HMS Apocalypse : The British nuclear deterrent

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

"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"

I'd love a source on that. My old man was in the RN during the Falklands War, he was serving on HMS Hermes but was taken off the day before it sailed & sent up to Scotland to see if HMS Bulwark could be quickly worked up as a third carrier (she couldn't - she wasn't called the Rusty B for nothing). I remember, jokingly, saying to him we could always nuke the Argies and he gave me most stern look back, as was his wont. Nuking Argentina was never on the agenda, mate. Never. Even if Thatcher had gone a bit fruity loopy the Navy would simply have refused to do it.

The Brits did use their financial expertise & sent operatives out with a blank cheque to buy up any exocets on the market & they were seemingly helped enormously by the French. That, I think, was about as far as it went. President Mitterand did embargo weapons sales to Argentina, as far as I remember, he didn't need the threat of Argentinian cities burning to do it though.

I've got my own doubts about replacing Trident. I dunno if the US has made any formal decision about replacing their Trident system, frankly all Britain does is supply its own warheads on top of the missile & there's every chance the spec for the warhead is American anyway. I think simply being nuclear is sufficient deterrent, for Britain at least. The method of delivery is less important.

If Britain has been destroyed by nuclear weapons it matters not whether Moscow gets glassed in 15 minutes or 15 days ... the fact we have the capability to glass them at all should be sufficient to put off any likely aggressor. I'm sure the UK could conjure up a less expensive alternative to the Trident replacement & one which maintains its deterrent value.

[edit on 29/11/08 by Niall197]

reply to post by Niall197


Ok well search for documentaries on the Exocet affair and the Falklands war, Maybe secret's of the war, or the inside unknown sort of title, it was on one of the following cant remember which,

BBC1
BBC2
ITV/HTV
CH4
Maybe the History Channel in the UK when they have the Falklands war bit's, but it was totally dedicated to this Exocet thing, a good 45 mins.

I saw it years ago, was very very well made, had interviews with people within the American Military/Intelligence too and there take on it.

It also mentioned in detail how before that happened MI5 and MI6 etc were setting up False Purchasers all over the world, using real pressure on other Governments making their Intelligence Service's doing the as above, which is,

On the Black Market and back channel's of Arms dealing offering huge amounts of Money above the norm for these weapon's, and leading the seller's down garden path's and in some cases purchasing I think 2 of them to get them of the market....

I saw it, I believe the Docu it was real investigative Journalism, and no disrespect I believe it over what you post above, why would you have been in the Know? these things are secret at the time, ...and the docu was about late 90's a good 15 years later than the event...


And like you say it was part of the intelligence operatives,,,, Apoligies read first paragraph and replied, sorry....

You are very right Trident replacement is ridiculous what many don't know is that we have to ASK THE USA to use the new version and is not a total UK choice!!!!

All that money for Washington to say if we blow the world up or not!!

Kind regards

Elf

[edit on 29-11-2008 by MischeviousElf] For being tired lol time to log out, Valued Members like yourself deserve better respect from myself I.e reading the whole post first...,Doh

[edit on 29-11-2008 by MischeviousElf]

Most of the UK politicians (and residents) don't have the stomach for a fight, especially one of this magnitude, it is after all a largely neutered nation.

The British nuclear deterrent is therefore an irrelevancy.

I don't believe they would launch under any circumstances, they should save themselves some money and go non-nuclear. I doubt anyone takes them seriously.

Originally posted by Niall197
I dunno if the US has made any formal decision about replacing their Trident system, frankly all Britain does is supply its own warheads on top of the missile & there's every chance the spec for the warhead is American anyway.

No, the warheads are most definately British in design. We had our own nuclear programme since WW2 and have done dozens of our own tests. We have facilities not far from were I live that design and maintain the warheads.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
You are very right Trident replacement is ridiculous what many don't know is that we have to ASK THE USA to use the new version and is not a total UK choice!!!!

All that money for Washington to say if we blow the world up or not!!

Kind regards

Elf

I really don't know where people get this from. We don't need American permission to launch our nukes.

All the Yanks do is load the warheads onto the missiles, after we've transported them over there and then onto the boats themselves in Virginia. This is done as part of the support contract for Trident, but they have no operational control over the missiles.

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

Interesting you said 'made'. Do you know something you should share with us? I think possibly WWIII could be referred to as 'the coalition go regional conflicts'. Either way, I'm happy to be on the side who's waving the big delivery platform! Go Vanguard

reply to post by Now_Then


Hehe, I probably know alot I "should" (read: that ATS guys would love) share with you guys, but I value my job and freedom ..

I was just stating the obvious though. Without the threat of nuclear annihalation, Stalin and chums would have been much keener on rolling across Europe with their Armoured Divisions. For the most part of the Cold War, the West had the advantage in technology, nuclear power and intelligence. Without the nukes, the Soviet conventional numerical superiority would have been too much to handle.

Faslane naval base on the east coast of Scotland

Wrong.

Once the boat has left base, it is up to the captain alone to decide where to patrol

Wrong

which drips from her glistening grey casement.

Wrong

unable to communicate with anyone outside the submarine.

Wrong

approximately 160 people who are allowed no communication at all with their families

Wrong

For the duration of its long patrol, HMS Vanguard will transmit no communication of any kind. To do so would be to give away its position.

Wrong

to deploy their 16 Trident missiles

Wrong. Trust me. Wrong

And all from that from just skipping through the article. What a load of complete BS from a journalist who either forgot his notebook after the visit or is just plain stupid.

reply to post by vonspurter


If it's so wrong (most of it seems right, especially about the Naval base and the cdescription of the boat!), why not elaborate. Otherwise you just look like a troll.

reply to post by stumason


Especially about the Naval base? Having spent several years in Faslane I should know it's on the West coast of Scotland.

All crew are entitled to receive a message from family of up to 50 words per week - a 'familygram'.

V class SSBN's are black - not grey.

The NO has a say in how they go to where is a pre-defined patrol area prior to sailing.

Vanguard has the ability to carry 16 missiles.

None of the above is secret in any way or form. The journalist is clueless.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by vonspurter]

Originally posted by vonspurter
Especially about the Naval base? Having spent several years in Faslane I should know it's on the West coast of Scotland.

East, West..it's all windy and rainy Scotland. I just looked at Faslane to be honest, not it's geographic location.

Originally posted by vonspurter
All crew are entitled to receive a message from family of up to 50 words per week - a 'familygram'.

Someone didn't read, did they? Recieving a message is one thing, but they cannot communicate back, can they? That is what the article said.

Originally posted by vonspurter
V class SSBN's are black - not grey.

Hmm, that's debateable. I personally think it is a very dark shade of grey, not black. But it's hardly worth arguing over.

Originally posted by vonspurter
The NO has a say in how they go to where is a pre-defined patrol area prior to sailing.

Of course the Navigation Officer would "have a say", but he doesn't make the final decision does he. where the boat goes is ultimately up to the Captain. I get the impression you're just being facetious.

Originally posted by vonspurter
Vanguard has the ability to carry 16 missiles.

And they do. After the strategic defnece review in 1999, each vanguard will carry 16 missiles with 3 warheads each, making a total of 48 warheads per sub.

Originally posted by vonspurter
None of the above is secret in any way or form. The journalist is clueless.

Seems to me you're just picking apart non-points in the article to try and come across as some sort of expert to be revered. As it stands, you have just demonstrated that you are pedantic beyond belief and not really contributing anything.

reply to post by stumason


The article states that the crew are allowed no communication with families. I pointed out that was wrong - I can read and did read the article.

Your experience of this subject matter seems to be based on Googling for the information and I base that on your reply to the location of the base and the boats (ability) to carry 16 missiles. My experience however was gained on sailing on Vanguard, Repulse and Revenge so whilst I do not claim to be an expert, I do know what I'm talking about and decided to impart this knowledge to demonstrate that the article has several glaring errors.

I did not create the post to engage in a slagging match. You posted earlier that you are party to much knowledge that ATS users would love to know but you value your job so won't reveal anything? Sorry for shooting you down in flames my friend but if you decide to engage in a discussion and openly declare you're an expert in the subject matter then you should base your information on more than that gained via a search engine.

reply to post by vonspurter


I never said I was an expert on Submarines, did I? Assumption is the mother of all fudge ups, friend. Telecoms is my game....

Yes, alot of what I have learnt is from the internet, but having a dozen or so family members either serving or have served has given me a good insight into the Forces.

As for your insistance that receiving a message every 50 days amounts to "communication", I would disagree. No message can be sent back, so from the families POV it isn't that great and I doubt the Submariners see it as great either.

But as I said, this quibbling is over pointless details in an otherwise interesting article. It seems as if you only chimed in with your pedantic remarks about pointless subject matter so you could say "I served on a Sub, look at me!".

[edit on 30/11/08 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


There are several past and present serving submariners on ATS and I engage in discussions with them on a regular basis. I have no need to boost my ego by telling everyone what I did. Nor do I tease the forum with my assumed but never to be revealed knowledge.

The points I made were errors in the article. You said it was an interesting article but it is mostly a work of fiction and as ATS users demand to know the truth then that's when a user who has experience in that area should chime in - which is what I did.

And for goodness sake - crew members don't care about receiving a message from home? Really? Try spending 15 weeks on a bomber mate and tell me its not important!

For SSBN's never transmitting - again stop using google and ask someone who's served on one.

Originally posted by vonspurter
There are several past and present serving submariners on ATS and I engage in discussions with them on a regular basis. I have no need to boost my ego by telling everyone what I did. Nor do I tease the forum with my assumed but never to be revealed knowledge.

Yeah you do. Had I not challenged you, you would have happily let your "wrong, wrong, wrong" statement stand without explanation, excpet for a "trust me" at the end. I wasn't teasting anyone with my "assumed knowledge" either. I signed the OSA when I took up my position, end of.

Originally posted by vonspurter
The points I made were errors in the article. You said it was an interesting article but it is mostly a work of fiction and as ATS users demand to know the truth then that's when a user who has experience in that area should chime in - which is what I did.

Then you should have elaborated instead of just saying "wrong, wrong, wrong". It makes you look like arrogant. As it stands, the only thing you have actually queried is the colour of the hull, crew/family comms and the exact geographical location of Faslane. Hardly important points in the article, hey?

Originally posted by vonspurter
And for goodness sake - crew members don't care about receiving a message from home? Really? Try spending 15 weeks on a bomber mate and tell me its not important!

Where did I say they didn't care? I didn't, did I? I said that just being able to receive comms without having the chance to reply isn't that great.

Originally posted by vonspurter
For SSBN's never transmitting - again stop using google and ask someone who's served on one.

Again, that's not what I said. You like to put words in peoples mouths, don't you?

reply to post by stumason


You're absolutely right. I bow to your superior knowledge. I will leave you this thread to impart your immense experience and wow others with your super secret past.

I'm off now to visit Buckingham Palace in Iceland - in your own words, it's exact geographical location doesn't matter does it?

reply to post by vonspurter


Another fine example of your facetious nature.

You might find people more open to you if you didn't come across as arrogant and uninterested in sensible debate.

You tried putting words in my mouth (and still are) to make your position seem better. I am not querying your knowledge, per se, just the points you raised, which in all honesty where not worth quibbling about.

I have reluctantly come to thee view that we are probably better off with a deterrant than without. But do we need a 'strategic' weapon like Trident? It is not only hugely expensive it is also incredibly powerful when placed against the threats we are likely to face. Would a larger fleet of Astutes, armed with Nuclear cruise missiles be more appropriate?

[edit on 07/21/06 by Fang]

As much as I am against nuclear weapons........................we build the subs here in Cumbria, Barrow to be more precise, LONG LIVE CUMBRIA!!. lol, sorry.

On another note, I can't see Britain ever been taken down, throughout history we have fought off invasion after invasion, Hitler couldn't even break us, despite taking most of Europe.

A few submarines wont save us, good old British ingenuity and will shall be our saviour, one small island with the biggest hearts, the greatest humour and the smartest / hardest people. (Before everyone slams this, America is the same, the humours not quite there, you dont quite understand irony, but you are with us, you were us)

[edit on 30/11/08 by woogleuk]

If it was up to me we would have an air based and land based nuclear deterrent as well as the subs. And to say they'll never be used is a bit off don't you think? As soon as one country uses them then its fair game for the rest of us

Originally posted by Jkd Up
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?

The USN has specialized aircraft called the E-6 Tacamo (Take charge and move out) which is / was the basic navy version and has also taken over the role from the fameous EC-135C looking glass aircraft.

Its primary mission is to receive, verify and retransmit Emergency Action Messages (EAMs) to US strategic forces. It does this by maintaining the ability to communicate on virtually every radio frequency band from VLF up through SHF, using a variety of modulations, encryptions and networks. This airborne communications capability largely replaced the land based ELF broadcast sites that became vulnerable to nuclear strike.
en.wikipedia.org...

Im assuming that the Uk has a similar system. The US craft which used to airborn 24/7 are now on alert status at ground bases

[edit on 11/30/08 by FredT]