Reply to: Cost of Trident vs Brexit Divorce Bill

[shaunbhoy]

Youve become beyond sad

You mean almost halfway to attaining YOUR status?

[sasguru]

If I told you the answer to that then I'd have to kill you.

Youve become beyond sad

[centurian]

Everything I've read on that subject says that operational use of Trident is down to the UK.

WHS

Not least of which - the UK nukes can be launched without any communication being issued to the sub.

Vanguard class subs have handwritten letters from the PM locked in their safe - known as "letters of last resort" to be opened if the UK is wiped out.

USA subs need explicit codes to launch - those codes are transmitted to the sub. Main reason for the difference - is the US has a much larger and wider command and control network. It's much easier to wipe out the UK network in a first strike.

Back to the original point - the USA will retain medium term control over our deterrent - as we need the USA to keep them operational. But once the subs are put out on patrol....

[Bee]

But we don't know if the US has mechanisms in place to prevent independent use. If the UK launched a nuclear missile attack on the 10 largest US cities, does the US have the ability to exploit the easing arrangement of the missiles to prevent them from reaching their targets?

I think they have, it's a kind of anti-ballistic missiles.

[tomtomagain]

If I told you the answer to that then I'd have to kill you.

Tell her!

[tomtomagain]

The agreement to purchase Trident includes an agreement that the UK cannot use the weapon without permission from the USA. I have no doubt that this includes having to get a firing code from the USA prior to use. Probably via email, “click on this link to fire”

Everything I've read on that subject says that operational use of Trident is down to the UK.

The long-term supply chain is dependent on Lockheed Martin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triden...nd_and_control

The final decision on firing the missiles is the responsibility of the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Upon taking office, the prime minister writes four identical letters of last resort, each of which is locked in a safe on board the Vanguard submarines. If contact with the UK is lost, the commanding officer of a submarine has to follow the instructions in the letter if they believe that the United Kingdom has suffered an overwhelming attack. Options include retaliating with nuclear weapons, not retaliating, and putting the submarine under the command of an ally.[20] The exact content of the letters is never disclosed, and they are destroyed without being read upon the election of a new prime minister.

Under the terms of a missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently.[21]

Having said that .... you'd like to think that the PM would consult with a few people before launching nuclear armageddon.

[shaunbhoy]

If the UK launched a nuclear missile attack on the 10 largest US cities, does the US have the ability to exploit the easing arrangement of the missiles to prevent them from reaching their targets?

If I told you the answer to that then I'd have to kill you.

[northernladyuk]

Not really.

"In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. "

Just because something might be "difficult to conceive" does not mean it should be ruled out.
Brexit and Trump as President ought to have dispelled that idea.

HTH

But we don't know if the US has mechanisms in place to prevent independent use. If the UK launched a nuclear missile attack on the 10 largest US cities, does the US have the ability to exploit the easing arrangement of the missiles to prevent them from reaching their targets?

[WordIsBond]

Like this one

Exactly. I have an opinion, Greenpeace has an opinion, so do you. In this case my claim that Greenpeace is biased, for instance, will be evaluated not based on any authority anyone thinks I have but on whether it matches what they know.

Same for the claims in that Greenpeace report. It's an opinion that they sent to Parliament. It is in no way authoritative (so it can't really be cited as evidence of anything, except evidence of what Greenpeace thinks, for those who care what they think).

[shaunbhoy]

Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm

Not really.

"In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. "

Just because something might be "difficult to conceive" does not mean it should be ruled out.
Brexit and Trump as President ought to have dispelled that idea.

HTH

[darmstadt]

Just to be clear, even though this is on the Parliament website, it is not a report from Parliament itself. It is a statement prepared by Greenpeace and submitted to Parliament, and based on Greenpeace's speculations/interpretations of the UK's independence, rather than actual verifiable proven facts.

In other words, yes, it disagrees with the above, but it's just someone's opinion, and hardly an unbiased one on this topic. In other words, it has about as much credibility as an Internet forum posting.

Like this one

[WordIsBond]

Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm

Just to be clear, even though this is on the Parliament website, it is not a report from Parliament itself. It is a statement prepared by Greenpeace and submitted to Parliament, and based on Greenpeace's speculations/interpretations of the UK's independence, rather than actual verifiable proven facts.

In other words, yes, it disagrees with the above, but it's just someone's opinion, and hardly an unbiased one on this topic. In other words, it has about as much credibility as an Internet forum posting.

[WTFH]

Sorry, this disagrees with the above:
https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm

[northernladyuk]

Except that it doesn't.

HTH

You are quite right. However, it is not 100% clear that the UK does have full operational control of the missiles.

[Paddy]

Except that it doesn't.

HTH

The absorption of the UK into the US nuclear force was made explicit only this year[2010]. Stephen Johnson, the American admiral in charge of the US Trident programme, gave his annual progress report to Congress. Among his top accomplishments for "sustainment of our [ie the US] sea-based deterrent" was sending HMS Victorious to sea after a refit. He does not list the British Trident submarine separately. No, the British Trident submarine is simply listed with the American ones under the heading "Today's Force".

This document came to me from the Berlin researcher Otfried Nassauer. It did not come from Oxford, Cambridge or King's College. It is left to peace researchers such as John Ainslie to trawl US documents to prove the American widgets and software in "British" Trident, and Di McDonald and Peter Burt to monitor the bomb factory at Aldermaston, near Reading.

Dan Plesch: Let's clear away the Trident delusion | The Independent