Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[Obelix 11]

We have established no such thing.

 

What part of " The US has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval " didn't you understand?

 

If an equally efficient form of navigation and targeting was available to switch over to then that would be fine but it isn't so the point is valid.

 

Military GPS and civilian GPS are separate systems and both are under control of the US, they have the ability to block specific geographic areas if they wish, so providing they know where our submarine is ( we only have one at sea at any given time ) they can block it without undue inconvenience to anyone else.

 

Not that inconveniencing anyone would get much consideration in a live fire nuclear situation.

 

Our deterrent isn't independent, we can't afford an independent one, and I would argue we can't afford the non independent one we've got.

 

So yes, I am disputing it.

 

You do realise that the GPS is only used at launch time? After that it flies using a star sighter system and doesn't care about GPS.

 

The need for GPS is only if you wish to use it as a first strike silo buster for which you do need good accuracy (CEP less than 100m) and in such a situation GPS wont get turned off till after launch...

 

Gps also doesn't work underwater- so the subs have for a long time had an accurate intertial nav system based on ring lasers which is more than accurate enough to within a few hundred meters which means that city killing is easy and doesn't need GPS full stop. Or you could surface take a star sight and get your position the old fashioned way with only a small amount of effort too...

[Carlinate 10]

You do realise that the GPS is only used at launch time? After that it flies using a star sighter system and doesn't care about GPS.

 

The need for GPS is only if you wish to use it as a first strike silo buster for which you do need good accuracy (CEP less than 100m) and in such a situation GPS wont get turned off till after launch...

 

Gps also doesn't work underwater- so the subs have for a long time had an accurate intertial nav system based on ring lasers which is more than accurate enough to within a few hundred meters which means that city killing is easy and doesn't need GPS full stop. Or you could surface take a star sight and get your position the old fashioned way with only a small amount of effort too...

 

The discussion is about whether or not the UK nuclear defence system is independent, not partly independent, fully independent, it isn't.

 

Not only do we rely on the US for navigational purposes we rent the missiles off them and all testing is carried out under US supervision.

 

The US electronic surveillance of both enemies and allies is all pervasive, it isn't that long ago they were discovered bugging Angela Merkels mobile phone.

 

The idea that they have total access to a weapon that if misused could bring about the end of the world and haven't installed safety overrides which ensure that they are in control is too naive to contemplate.

 

We have four nuclear subs, we test their Trident systems by rota once every four years, which means that it's sixteen years between the test of each subs strike capacity.

 

The last test we carried out in June last year was from a sub off the US coast with the intention of it splashing down off the coast of African.

 

Instead of which it headed toward the coast of Florida ( possibly hacked by the Russians ) , do you honestly think that the Big Boy lets his snotty nosed, raggedy arsed adoring little pal play with the dangerous toys without supervision?

 

Why do you think that the French have payed out billions more for their deterrent?

 

France is Americas oldest ally, it could have done the same deal as us but it wanted an Independent deterrent, its got one we haven't.

[jaffa1 10]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Many years ago our Sheffield Labour council made Sheffield a nuclear free zone so we're alright then.

[Obelix 11]

The discussion is about whether or not the UK nuclear defence system is independent, not partly independent, fully independent, it isn't.

 

Not only do we rely on the US for navigational purposes we rent the missiles off them and all testing is carried out under US supervision.

 

The US electronic surveillance of both enemies and allies is all pervasive, it isn't that long ago they were discovered bugging Angela Merkels mobile phone.

 

The idea that they have total access to a weapon that if misused could bring about the end of the world and haven't installed safety overrides which ensure that they are in control is too naive to contemplate.

 

We have four nuclear subs, we test their Trident systems by rota once every four years, which means that it's sixteen years between the test of each subs strike capacity.

 

The last test we carried out in June last year was from a sub off the US coast with the intention of it splashing down off the coast of African.

 

Instead of which it headed toward the coast of Florida ( possibly hacked by the Russians ) , do you honestly think that the Big Boy lets his snotty nosed, raggedy arsed adoring little pal play with the dangerous toys without supervision?

 

Why do you think that the French have payed out billions more for their deterrent?

 

France is Americas oldest ally, it could have done the same deal as us but it wanted an Independent deterrent, its got one we haven't.

 

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

 

I think that covers it.

[sgtkate 10]

In the 2015 general election, over 75% of the votes were for parties that supported Trident. If that isn't a majority, I don't know what it.

 

In the 2015 election over 90% of the population supported parties that were not anti-EU. Funny that.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 16:27 ----------

 

"AWE plc, responsible for the day-to-day operations of AWE, is owned by a consortium of Jacobs Engineering Group, Lockheed Martin UK and Serco through AWE Management Ltd, which holds a 25‑year contract (until March 2025) to operate AWE. All the sites are owned by the Government of the United Kingdom which has a golden share in AWE plc.[1]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishment

 

Jacobs Engineering Group = American

Lockheed Martin = American

 

Oh how very independent and British.

What you're saying is like sticking an Apple factory in the UK and saying iPhones are British.

 

If we're so independent, who's going to manufacture our weapons if the USA pulls support? Serco is a security/transport company, they don't engineer weapons.

 

The fact of the matter is: our weapons are made by Americans, maintained by Americans, tested by Americans, and controlled by Americans. I've proved every single point.

 

But you haven't. You stated that we couldn't fire our nukes without American say so. This is patently untrue. You stated our nukes were stored in the US. This is also untrue. All you are doing is changing your argument because you refuse to just admit you were wrong. The US can pull our support of the weapons, they can refuse to maintain them, but they cannot stop us firing the ones we have stored in the UK or fitted into Trident. And you could easily say that if the US refuse to give us our nukes back we'd target them with the nukes we do have making Trident indeed an effective deterrent.

 

I'm not pro-Trident at all. I think the costs associated with it could be better spent elsewhere on other things and have a missile defence system instead, however I can't deny that Trident is an effective defence tool albeit ignoring costs.

[Carlinate 10]

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

 

I think that covers it.

 

Have to admit that's a very succinct, incisive and comprehensive rebuttal of my viewpoint.

 

It's also a clear indication that you haven't a clue, which is a shame.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9nLuZwtHTAhUKOsAKHRRbDeIQFgg2MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fso-admiral-what-have-you-got-to-say-about-the-nuclear-submarine-crash-1623787.html&usg=AFQjCNGY9EX4FjKpdokN7dKm25YJFdnlVw

 

Read the fifth paragraph down.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9nLuZwtHTAhUKOsAKHRRbDeIQFggwMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fvoices%2Fdonald-trump-trident-theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-special-relationship-russia-a7541541.html&usg=AFQjCNFd3oNuVJepHgkP8kC1E3p2xvrxhA

 

Read the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

 

Simple question, could the UK launch a nuclear missile strike against the express wishes of the USA and then expect to continue to receive support from the US to maintain its deterrent?

 

Because if we don't have that support we don't have a nuclear deterrent.

 

So if the answer is no then we don't have an independent system.

 

And the answer as you well know, is no.

[sgtkate 10]

Have to admit that's a very succinct, incisive and comprehensive rebuttal of my viewpoint.

 

It's also a clear indication that you haven't a clue, which is a shame.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9nLuZwtHTAhUKOsAKHRRbDeIQFgg2MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fso-admiral-what-have-you-got-to-say-about-the-nuclear-submarine-crash-1623787.html&usg=AFQjCNGY9EX4FjKpdokN7dKm25YJFdnlVw

 

Read the fifth paragraph down.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9nLuZwtHTAhUKOsAKHRRbDeIQFggwMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fvoices%2Fdonald-trump-trident-theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-special-relationship-russia-a7541541.html&usg=AFQjCNFd3oNuVJepHgkP8kC1E3p2xvrxhA

 

Read the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

 

Simple question, could the UK launch a nuclear missile strike against the express wishes of the USA and then expect to continue to receive support from the US to maintain its deterrent?

 

Because if we don't have that support we don't have a nuclear deterrent.

 

So if the answer is no then we don't have an independent system.

 

And the answer as you well know, is no.

 

But that is a different argument to what was originally posted that we couldn't launch without US say-so. We clearly can, but the consequences would be very real. If we ever get to a situation in the near future were we believe our ambitions and those of the US are so far apart that we'd want to fire a nuke without their blessing then I'd hope to God we'd already sorted this problem out well in advance. Seems highly unlikely we'd wake up tomorrow and think, hey let's nuke Canada, that would be a long time in the making and we'd have ample opportunity to fix things before we got there. Or of course, we'd carry on being Americas lap dogs like we are now, and will be even more so after Brexit when we have few EU allies...

 

Funny isn't it how so many people who hate the EU bang on constantly about independence and authority and governance, yet don't seem to bothered about just how much sovereignty we give up to US companies like Lockheed Martin. It's not just nukes, it's our entire fighter jet program, all owned, maintained and run by LM, even staff working on jets works for LM and not the UK government, staff are even trained in the US to support the jets. So effectively America has some seriously large fingers in our military pie, the one thing I'd say offers us sovereignty and security as in independent nation and yet we are reliant on an increasingly unstable and militant country to support and run it all. Bravo.

[Cyclone 10]

We have established no such thing.

 

What part of " The US has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval " didn't you understand?

Which part of "It doesn't require GPS to launch or be targetted" didn't you understand?

 

If an equally efficient form of navigation and targeting was available to switch over to then that would be fine but it isn't so the point is valid.

The point is valid because other, less accurate targeting systems are available. Thus the weapon can still be used.

 

Military GPS and civilian GPS are separate systems and both are under control of the US, they have the ability to block specific geographic areas if they wish, so providing they know where our submarine is ( we only have one at sea at any given time ) they can block it without undue inconvenience to anyone else.

I didn't claim that they weren't separate, but geographical blocking... Well, perhaps if they take out about 1/4 to 1/3 rd of the entire world, yes, selective blocking.

They of course, don't know where our at sea deterrent is, unless we tell them, it's secrecy being absolutely key to it's operation.

 

Not that inconveniencing anyone would get much consideration in a live fire nuclear situation.

 

Our deterrent isn't independent, we can't afford an independent one, and I would argue we can't afford the non independent one we've got.

 

So yes, I am disputing it.

I don't understand on what grounds. Apart from a pointless argument about a targeting system that isn't required and a navigation system for subs that can't be remotely disabled you've offered no support of your point.

From what I can tell you're claiming that without the pinpoint of accuracy of GPS, a weapon with a destructive radius measured in miles cannot be used, this is simply not true, as you must surely know.

[Blackbeard 10]

"AWE plc, responsible for the day-to-day operations of AWE, is owned by a consortium of Jacobs Engineering Group, Lockheed Martin UK and Serco through AWE Management Ltd, which holds a 25‑year contract (until March 2025) to operate AWE. All the sites are owned by the Government of the United Kingdom which has a golden share in AWE plc.[1]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishment

 

Jacobs Engineering Group = American

Lockheed Martin = American

 

Oh how very independent and British.

What you're saying is like sticking an Apple factory in the UK and saying iPhones are British.

 

If we're so independent, who's going to manufacture our weapons if the USA pulls support? Serco is a security/transport company, they don't engineer weapons.

 

The fact of the matter is: our weapons are made by Americans, maintained by Americans, tested by Americans, and controlled by Americans. I've proved every single point.

 

I find this quite interesting https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/11/uk_f35s_heavy_overhaul_says_us/

[Obelix 11]

Have to admit that's a very succinct, incisive and comprehensive rebuttal of my viewpoint.

 

It's also a clear indication that you haven't a clue, which is a shame.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9nLuZwtHTAhUKOsAKHRRbDeIQFgg2MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fso-admiral-what-have-you-got-to-say-about-the-nuclear-submarine-crash-1623787.html&usg=AFQjCNGY9EX4FjKpdokN7dKm25YJFdnlVw

 

Read the fifth paragraph down.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9nLuZwtHTAhUKOsAKHRRbDeIQFggwMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fvoices%2Fdonald-trump-trident-theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-special-relationship-russia-a7541541.html&usg=AFQjCNFd3oNuVJepHgkP8kC1E3p2xvrxhA

 

Read the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

 

Simple question, could the UK launch a nuclear missile strike against the express wishes of the USA and then expect to continue to receive support from the US to maintain its deterrent?

 

Because if we don't have that support we don't have a nuclear deterrent.

 

So if the answer is no then we don't have an independent system.

 

And the answer as you well know, is no.

 

Oh look - the goalposts are moving again.

 

You really think after we've been forced into a nuclear strike that we will care about the USA supporting missiles we don't own any longer?

[Cyclone 10]

The other countries which possess this weaponry are some of the largest in the world and may have some chance ( slight ) of some form of recovery afterward however slim.

 

In any nuclear war Britain would be reduced to ashes in the first exchanges.

 

We need to withdraw from the nuclear club which has the effect of making us a target, beef up our conventional forces to deter invasion, and stop interfering in other countries politics which also makes us a target.

 

You're obviously only considering Russia, China and the US, maybe India and conveniently ignoring France, which is basically the same size as us.

You're also ignoring Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey.

All of which have US weapons stationed there and are of the same size order of magnitude as the UK.

 

The idea that not having a deterrent somehow makes you immune from attack, as one of the most advanced nations in the world, is ludicrous. It's like appeasing bullies by ensuring that you won't retaliate. Even if the retaliation is merely horrific and crippling to those potential aggressors, rather than fatal.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 16:58 ----------

 

The discussion is about whether or not the UK nuclear defence system is independent, not partly independent, fully independent, it isn't.

Specifically though, you're claiming that US control of GPS means that the UK doesn't have unilateral launch control of it's trident weapons.

You're wrong and as that was the only support you could offer for the US being able to somehow stop us launching our missiles, QED.

 

Not only do we rely on the US for navigational purposes we rent the missiles off them and all testing is carried out under US supervision.

Irrelevant, they can't turn off the missiles at sea.

 

The US electronic surveillance of both enemies and allies is all pervasive, it isn't that long ago they were discovered bugging Angela Merkels mobile phone.

 

The idea that they have total access to a weapon that if misused could bring about the end of the world and haven't installed safety overrides which ensure that they are in control is too naive to contemplate.

Wow. Conspiracy much.

 

We have four nuclear subs, we test their Trident systems by rota once every four years, which means that it's sixteen years between the test of each subs strike capacity.

 

The last test we carried out in June last year was from a sub off the US coast with the intention of it splashing down off the coast of African.

 

Instead of which it headed toward the coast of Florida ( possibly hacked by the Russians ) , do you honestly think that the Big Boy lets his snotty nosed, raggedy arsed adoring little pal play with the dangerous toys without supervision?

 

Why do you think that the French have payed out billions more for their deterrent?

 

France is Americas oldest ally, it could have done the same deal as us but it wanted an Independent deterrent, its got one we haven't.

 

Okay, so now your entire argument has been reduced to unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theory about something you clearly have little understanding of.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 17:00 ----------

 

Simple question, could the UK launch a nuclear missile strike against the express wishes of the USA and then expect to continue to receive support from the US to maintain its deterrent?

 

Because if we don't have that support we don't have a nuclear deterrent.

 

So if the answer is no then we don't have an independent system.

 

And the answer as you well know, is no.

 

An entirely different postulation. Any other goal posts you'd like to move?

 

You might as well argue that I don't have independent control of my car, because petrol stations might refuse to sell me fuel or garages might refuse to maintain it. It's nonsense. (Particularly when the analogy starts with a statement that I can't drive my car without permission from Shell, but later comes down to "well if they refuse to sell you fuel").

Edited May 2, 2017 by Cyclone

[Carlinate 10]

Oh look - the goalposts are moving again.

 

You really think after we've been forced into a nuclear strike that we will care about the USA supporting missiles we don't own any longer?

 

You are the one moving the goalposts dear boy.

 

My contention was that our nuclear deterrent wasn't independent, and it isn't.

 

If you take a look at post 26 a reply to Cyclone, my last paragraph dealt with the one off, never to be repeated nonsense, which simply confirms the non independence of our system.

 

To continue arguing that it is independent in any real sense is simply ridiculous, we are subservient to the USA in this matter and a few more unfortunately.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9nLuZwtHTAhUKOsAKHRRbDeIQFghKMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.channel4.com%2Fnews%2Fby%2Falex-thomson%2Fblogs%2Ftrident-nuclear-deterrent-independent&usg=AFQjCNHXc5QRwU78H_65Pg7yUn9wgXg0Og

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwii6aq5ytHTAhXILMAKHUU4Dj8QFghmMAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2Fdefence-and-security-blog%2F2014%2Fjul%2F01%2Ftrident-nuclear-weapons-uk&usg=AFQjCNGwQJgAVHzfYS9EAsMgg0T-WvAi2Q

 

Have a read at those, and if you still claim it's independent there is no use continuing the discussion as debating with someone who refuses to accept facts is both tedious and a waste of time.