HMS Apocalypse : The British nuclear deterrent

The Daily Mail has an interesting article this morning about life on board HMS Vanguard, the lead boat of the four British Trident submarines. I'm unsure why they've chosen to name her HMAS Apocalypse, bit of journalistic license I reckon (I can't see any Aussie connection).

The article's co-written by Prof Peter Hennessy, a leading light when it comes to unravelling the secrets of the British State.

Good article. Have a read.

Daily Mail ... HMAS Apocalypse

I think if I wrote that letter saying what to do in the event of an attack wiping out Britain, I would say don't attack back.

At the end of the day we are all human with kids and families - why inflict more pain on innocent children when it is only a wicked minority who make the decision to go to war?

I am sure most people will attack me for being a wooly liberal but there is a chance that we are the only sentient beings in the universe - I think we should try to preserve this.

I am impressed that Denis Healy had the same thoughts.


[edit on 29-11-2008 by NeoSocialist]

reply to post by Niall197
Is it possible that HMAS, stands for Her Majesty's Atomic Submarine? since submarines are, in Royal Naval parlance, classed as Boats, and not 'Ships'.
Just a thought, someone out there must know for sure, anyone have a recent copy of 'Janes'?

Regards,

Horsegiver.

Niall197, its a simple spelling mistake!

On pages 16 and 17 of the printed newspaper, it clearly states "HMS Apocalypse".

Obviously something got lost in translation from the printed edition to the online edition. The editor needs the backs of his legs slapped and he should be keel-hauled - both fine Naval traditions!

I wonder what the priority of targets chose are. I mean, if North Korea launches and destroys England, how does the sub know that? Any input?

I read a Hennessy book a few years back. He describes the Prime Ministers letter as containing instructions for the submarine Captain as follows :

(this is assuming Britain has been attacked suddenly by nuclear weapons & that the Captain has been unable to contact civilian/military authorities)

1. To take out Russia
2. To sail to the USA (assuming it still exists) & place the boat under their control
3. To sail to Australia & place the boat under their control
4. To exercise his own discretion & in the best traditions of the Royal Navy

So, if NK attacked the UK he might choose option four and sail his boat to within missile range of that country and take them out.

I'm surprised Denis Healey has said he wouldn't have retaliated against a nuclear attack on the UK. It was his government which cancelled major military expenditure in the 1960's (the TSR2 fighter/bomber, the CVA01 aircraft carrier project etc) in order to fund the Polaris submarine system. If he nows says he wouldn't have used Polaris it beggars the question ...

... why does the UK have a ballistic missile deterrent at all if the government ministers wouldn't have used it anyway ?

And isn't Denis Healey undermining the whole principle of deterrence by admitting we would not retaliate under a Labour government, at least ?

Should add too that under the British way of doing things the Prime Minister "merely" authorises the use of nuclear weapons. He can't order them to attack Moscow, in theory he can't really order them to do anything. The boat isn't called Her Majesty's Submarine Vanguard for nothing.

It is entirely for the British military to decide how & when to use nuclear weapons.

We shouldnt be updating our nukes anyway...what a waste of pennies.

reply to post by horsegiver


They are still known as "HMS", the S stands for submarine instead of ship.

The nukes aren't a waste of money either, Solomons. As a Scot, you should be greatful for them as without them, yet another Scottish industry would go down the tubes and more would be unemployed. You can't rely on Banking, you know

As Niall said, the true command rests ultimately with the Queen. She could, in theory, overide any command of the PM and tell HER military exactly what to do.



[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

Jobs are not important when it comes to morals and what is right vs wrong.Its the 21st century nukes are only used to bully nations that do not have them.We are in the EU,there is no reason for us to have them,but we do like to bully other countries so maybe there is a reason.

reply to post by Solomons


What country have we bullied with our Nukes then?

Should we just get rid of them, let the Europeans look after us (history shows they would love that...) even though most of the EU are a bunch of spineless wimps and trust the Russians and Chinese don't take advantage?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Solomons

 

What country have we bullied with our Nukes then?

Should we just get rid of them, let the Europeans look after us (history shows they would love that...) even though most of the EU are a bunch of spineless wimps and trust the Russians and Chinese don't take advantage?

We are european...we are linked economically with europe in every way possible.So yes its a waste of money for more than one european country to have nukes.Wish noone had them,but yes thats a utopian dream.But a better way would have a joint nuclear arsenal with europe ie...only one nuclear warhead program between all countries.

btw Do we still rely on america to even launch our nukes?

reply to post by NeoSocialist


The trick is though to absolutely assure potential foes that you will retaliate in kind. That's your defense. Whether you do actually retaliate is irrelevant -- the tactic has by then failed, so you appraise the new situation.

And what's wrong with wooly liberals?

[edit on 29-11-2008 by eniac]

Originally posted by Solomons
We are european...

You might think so, but I do not. I am British by birth and English by the grace of God

Originally posted by Solomons
we are linked economically with europe in every way possible.

So? Does that mean we have to start handing over control to them?

One could argue that Scotland is "linked economically with England in every way possible", but they still want independance. Although support for that has dropped since the credit crunch kicked in, seems you guys need the English taxpayer to see you through the recession before you want to go it alone....

Originally posted by Solomons
So yes its a waste of money for more than one european country to have nukes.Wish noone had them,but yes thats a utopian dream.But a better way would have a joint nuclear arsenal with europe ie...only one nuclear warhead program between all countries.

What? A joint arsenal? Who controls that? The French? The Germans? The Italians? Some unelected desk-jockey?

Originally posted by Solomons
btw Do we still rely on america to even launch our nukes?

No and we never did.

reply to post by eniac


As long as you give the impression that they will be used yes... but when it really came to the crunch ??

I am a wooly Liberal - nowt wrong with that I know.

reply to post by NeoSocialist


when it comes to the crunch, its hard to see much advantage in actually using them. Unless you think the game's not up yet, and there will still be some kind of civilisation left in your country even after the attack.

Of course emotion is as likely as not to take over in the war room: with millions of your people dead or about to be hit, it could be hard not to say 'Fire' -- depending on the type of individual in charge (ComminChief, PM, Russian President, Chinese gaffer, whoever).

Originally posted by eniac
when it comes to the crunch, its hard to see much advantage in actually using them. Unless you think the game's not up yet, and there will still be some kind of civilisation left in your country even after the attack.

Therein lies the reason for having them. Because WE have them, no one else is likely to use theirs, as they too would be devastated, making the whole thing pointless.

Nuclear weapons and the fear they produce are the only things that made WWIII an impossibility.

I would by no means be surprised if there existed a special military pact between the UK and Australia that had an Australian sub serving with nuclear missles, operating in the southern ocean, with the mission to retaliate against anyone who used WMD's against the UK.

Perhaps we should retain the nuclear arsenal so that we can nuke our own major cities once the muslims have completely taken over, and just before the last of us is beheaded.

The preparation of War is the Cause of War

If we did not have Nuclear weapons as we do, which I think would be the sane thing to do, any country like Britain if it openly set a stage of timeframe say 36 months to totally disarm, and then with huge political pressure and much MSM not creating enemies, but to use the political and Moral bullying of such a move to openly send diplomats to every other Nation with them in the world, inviting them to do the same.

To do so in a letter from the government and people, outlining the dangers, and costs both in Life, the earth and financially then stating openly they would Publish totally any such response, would I think be a real wave of disarmament. The people of the other countries as whole would put pressure on their governments to do the right thing or be ostrasized morally and diplomatically,I really think you would have huge public rallies in favour of responding in kind....

Now it could be done with the equal fear of Retaliation still, by keeping 1 or 2 nukes over until all were gone, but the scale and amount we have is ridiculous.... any major capital hit in todays modern world with even a hiroshima like nuke would cripple and practically end that countries ability socially and economically, we have ones from 1960 that could hold that last protection with systems such as the stealth bomber to ensure they got there...

However i have always thought I would only except a One World army/Force as such for this reason alone, the proposal being, do the above but remove all Nukes from our country, push the others as stated and have an international agreement whereby a very small arm of the UN, or some such body written into international law would have say 10 of these evil things left under control, maybe just 2 subs for Failsafe around the world, 5 on each.

If any country did not sign up, or even if they did and ones were hidden and ever used against another country, this International Treaty would mean immediate responce in Kind, on their own country.

It would take away any pre emptive actions, any mad political leaders loosing the plot and taking the world to WW3 and would hold the same argument as used now, use one on us and you get one back....

The savings in the environmental effects, the financial outlay and the bringing together of the world would be immense.

Simple but very effective, 10 nukes could change the entire world, and hit back all the current holders of such if they carried on making them in secret.

I dont think people realise that if just 1 was used in Washington or New York, or Moscow, or London Or Islamabad, those countries would cease to exist as we know them now, there is no need for all of them, the costs would be spread around the world and be negligible and in addition at least good environmental practises would be upheld..

The cost to Britain in these times when pensions are dropping, depression is looming and our public services are underfunded of these Trident boats and all the associated stuff is huge, I am sure if such a proposal went to referendum in the UK it would be a YES big time, and we could diplomatically put that as part of the proposal to other countries, there own populus would then be asking i am sure strongly for the same right of choice by themselves and not Politicians with shares in the companies that make these vile things...

Now the current trident system, which is a follow on from Polaris is hugely expensive and needs to be replaced again soon,,, take a look the real cost never mind morally, or the dangers of a mistake and environmentally:

Now Trident Has Cost

The true cost of replacing and operating the Trident nuclear missile system would be at least £76bn, according to estimates revealed today. Based on official figures, they take into account the initial cost of acquiring new Trident missiles and replacing Britain's existing nuclear submarines, and the annual running costs of maintaining the system and nuclear warheads over its 30-year life. The figure is based on calculations made by the Liberal Democrats from parliamentary answers and is backed up by independent Commons researchers.

The Independant


Some estimates as we know the overspends are usually a lot more than any government figures has been put at £120 Billion!!!

To prepare to kill most of the world! Insane.

Now the Total cost of my proposal to srap what we have safely is only £1.25 Billion!!!
Source PDF

What the money Trident without the replacement could do for our Country is staggering, for example

We could provide an Entire NHS system like we have in the UK, a thing to be very proud of for another 70 Million people!

Thats free nusring, drugs, operations, The building of 150 magor specialist hospitals,, the hundreds of thousand of General Practioners on at least £100,000 a year wages (rather than having to spend 4-5 mins as they do now with each patiant) etc etc etc...
Basically Britain would not be going into any depression and we would have by far the best and leading free healthservice in the entire of the world, or even spend that on poor countries.

We could change instead from an average of 30-40 Children per class in school, to 10-15 children per teacher, with Textbooks and equipment to, and build an extra 2 major, new spankingly technological major schools an colleges per county, employing the builders and teachers etc etc,

Again no depression, poverty we would have no homeless people and no people trying to get drugs that arnt free here for their healthcare...

Anyhow, some years ago I saw an interesting documentary on the Falklands conflict. When The British navy was being decimated by the Exocet missiles from France the present prime minister Margaret thatcher after being briefed about the French sale of the Exocet Missiles to Argentina and third parties who were selling them on, and the fact that Britain would be unable to take the islands if another 3-4 major ships were hit, did the following.

She without warning ordered an immediate flight to Paris, jumped on the plane, and stormed into without any prior diplomatic contact the French Presidents Palace/home and demanded a Meeting with him there and then.

It was all hush hush and never originally released but on the documentary the sources were very good, interviews etc...

She demanded that he stop sales of all Exocets there and then world wide... he would not agree saying he would stop them to Argentina and allies...

She got very agitated apparently, stormed to the window of the room, (he had been asleep when arrived!) thought for a while, turned and walked back to him practically nose to nose and said along the lines of...

"I tell you now that I will turn Beunos Aries to glass, before Brittania will sail her ships home under force of your weapons, and we leave british people occupied on our territory"

Stared eyeball to eyeball till he blinked/looked away, then turned her back and walked out without saying another word.

The rest is history, Argentina only at that point had 4 Exocets left, and never procured any more from any source in the world.

We should be careful of Meglamaniacs with such dangerous weapon?

How close were we?

Elf





I saw a very interesting documentary on the Falklands Conflict

[edit on 29-11-2008 by MischeviousElf]