrade Trident. Maybe keep them if you want to but there is no sense (and no fair play) in sending our troops out to do someone's dirty business in places like Afghanistan then making them redundant when they get back.

 

They're due to be replaced because the ongoing cost of maintenance will become more than the cost of replacing them, where it's even possible to continue the maintenance... Right?

[Carlinate]

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

 

 

 

 

 

A missile system that relied on GPS would be a foolish design. As if potential enemies don't have the capability to destroy satellites and/or jam/spoof GPS signals!

 

In fact GPS does play a part in the guidance system and without it the missiles wouldn't be accurate.

 

The second requirement is the use of ESGN and both systems are US designed and controlled.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0Nvpsc7TAhUrKMAKHTtVDG0QFggzMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.publications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm200506%2Fcmselect%2Fcmdfence%2F986%2F986we13.htm&usg=AFQjCNEDBmxOATONzMcPXBD-uJ0w42ZUZg

 

The UK nuclear deterrent is not independent it requires the co operation of the USA, we are basically paying to form a small part of the USA international defence system and enable our politicians to strut around with the Big Boys.

 

In addition to the USA eight countries in the world have nuclear warfare capability.

 

The UK is the only one 'in partnership' with another nation.

 

France's deterrent costs far more than ours, which is the price they pay for independence.

[Cyclone]

Strawman - I didn't claim it didn't "play a part".

ESGN is an inertial navigation system used by the subs, it's not "US controlled" such that they could switch it off, nor would it's absence somehow disable trident.

 

The UK ND can be independently used, we maintain it in cooperation with the US and should they withdraw that support it would make it significantly harder to do so, but it would not somehow magically disable the at sea deterrent and they have no ability to stop us using it. Which is what was claimed and what I disputed.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2017 at 11:12 ----------

 

All of our nuclear weapons are controlled (more like "owned") by the USA anyway. We can't press the big red button without their permission.

 

This statement. Wrong, false, incorrect, not the case.

 

No matter that we use US components and US companies for maintenance. The statement above is not correct, not true, it's not even remotely close to true.

[Revel]

Are you a dumbass?

 

The UK manufactures its own nuclear weapons at Aldermaston by the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The UK does use the ballistic missiles from the US as they are built by Lockheed Martin. However, they are stored at Coulport, the UK has independent control of its nuclear weapons at all times. The ballistic missiles are only returned to the US for servicing, but they get replaced from their pool of ballistic missiles, so the navy always has a full set of missiles.

 

"AWE plc, responsible for the day-to-day operations of AWE, is owned by a consortium of Jacobs Engineering Group, Lockheed Martin UK and Serco through AWE Management Ltd, which holds a 25‑year contract (until March 2025) to operate AWE. All the sites are owned by the Government of the United Kingdom which has a golden share in AWE plc.[1]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishment

 

Jacobs Engineering Group = American

Lockheed Martin = American

 

Oh how very independent and British.

What you're saying is like sticking an Apple factory in the UK and saying iPhones are British.

 

If we're so independent, who's going to manufacture our weapons if the USA pulls support? Serco is a security/transport company, they don't engineer weapons.

 

The fact of the matter is: our weapons are made by Americans, maintained by Americans, tested by Americans, and controlled by Americans. I've proved every single point.

[ez8004]

"AWE plc, responsible for the day-to-day operations of AWE, is owned by a consortium of Jacobs Engineering Group, Lockheed Martin UK and Serco through AWE Management Ltd, which holds a 25‑year contract (until March 2025) to operate AWE. All the sites are owned by the Government of the United Kingdom which has a golden share in AWE plc.[1]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishment

 

Jacobs Engineering Group = American

Lockheed Martin = American

 

Oh how very independent and British.

What you're saying is like sticking an Apple factory in the UK and saying iPhones are British.

 

If we're so independent, who's going to manufacture our weapons if the USA pulls support? Serco is a security/transport company, they don't engineer weapons.

 

The fact of the matter is: our weapons are made by Americans, maintained by Americans, tested by Americans, and controlled by Americans. I've proved every single point.

 

You know that only British citizens can work at AWE right since they have to be security cleared by the MoD? So it is indeed very British. Whoever administers the operation is very much a paper exercise.

 

Also, the hypothetical situation of the US pulling support is very very VERY unlikely. The reason being the the US gets a lot of technology from us as defined in the US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement 1958.

Edited May 1, 2017 by ez8004

[Carlinate]

Strawman - I didn't claim it didn't "play a part".

ESGN is an inertial navigation system used by the subs, it's not "US controlled" such that they could switch it off, nor would it's absence somehow disable trident.

 

.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2017 at 11:12 ----------

 

 

 

The link I provided was to http://www.Parliament.UK, publications and records.

 

Did you read it?

 

If you did then presumably you missed the part under the heading ' Degree of dependency ' and the detail provided adjacent to sub heading 'Navigation'.

 

After establishing that the use of both GPS and ESGN are vital to ensure accuracy it gave further details.

 

Part of those details read ' The US has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval '.

 

That statement is contained in a ' Select committee on defence ' as part of written evidence.

 

Are you claiming that the authors were lying?

 

If so why would they do so in an official document?

 

Or are you being pedantic, in that you believe that we could launch without US approval in a one off situation, but you accept that if we were ever daft enough to do so it would be the first and last time, and our entire nuclear deterrent system would be shut down by the US from then on?

[I1L2T3]

It is a good thing that the government and the majority of the population don't care what idiots like you think isn't it?

 

It also sounds like you don't know the point of CASD.

 

In an exchange the targets are not the subs. Sure the enemy might try to prevent the sub getting the missiles away but if they do get away then the targets are UK towns and cities, ports, infrastructure, everything..... Us!!

 

Potential aggressors can be counted on one finger of one hand. And that threat is countered by NATO.

 

Our capability from one sub is just about enough to disable command and control in the Moscow region. A strike from Trident would leave Russia in a position to recover as a functioning state within weeks. A return strike from Russia....

 

Of course we wouldn't ever be in a situation where we strike unilaterally and strike first. USA most likely covers the same targets as UK Trident, and while we have one or two warheads per target the USA has massive redundancy in its targeting...several warheads per target and most likely like I said duplicating our targets.

 

The Russian official who responded to Fallon's irresponsible statements recently got it right. Russia knows it is the only conceivable target for Trident and Russia told us what would happen if we tried it on first.

 

Trident is an expensive white elephant that needs to go.

[Harrystottle]

They're due to be replaced because the ongoing cost of maintenance will become more than the cost of replacing them, where it's even possible to continue the maintenance... Right?

 

I didn't know that. In which case give them up.

[apelike]

After establishing that the use of both GPS and ESGN are vital to ensure accuracy it gave further details.

 

Part of those details read ' The US has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval '.

 

That statement is contained in a ' Select committee on defence ' as part of written evidence.

 

Actually after reading up on the matter it seems that we only lease the missiles from the US so we are not as independent as some may think, and yes they could deny us the use of GPS so I go back on my post #12. That may be another reason why the EU Galileo GPS was started which is already working to some extent and should be fully operational by 2020.

 

 

Trident is an expensive white elephant that needs to go.

 

In that I fully agree especially as we only lease them anyway. Its about the only thing that would make me vote for Corbyn but unfortunately for him his party has already agreed to the upgrade.

[I1L2T3]

Actually after reading up on the matter it seems that we only lease the missiles from the US so we are not as independent as some may think, and yes they could deny us the use of GPS so I go back on my post #12. That may be another reason why the EU Galileo GPS was started which is already working to some extent and should be fully operational by 2020.

 

In that I fully agree especially as we only lease them anyway. Its about the only thing that would make me vote for Corbyn but unfortunately for him his party has already agreed to the upgrade.

 

Its yet another reason for me to not vote Labour. There's a long list now.