Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[minertone 10]

testing another theory on here because the comments can be so insightful,amusing and barbed. It concerns our Nuclear deterrent,for centuries now this country has succeeded in warfare and we became GREAT in the process. Suddenly emerging nations are getting stronger and becoming a real threat.

A preemptive strike by a rogue nation could reduce these Islands to a barren rock sticking out into the Atlantic Ocean. Our Allies would be shocked but would hesitate to retaliate (with our Trump card) because we wouldn't be a Nation under duress, no Dunkirk spirit or Vera Lynn to lift our spirits.

The upside is our problems would disappear, no NHS to worry about and after a while with no border control other countries could allow, even encourage, any one to travel to Great Britain to fulfil a lifelong dream to settle here.

So maybe Mr Corbyn and Nicola are right to call for getting rid of our defences,

What if we gave them to the E.U. in lieu of divorce settlement? no more maintainance costs and they could protect us for a change and we would no longer be a prime target for any one wishing to score points.Win Win.

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, that's exactly what has happened in the non-nuclear NATO countries.

 

Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. (The original founding members of NATO).

 

Of which 9 are just smoking nuclear wastelands I believe.

Clearly not having your own nukes pretty much guarantees that you will be nuked by a rogue nation (I guess we mean North Korea) and that NATO will just stand by and watch.

[Revel 10]

All of our nuclear weapons are controlled (more like "owned") by the USA anyway. We can't press the big red button without their permission.

Might as well scrap the whole thing.

[Cyclone 10]

All of our nuclear weapons are controlled (more like "owned") by the USA anyway. We can't press the big red button without their permission.

Might as well scrap the whole thing.

 

Evidence for this?

[Revel 10]

Evidence for this?

 

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

 

 

Our missiles are built, housed, and maintained at King’s Bay, Georgia. We are effectively leasing them. If UK-US relations became sour, the USA would cut off all support and we'd have spent £100BN on empty shells.

 

The White House itself says this:

 

“One way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea,” it says.

 

“The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS (as well as weather and gravitational data) at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.”

 

 

As for being "operationally independent", the White House paper continues:

 

“The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power,” the White Paper concludes.

 

Facade? So they're saying that we're only bluffing about being a nuclear power.

 

Continued:

 

“In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a prime minister would fire Trident without prior US approval… the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it,”as was the case in the invasion of Iraq.

 

They're basically saying "You can theoretically press FIRE without US approval, but we'd just switch your target system off if you tried it. But, you can fire without our approval if it's in our support."

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they've programmed the missiles in a way which gives them the power to deactivate them. Do you really think they would allow us to fire at their allies, or even them themselves, at our own free will? Remember they did have a plan to bomb us in WW2...

Edited April 30, 2017 by Revel

[I1L2T3 10]

Yes, that's exactly what has happened in the non-nuclear NATO countries.

 

Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. (The original founding members of NATO).

 

Of which 9 are just smoking nuclear wastelands I believe.

Clearly not having your own nukes pretty much guarantees that you will be nuked by a rogue nation (I guess we mean North Korea) and that NATO will just stand by and watch.

 

Many of those countries participate in nuclear sharing agreements, and have nuclear weaponry installed within their borders.

[Cyclone 10]

So not as you claimed them. They don't control our ability to launch the missiles.

 

Difficult to conceive of, is not the same as actually being restricted from doing so. It's equally difficult to conceive of any NATO power using nuclear missiles without consulting its allies.

 

Do you really think that we don't have the technical capability to understand our own strategic deterrent and that there might be 'hidden' programming allowing a 3rd party to deactivate it?

Interesting point about GPS. To deny access they have to turn off the entire system, civilian at least, and change the access codes to the military system. In a situation where we might be considering a nuclear exchange I expect that the civilian system would already be off.

 

Here's a much more detailed rebuttal to your points anyway

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

 

For example

 

The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary. They do not require GPS

 

A missile system that relied on GPS would be a foolish design. As if potential enemies don't have the capability to destroy satellites and/or jam/spoof GPS signals!

[Old_Bloke 10]

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

 

“The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS (as well as weather and gravitational data) at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.”

 

 

Which is a great argument, except for the basic fact that Trident missiles apparently don't use GPS.

 

"One common argument is that the US can simply ‘turn off’ the GPS system and therefore can stop the UK using Trident, this is also a myth, Trident isn’t guided by satellite.

 

The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary. They do not require GPS."

 

Edit: beaten to it. See post above.

[Cyclone 10]

Many of those countries participate in nuclear sharing agreements, and have nuclear weaponry installed within their borders.

 

And if we decided to scrap trident we could join such a scheme could we not? The OP doesn't postulate that the presence of nuclear weapons stops a country being nuked though, the postulation is that if we gave up our self controlled nuclear deterrent we would be nuked (down to being a barren rock in fact, which means it has to be China or Russia, not NK and it's faulty delivery system for a handful of small warheads).

[Revel 10]

So not as you claimed them. They don't control our ability to launch the missiles.

 

Difficult to conceive of, is not the same as actually being restricted from doing so. It's equally difficult to conceive of any NATO power using nuclear missiles without consulting its allies.

 

Do you really think that we don't have the technical capability to understand our own strategic deterrent and that there might be 'hidden' programming allowing a 3rd party to deactivate it?

Interesting point about GPS. To deny access they have to turn off the entire system, civilian at least, and change the access codes to the military system. In a situation where we might be considering a nuclear exchange I expect that the civilian system would already be off.

 

Here's a much more detailed rebuttal to your points anyway

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

 

For example

 

 

 

A missile system that relied on GPS would be a foolish design. As if potential enemies don't have the capability to destroy satellites and/or jam/spoof GPS signals!

 

It is exactly as I claimed. Theoretically, we don't need permission. Practically, we do. We can press FIRE, but it doesn't mean anything will happen. We don't even test our own weapons ourselves. The USA does it for us, in the USA. We have no idea if they'd work or not.

 

Also, I already read that link, and quite frankly don't believe a word of it. A Government-based journal is hardly independent...

I do, however, especially like one of the comments:

 

Q: "What can the great little Britain do if the Americans so decide not to return the stockpile housed in Georgia?"

A: "Hello, the United Kingdom would have to service and maintain the missiles in the UK in that scenario."

 

^ With what funding? With what R&D facility? With what holding facility? Laughable.

 

If you really believe the USA would just give us the freedom to fire their own weapons at them, you are very naive.

 

The UK has been America's b*tch since 1945.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Revel

[Cyclone 10]

Did you read the rebuttal, it's nothing like you claimed.

 

We can't press the big red button without their permission.

This is incorrect, untrue, not the case. I don't know how more wrong you could actually be.

[apelike 10]

Have to agree with Cyclone as our Nuclear deterrent is independent of the USA, and as Michael Fallon has recently pointed out it also cannot be ruled out that it could be used in a first strike scenario.