Britains Nuclear weapons

I have been hearing all week about the United Kingdoms Trident based weapons, From what I have heard they seems to be confusion to there abilty to be truly independent. In the UK the replacement is being voted on in the house of commons. To keep matters simple if we go for a replacement system (subsmarines) Is it possible that we as a nation could not target the USA? from what I know the trident missles have UK warheads but does that mean we could use them againt the USA?

Originally posted by Id123
I have been hearing all week about the United Kingdoms Trident based weapons, From what I have heard they seems to be confusion to there abilty to be truly independent. In the UK the replacement is being voted on in the house of commons. To keep matters simple if we go for a replacement system (subsmarines) Is it possible that we as a nation could not target the USA? from what I know the trident missles have UK warheads but does that mean we could use them againt the USA?

WTF is that? Why the hell would you want to attack the US with nuclear weapons? I am sure the missiles can be set to go wherever, but I for one wopuld be pissed to find out that the brits fired missiles at the US mainland.

I think you brits better figure out who the hell your enemies really are.

Sorry! I never ment to say that we would ever have a reason to, Just a thought on the possibity or the UK being able to. If were going to spend 75 billion on it I hope at least the UK has the final say on how and were God forbid it is used. With regards id123

Originally posted by Id123
Sorry! I never ment to say that we would ever have a reason to, Just a thought on the possibity or the UK being able to. If were going to spend 75 billion on it I hope at least the UK has the final say on how and were God forbid it is used. With regards id123

No problem. I just get a little bit jumpy when someone is talking about bombing my country with american mad nuclear weapons, ya know?

I am sure the targetting coordinates can be set fow whomever they were to target. The ministry of defense would probably upload the targetting package to the subs computer before it ever left port and im sure it would have multiple packages.

for example, package A is for an attack against Russia, package b would be for china, etc.

No problem, I would jump of my chair if I heard the US wanted to attack my home. I just read stuff that had suggested that the US sort of has control of this kind of thing. If the US did whats the point of having the thing if we cant use them. Its a lot of money!

waste of money, £20/40 billion for the rew replacement could be better spent somewhere else.

more ships/carriers/aircrafts/prisons/nhs/nurses (with change left over) - trident doesn't need replacing anyway for another 40 years


[edit on 14-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
waste of money, £20/40 billion for the rew replacement could be better spent somewhere else.

more ships/carriers/aircrafts/prisons/nhs/nurses (with change left over) - trident doesn't need replacing anyway for another 40 years

[edit on 14-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

I agree here, the UK falls under the US nuclear umbrella. I'm sure if someone nuked Britain we would retalliate for the Brits, I'd be for it anyhow. The UK needs that money to rebuild their now shrunken navy, because as an Island nation, naval dominance should be the UK's priority militarily.

I'd love to see a new mighty Royal Navy, its their halmark and has been since the RN's creation.

Originally posted by ludaChris


I agree here, the UK falls under the US nuclear umbrella. I'm sure if someone nuked Britain we would retalliate for the Brits, I'd be for it anyhow. The UK needs that money to rebuild their now shrunken navy, because as an Island nation, naval dominance should be the UK's priority militarily.

I'd love to see a new mighty Royal Navy, its their halmark and has been since the RN's creation.

Agreed. Tridents are fine for now, and nuclear deterrents are icing on the cake.

ludaChris, I somehow doubt that very much. 'Friends' we might be, but I cannot see the US responding in kind, unless there was a direct attack on the US continent.

I watched the debate in the House of Commons from the start (12:40) to the Ammendment Vote and then the final Vote. The Ammendment Vote was defeated but the main vote, the one to replace Trident was won with over 400 MPs voting Yes and 190 odd voting No.

The debate was at times, very interesting, often heated and very passionate. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Funny thing is though, I have long suspoected that Haliburton would be the only beneficary for this replacement project and, if you read between the lines of the White Paper, that's virtually what will happen.

Many MPs are under the illusion that the Trident replacement and the submarines to carry them, will be designed, built and serviced by UK defence contractors and, as I posted in a similar thread the other day, this is to the contrary.

Questions were also asked about why we cannot simply deploy 'our' missiles in 'off the shelf' Ohio boats, should the USA would let us purchase them.

The answer somewhat surprised me because Margerat Becket said the future missiles would be 'ours' and could not fit the Ohio.

It also transpires that strategists who advise the PM and COBRA, cannot envisage a single scenario where a nuclear missile be used as a first strike weapon, and neither can they forsee any scenario where a nuclear missile be used in retaliation - because there is simply no perceived threat - present or future, that could endanger the United Kingdom.

If that is the case, why do we need a nuclear deterrent?

Still, I await the full write up about the great debate, with relish.

it would be better spent in the reg armed forces
looking back at the Iraq war and how under equiped people were,

@ fritz

so what, are we going to develop and maintain our own once again?

i'm not 100% sure on the trident, but i think part of the agreement we signed when we bought trident from the US is we pick up the missles from america.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

st3ve_o, that is my point exactly!

The Labour government trumpets our need for an 'independent nuclear deterrent', which will be designed, built and maintained, in the UK.

But having watched the whole debate yesterday, the only conclusion I came to rightly or wrongly, was that everything would be supplied by the Americans yet, we Brits would, in theory, have our finger on the trigger, with the US having no right of veto.

I personally, have nothing against a nuclear deterrent. We should certainly look at the options available, but Margaret Beckett is now on record as saying the government favours a submarine based ICBM system.

The reasons why Trident is the first choice are:

1. It is a proven system that works - the last submarine launch test was in 1995;
2. It is the only weapons platform that cannot readily be detected,;
3. SLCMs and ALCMs would place aircraft and crews in danger in that they are required to be closer to the intended target and would therefore be subjected to counter measures and,
4. A land based system would be prohibitively expensive.

st3ve_o I am on record as saying that I believe the Trident system is an outdated concept, because the threat from a major power like China or Russia, simply does not exist and that Trident is a left over from the Cold War. Believe it or not st3ve_o, the government has this view as well.

But Labour and the Opposition agree, that we do have this need to defend ourselves from any perceived nuclear threat in the future, although nobody can say where that threat will come from.

My argument is simple. Terrorists may, in the future acquire nuclear technology and may, in the future develope a crude device that may or may not work when delivered to the target area.

What are we going to do? Fire off a Trident ICBM in retaliation? Where to and against whome?

Margaret Beckett is now on record as saying that the Government has the 'right' to retaliate not only against 'terrorists' who launch a nuclear attack against this country, but also against the country that harbours or colludes with them!

I don't know about you people out there, but that scares the hell out of me.

The solution? I still favour the smaller SLBM but the one thing I do bang on about, is that whatever system we go for, it should be a wholly British affair and NOT reliant on America or her political whims.

Many thanks for your input.

yeah i suppose your right, i mean having a nuclear deterrent will scare away ANY country ever attacking the UK.

its the exact same with russia even their own government have admitted the russian armed forces is a mess at the moment (using mainly 20 year old former USSR equipment).

so they rely on their nuclear weapons as protection and no country IN THEIR RIGHT MIND could or would attack russia or they would be obliviated.

even britain with 200 (think we are reducing to 170) but 170 is still enough to wipe out a nation ^heaven forbid it ever came to that^ but it only took 2 to make japan surrender in ww2 and the atom is much/much more powerful now.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

Trident needs to be British designed and built, full stop!

The idea of a Nuclear deterrent is that it is independant, for example if we bought US technology and we needed to fire at a particular country and the US disagreed the US could make our missiles unable to fly.

I'm not saying the US is likely to attack the UK but if we needed to target the US or any other country that decision has to be a British one.

The cost of updating Trident has caused an outcry and an unjustified outcry at that.

The original estimate of building the systems is 20 - 25 Billion GBP ($38-$48 Billion US)

The total cost throughout the new systems life will bring that figure up to 40 - 50 Billion GBP ($76 - $86 Billion US)

The cost of the upcoming London olypics, a few weeks of sports, is 9 Billion GBP ($17.2 Billion US) for a few weeks!!!

That is a figure likley to rise as building work hasn't even started yet but I have seen very little opposition to hosting the olympics!

and to put the cost into even more perspective. The invasion of Iraq has so far costed the US $500 Billion and rising (fast)

so $76- $86 Billion for a system that will defend the UK for more than 30 years is a small price to pay!

My God, the UK pays over 200 Billion GBP ($384 Billion) PER YEAR on benefit payments!

Leaving the UK without a Nuclear deterrent is the current world climate would be very foolish.

Do you think the Average man on the street in 1907 would believe you if you told him there would be a world war that would take nearly 30 Million lives in 1914 and that another world war would happen in 1939 taking over 50 million lives?

No he would say you were mad!

Why should we now assume in 2007 that the future is going to be fluffy bunnies and world peace!

[edit on 15/3/07 by Jimmy1880]

Jimmy, I respect your view and I certainly agree about benefits.

However, Margaret Beckett stood up in the House of Commons and told assembled MPs in an answer to a Give Way Question, that Trident would cost no more than £20 billions.

The MP who asked the question, then asked that given the fact that almost all current MOD projects have overrun, are well over budget and do not deliver what the system was supposed to do, what guarantees would there be on costing?

Margaret Beckett reiterated that the total cost for the design, build and deployment of both the submarines and missile system would be no more than the original costing before the House - whatever that means.

I think that last statement refers to the American system, which I believe is already on the drawing board.

It certainly appears, to me at least, that this Labour government intends to buy American and protect American industry, create American jobs, support the American economy - or more realistically pump Billions in to the Haliburton Group.

The British nuclear deterrent should be a wholly British affair.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

WTF is that? Why the hell would you want to attack the US with nuclear weapons? I am sure the missiles can be set to go wherever, but I for one wopuld be pissed to find out that the brits fired missiles at the US mainland.

I think you brits better figure out who the hell your enemies really are.

And that too Tridents!!!


[edit on 16-3-2007 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
yeah i suppose your right, i mean having a nuclear deterrent will scare away ANY country ever attacking the UK.

its the exact same with russia even their own government have admitted the russian armed forces is a mess at the moment (using mainly 20 year old former USSR equipment).
[edit on 15-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

The russians are bgining to get their strategic rocket forces as well as other forces back in check. Although they rely heavily on ground based radar systems, and last I heard 3 out of 7 arrays were still working, and their satellite system is a mess, they have poured money into their new topol-m mobile ICBM system. Coupled with their silo based SS-25 sickle's, Im sure russia is not as helpless as it would appear.

Overall, russia appears to be gearing up again. Perhaps this is why the UK feels it still needs a detterent?



Their new Topol-m is a very impressive system if all the hype about it is true. Russians have always been good at rocket research and development. The Topol-M is supposed to have multiple re-entry vehicles that have several decoys, and the warheads themselves are supposed to be able to change their course in flight. A major step forward for the Russians who were about to implement these changes before the soviet union collapsed.



[edit on 16-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]

Originally posted by fritz
ludaChris, I somehow doubt that very much. 'Friends' we might be, but I cannot see the US responding in kind, unless there was a direct attack on the US continent.

You dont think that if the UK were nuked the US and UK would not respond together? Have you ever read the book "The Third World War:August 1985" by General Sir John Hackett? Birmingham gets nuked in the end, and the US and UK respond in kind together obliterating Minsk. This isnt just some ordinary fiction book either, its a very realistic scenario written by a respected British General. I would suggest reading it, very educational if youre interested in that period in our history. Check his credentials, I think he was spot on after reading that book.

General Sir John Hackett

You dont think that if the UK were nuked the US and UK would not respond together? Have you ever read the book "The Third World War:August

Read that book a dozen times, very interesting, to see what could have happened, if conflict had broken out between the warsaw-pac/russia,nato and the usa.

Very realistic....

Back to UKS Nukes

So who holds the codes to the missiles? is it the UK or the USA?

And btw, do you really think if a Major City in the UK was nuked that, T.Blair or any future PM, will wait for approval of the President of the USA before retaliating?

Also the 20 billion is just for the Subs right? Is it not costing more too upgrade the sytem or the missiles themselves?

Oh and going by current thing, ie like Wembly Staduim, the Lympics, the original estimate of 20 billion will rise, they always do, look at the costs for the Euro Fighter...... didnt that double or treble the original estimated costs?