Trident Replacement, are you Yes or No?

[theezenutz]

Not really any such thing as 'exotic energy' that's more Star Trek than Royal Navy.

Rail Guns are just electromagnets. Very powerful electromagnets but just magnets.
And that's the US navy, our guys can't afford to develop new fangled things like that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
 

The ambitious initiative was criticized for allegedly threatening to destabilize the MAD -approach and to possibly re-ignite "an offensive arms race".^[3] SDI was nicknamed, largely in the mainstream media, as "Star Wars", after the popular 1977 film by George Lucas. In 1987, the American Physical Society concluded that a global shield such as "Star Wars" was extremely ambitious and with existing technology not directly feasible for operational status, and that about ten more years of research was needed to learn about such a comprehensive and complex system to set up and make it fully operational.

 

However, the United States now holds a significant advantage in the field of comprehensive advanced missile defense systems through years of extensive research and testing.^[5][6] The U.S. and the U.K also have laser weapons, as well as 360 degree laser shields in development, which are expected to be ready for military use as early as 2020.^[7] Many of the obtained technological insights were transferred to subsequent programs and would find use in follow-up programs

 

I say exotic in the sense that they are not traditional weapons that we are accustom too.

Edited 19 July, 2016 by theezenutz

[Scribbler]

I thought BAE had been bought out by the Yanks but you're right, still a UK based multinational.

 

They have a semi autonomous US arm but I think its still a UK concern. Its one of the few things we do still excel at making things that kill people.

[theezenutz]

An interesting article although slightly off the point. http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-dismantles-the-myth-of-the-american-navys-invincibility/5531724

[theezenutz]

Back on track. http://www.globalresearch.ca/britains-nuclear-deterrent-isnt-independent-is-a-british-prime-minister-really-free-to-strike-any-target-in-this-world-with-nuclear-weapons/5536475

 

At least eight (and perhaps nine) states ­in the world now possess functional nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, manufacture and maintain their own nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, have complete control over the use of their systems. In other words, all of them, bar one, possess what can reasonably be described as an “independent” nuclear deterrent that doesn’t rely on another state to provide vital parts of it.

 

The exception is Britain. China has an “independent” nuclear deterrent. So has France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US – and perhaps North Korea. Britain hasn’t.

 

Unlike other states that have nuclear weapons systems, Britain is dependent on another state to manufacture an essential element of its only nuclear weapons system – the Trident missiles that are supposed to carry Britain’s weapons to target. These are manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the US.

 

And Britain’s dependence on the US doesn’t end with the purchase of the missiles – Britain depends on the US Navy to service the missiles as well.  A common pool of missiles is maintained at the US Strategic Weapons facility at Kings Bay, Georgia, USA, from which the US itself and Britain draw serviced missiles as required.

 

There is some doubt about the degree of “operational” independence that Britain enjoys in respect of its nuclear weapons system (of which more later). But there is no doubt that Britain is dependent on the US for the manufacture and maintenance of a key element of the system. So, to call it an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

 

Independent foreign policy?

 

The plain truth is that, if Britain doesn’t maintain friendly relations with the US, then it won’t have a functional nuclear weapons system, despite having spent billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on it – because the US would simply cease providing Britain with serviceable Trident missiles.

 

So, there is a strong incentive for Britain to follow the US in foreign policy, since independence from the US in foreign policy could lead to its nuclear weapons system becoming non-functional. Sustained opposition to the US in foreign policy certainly would. As long as Britain is tied to the US by a requirement for US-supplied and maintained missiles for its nuclear weapons system, it cannot have a wholly independent foreign policy.

 

In these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Britain would use its nuclear weapons system to strike a target without the approval of the US, whether or not it is theoretically possible for Britain to do so. So, it is absurd to describe it as an “independent” nuclear deterrent.

T

he above applies to the UK’s current nuclear weapons system. But it applies equally to the proposed replacement. To ask the British taxpayer to fork out upwards of £200 bn in the pretence that the UK will continue to possess an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

 

Surprisingly, the December 2006 White Paper conceded that our US-dependent nuclear deterrent will become non-functional if relations sour with the US.  Paragraph 4-7 puts it this way:

 

“We continue to believe that the costs of developing a nuclear deterrent relying solely on UK sources outweigh the benefits. We do not see a good case for making what would be a substantial additional investment in our nuclear deterrent purely to insure against a, highly unlikely, deep and enduring breakdown in relations with the US. We therefore believe that it makes sense to continue to procure elements of the system from the US.”

Edited 19 July, 2016 by theezenutz

[Ootohere]

Lots of weapons sold, lots of jobs and businesses in the business of war.

The UK gets a Defence Minister like Michael Fallon MP and an assortment of very senior Military that are very very far from up 

on a Digital era.

Just remember your lives are in their hands and the negotiation powers of Boris Jognson MP, David Davis and Dr Liam Fox mp.

Overseen by Theresa May MP religious and ready to kill hundreds of thousands.  Safe then.

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/heres-how-world-war-three-could-start-tomorrow

 

'We are not all doomed', but your Grandchildren might be.

Edited 19 July, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[theezenutz]

John Pilger: Washington prepares for World War III - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0JYdD4RlcE

[gadgetman]

Back on track. http://www.globalresearch.ca/britains-nuclear-deterrent-isnt-independent-is-a-british-prime-minister-really-free-to-strike-any-target-in-this-world-with-nuclear-weapons/5536475

At least eight (and perhaps nine) states ­in the world now possess functional nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, manufacture and maintain their own nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, have complete control over the use of their systems. In other words, all of them, bar one, possess what can reasonably be described as an “independent” nuclear deterrent that doesn’t rely on another state to provide vital parts of it.

The exception is Britain. China has an “independent” nuclear deterrent. So has France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US – and perhaps North Korea. Britain hasn’t.

Unlike other states that have nuclear weapons systems, Britain is dependent on another state to manufacture an essential element of its only nuclear weapons system – the Trident missiles that are supposed to carry Britain’s weapons to target. These are manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the US.

And Britain’s dependence on the US doesn’t end with the purchase of the missiles – Britain depends on the US Navy to service the missiles as well. A common pool of missiles is maintained at the US Strategic Weapons facility at Kings Bay, Georgia, USA, from which the US itself and Britain draw serviced missiles as required.

There is some doubt about the degree of “operational” independence that Britain enjoys in respect of its nuclear weapons system (of which more later). But there is no doubt that Britain is dependent on the US for the manufacture and maintenance of a key element of the system. So, to call it an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

Independent foreign policy?

The plain truth is that, if Britain doesn’t maintain friendly relations with the US, then it won’t have a functional nuclear weapons system, despite having spent billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on it – because the US would simply cease providing Britain with serviceable Trident missiles.

So, there is a strong incentive for Britain to follow the US in foreign policy, since independence from the US in foreign policy could lead to its nuclear weapons system becoming non-functional. Sustained opposition to the US in foreign policy certainly would. As long as Britain is tied to the US by a requirement for US-supplied and maintained missiles for its nuclear weapons system, it cannot have a wholly independent foreign policy.

In these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Britain would use its nuclear weapons system to strike a target without the approval of the US, whether or not it is theoretically possible for Britain to do so. So, it is absurd to describe it as an “independent” nuclear deterrent.

T

he above applies to the UK’s current nuclear weapons system. But it applies equally to the proposed replacement. To ask the British taxpayer to fork out upwards of £200 bn in the pretence that the UK will continue to possess an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

Surprisingly, the December 2006 White Paper conceded that our US-dependent nuclear deterrent will become non-functional if relations sour with the US. Paragraph 4-7 puts it this way:

“We continue to believe that the costs of developing a nuclear deterrent relying solely on UK sources outweigh the benefits. We do not see a good case for making what would be a substantial additional investment in our nuclear deterrent purely to insure against a, highly unlikely, deep and enduring breakdown in relations with the US. We therefore believe that it makes sense to continue to procure elements of the system from the US.”

We can launch our own nukes if the need arose.

Not sure how you think otherwise.

[theezenutz]

We can launch our own nukes if the need arose.

Not sure how you think otherwise.

I'm reading lots of stuff that challenges that perception.

[Scribbler]

I'm reading lots of stuff that challenges that perception.

 

Same argument Our Army use the SA80 Riffle which is made by us therefore independent the ammo is Nato rounds but they are crap at distance so the suggestion is we use 7.62 rounds made by others. If our soldiers are using ammunition made by say Belgium does that mean we have to ask them every time we shoot a Taliban? Your reasoning is nonsensical. As long as we can trust the partnership it doesn't really matter where the nukes are made / serviced. Its more cost effective this way to full service our own requirements would cost more and hopefully we never need to use them anyway.

[Ootohere]

The UK Refurbished Nimrods and scrapped them, bought Helicopters & Refurbished ones and the US never supplied the IT.

 

The US will control the satellites and everything else.

Rather different from Ammunition for rifles. 

 

Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump could have 10 years of being total muppets and they will be the string pullers of the UK which is a puppet.

[gadgetman]

The UK Refurbished Nimrods and scrapped them, bought Helicopters & Refurbished ones and the US never supplied the IT.

The US will control the satellites and everything else.

Rather different from Ammunition for rifles.

Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump could have 10 years of being total muppets and they will be the string pullers of the UK which is a puppet.

If you're referring to the Apaches, we bought the hardware then tried to use our own software designed by BAE which didn't go well if memory serves.

Now we simply by them straight from the US, untouched by BAE. What a surprise that they work as they should.

[Ootohere]

No the Chinooks 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7434763.stm

 

Does your memory serve better than your chosen search engines.

That is the issue, IT down, no flights up type thing.

Edited 19 July, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[tweenster]

Same argument Our Army use the SA80 Riffle which is made by us therefore independent the ammo is Nato rounds but they are crap at distance so the suggestion is we use 7.62 rounds made by others. If our soldiers are using ammunition made by say Belgium does that mean we have to ask them every time we shoot a Taliban? Your reasoning is nonsensical. As long as we can trust the partnership it doesn't really matter where the nukes are made / serviced. Its more cost effective this way to full service our own requirements would cost more and hopefully we never need to use them anyway.

 

****ing hell we really are in trouble if we are trying to use 7.62mm rounds in the SA80 (or its more up-to-date derivative).

[Scribbler]

kitten hell we really are in trouble if we are trying to use 7.62mm rounds in the SA80 (or its more up-to-date derivative).

 

Just an analogy to say that the source of the weapons that kill people doesn't affect the person pulling the trigger.

[Aspman]

Same argument Our Army use the SA80 Riffle which is made by us therefore independent the ammo is Nato rounds but they are crap at distance so the suggestion is we use 7.62 rounds made by others. If our soldiers are using ammunition made by say Belgium does that mean we have to ask them every time we shoot a Taliban? Your reasoning is nonsensical. As long as we can trust the partnership it doesn't really matter where the nukes are made / serviced. Its more cost effective this way to full service our own requirements would cost more and hopefully we never need to use them anyway.

 

SA80 is a close combat weapon not for ranged engagement. It's still pretty good up to 300m but past that the lighter rounds get affected by the wind more.

The 5.56mm is a lighter round which means soldiers can carry more of them for the same weight. Also it's compatible with the rest of NATO so we can share ammunition if required.

 

Long range stuff uses more specialist larger calibre ammunition (8.59mm) and I'd guess we have some of the Yank and Israeli built .50 anti-material rifles.

 

SA80 was a PoS to start with but it's been refined over the years and isn't a bad bit of kit now. Much like the venerable Yank M16. It was crap to start with too.

 

US and UK defence and intelligence forces are very intertwined. Whatever the rhetoric the USA building and handing over nuclear weapons to us demonstrates a lot of trust and cooperation.

Edited 20 July, 2016 by Aspman

[BigW]

The UK Refurbished Nimrods and scrapped them, bought Helicopters & Refurbished ones and the US never supplied the IT.

 

The US will control the satellites and everything else.

Rather different from Ammunition for rifles. 

 

Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump could have 10 years of being total muppets and they will be the string pullers of the UK which is a puppet.

What have satellites got to do with it?

[Ootohere]

What have satellites not to do with it.?

Who controls communications controls the wars. 

That is what the International Space station and much else is all about.   Presently China & Russia are winning that battle of the skies 

and the oceans.

[BigW]

What have satellites not to do with it.?

Who controls communications controls the wars. 

That is what the International Space station and much else is all about.   Presently China & Russia are winning that battle of the skies 

and the oceans.

In relation to trident?

[Ootohere]

Trident thread,  Trident as a deterrent to nutters in other countries doing something is redundant.

my post was in relations to the rifles bit posted by someone.  in Post #59.

Read as it was written.

Modern Warfare still has people fighting and dying with weapons like those built in Fife and killing the innocent in Yemen, 

but the final war will not be the UK's decision to wipe out anyone. 

 

Trident replacement likely never to go ahead as a replacement anyway, 

sorry for those that will need to get jobs building something other than weapons of mass destruction. tough titty.

http://theferret.scot/trident-doubt-government-watchdog

Edited 14 August, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[BigW]

I'm sure those that rely on it will be more than fine, the problem is the ignorance and misinformation of the masses, and I mean ignorance in the nice sense of the word.

And it's not to be unexpected as the obvious sensitivities of the system and its related bits are shrouded in national security; But people seem to confuse what they see on cybernat and anti trident memes made by some driven but ignorant individual and regurgitate those as fact......tell a lie often enough and all that jazz.

[Ootohere]

Those that rely on what.

Nuclear Weapons to give employment to those in the Industry.

 

You will not know if they will fire blanks until you fire them, and by that time anyway those workers families are gone, toast or their lives are not worth living.

 

Build up the UK not the USA's Nuclear Weapon Industries coffers, and support the US in robbing other countries as the UK did for centuries.

Or maybe let the Defence workers in the UK do real jobs building useful stuff.

Let those in the Clyde Area find something else to keep communities going.

There will be decades and billions needed anyway to clear up the damage their from the past decades.

Edited 14 August, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[BigW]

We would know, and I know that for certain, and the USA do not supply us with a nuclear weapon.

[Ootohere]

?

Do they not, and where do they come from, and where do they go back to?

Hardly a National Secret now is it?

 

You must know then that the Royal Navy have issues even keeping Nuclear Powered Submarines operating and stop running aground and hitting things.

They are a bit like VW, keeping stuff in and out of the compartments and navigation not a strong point.

Then there are those troublesome unions.

[BigW]

?

Do they not, and where do they come from, and where do they go back to?

Hardly a National Secret now is it?

 

You must know then that the Royal Navy have issues even keeping Nuclear Powered Submarines operating and stop running aground and hitting things.

They are a bit like VW, keeping stuff in and out of the compartments and navigation not a strong point.

Then there are those troublesome unions.

The US Don't supply us with nuclear weapons, therin lies the perfect example of misinformation. We keep Her Majesties territories safe through the use of UK Nuclear Weapons.

[Ootohere]

Do they not come in from Georgia and go back there for maintenance. 

Ah well it is all a myth.

 

Her Majesties Territories?  Do you mean the Commonweath Countries and other dependencies and the NATO Alliance countries 

and then the US Interests etc.

 

Let the United States of America pay fully for Trident then, and pay a bit more rental for the Commonwealth Land used for their bases.