Do UK nukes make military sense?

BBC News ^ | Thursday, 22 June 2006, 14:12 GMT 15:12 UK | By Rob Watson

[sukhoi-30mki]

[sukhoi-30mki]

Fact file: Trident missile

Trident II D5 is a submarine-launched ballistic missile system that constitutes the UK's nuclear deterrent.

Developed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the United States, Trident entered service with the Royal Navy in 1994, 14 years after it was selected as the replacement for the submarine-launched Polaris missile.

KEY TRIDENT FACTS
Length: 44ft (13m)
Weight: 130,000lb (58,500kg)
Diameter: 74 inches (1.9m)
Range: More than 4,600 miles (7,400km)
Power plant: Three stage solid propellant rocket
Cost: £16.8m ($29.1m) per missile
Source: Federation of American Scientists

Each Trident missile has a range of more than 4,600 miles (7,400km) and is accurate to within a few feet. Their destructive power is estimated as the equivalent of eight Hiroshimas.

The UK deploys 16 Trident missiles on each of its four Vanguard-class submarines, of which one is on patrol at all times. The fleet is based at Faslane in Scotland.

A further 70 missiles can be accessed from a communal pool at the Strategic Weapons facility in Georgia in the United States, where the missiles are also periodically serviced.

Each Trident missile is designed to carry up to 12 nuclear warheads, but the Royal Navy's are armed with three after the 1998 Strategic Defence Review imposed a limit of 48 per submarine.

All the UK's warheads are built at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, Berkshire.

Launch sequence

During a Vanguard patrol, the missile payload is carried upright in launch tubes behind the submarine fin, or conning tower.

At launch, the pressure of expanding gas in the tube forces the missile out and to the ocean surface where, once it is far enough from the submarine, the solid fuel in the first of three stage motors ignites.

At the same time, an aerospike designed to reduce drag by around 50% extends from the tip of the missile.

The internal guidance system takes a reading from the stars to work out the missile's position and make any adjustments necessary to the pre-programmed route to its target area.

A second - or boost stage - rocket then fires, followed by the third stage. Within approximately two minutes from launch the missile is travelling at over 20,000ft (6,100 metres) a second.

Warhead detonation

Once in position over its targets, the missile's third motor separates from the forward section containing the warheads.

The guidance system takes another star reading to confirm its position.

Small thruster rockets then manoeuvre the forward section so each warhead can be individually released in the right place to freefall to its target, where they detonate according to one of a number of pre-set fuse options.

In the UK, the authority for a real (rather than test) Trident launch would have to come from the prime minister via a secure communications network.

Trident has a 30-year lifespan that is due to end in 2024. The UK will need to take a decision soon on whether to extend Trident's lifespan or replace it with an alternative system, which could cost an estimated £10bn.

[sukhoi-30mki]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4438392.stm

[GSlob]

"Do UK nukes make military sense?"
To whom? Where one stands depends on where one sits.

[garbageseeker]

I think so. They can hit targets inside Russia within 15 minutes.

[coconutt2000]

In other words, opponents of UK's maintaining a nuclear arsenal are saying that as long as we keep ours, they can use our alliance as a shield.

Critics of the U.S. are also aware that if the U.S. develops and deploys a ballistic missile shield, it would cover the UK and the rest of Europe by default, over the objections of any critics. We, the U.S., will endeavor to engineer a system that would protect the EU regardless of whether or not the individual members give us permission, because our country's welfare is so closely tied to that of the welfare of Europe. Thus, we'd invest in the extra expense of shielding Europe, or in the infrastructure and technology to shield Europe regardless of their consent or lack of it.

It is said that home is where if you show up they have to take you in. In that regard, the U.S. is like everybody's home base. They curse us, call us mean names, and disparage our motives - but when it comes down to it - they're absolutely sure that we'll defend them to our last breath. And in our pride and arrogance... we will, because we're naive Americans and we actually believe our myths about freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The United Kingdom probably does not need nuclear weapons, and could actually encourage other middle or small countries from acquiring such weaponry. Simply because the United Kingdom is currently a strong ally of the United States is not a reason for supporting them having such weapons. Nuclear weapons should be restricted to only a few countries, to decrease the probability of a weapon getting stolen and used (or a country directly using the weapon). Used when something conventional would suffice.

[garbageseeker]

Their sub missiles can hit Russian targets in 15 minutes and their bomber force can hit them within 30 minutes. I think that their system is to overwhelm the ABM defenses around Moscow.In other words, their missiles are to pave the way for our missiles to hit them.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Do UK nukes make military sense?"

Yes!

Unless you would like to be the one taking a knife to a machinegun fight!

[garbageseeker]

Remember, it takes 30 minutes for our ICBMs to reach their targets in Russia. It takes 6-12 hours for our bomber force to reach their targets in Russia. Its only logical that the British nuclear forces is to soften Russian military targets before the calvary arrives!!

[sukhoi-30mki]

Umm,didn't the UK give up land & airlaunched weapons like around a decade ago??They probably have a contingency plan in place,but the official word is that it's only Tridents for them,unlike the French who still retain Nuke-cruise missile & bomb capability.If the UK still had airlaunched capability,this current argument about their nukes making sense would have been muted,if non-existent,coz air-launched is more economical.

Besides what bombers does the UK have which have the range to reach Russia or any nation from homesoil????Both the EF-Typhoon & Tornado would need lots of aerial refuelling for that.

[garbageseeker]

Besides what bombers does the UK have which have the range to reach Russia or any nation from homesoil????Both the EF-Typhoon & Tornado would need lots of aerial refuelling for that.

The British since the 1950-1984 used the V-Bomber wich carried the free fall Blue Danube atomic bomb.The V-Bomber was originally supposed to carry the Skybolt missile before that program was cancelled. I am thinking of the British Jaguar bomber. The Israelis upgraded them to carry atomic bombs.

MPs question 'nuclear upgrade' of Israel's Jaguar bombers
24-04-2002
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian
MPs are demanding an explanation after Israel upgraded British Jaguar bombers made by India under licence and potentially capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

But Moscow is still a target by the British:

Moscow criterion

The former Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Michael Quinlan, has indicated that British targeting has moved away from the plans described above. In discussing the ethics of nuclear weapons he talks about "final-sanction nuclear- strike" plans and says -

"The central idea in such plans would be to inflict disabling damage upon the aggressor state as a state, so as to remove or emasculate its ability and disposition to persist as an evil force against others, while keeping as low as possible (appallingly grave though that would probably still be) the harm done to innocent citizens. There is little doubt that in the earlier days of the nuclear age strategic targeting was not generally shaped in this way; but as time went on both US and UK planning options - French, Soviet, and now Russian ones may be a different matter - moved significantly in this direction "

What appears to have happened is that the focus of British targeting shifted from choosing a large number of cities on the basis of their population, to focusing on the Soviet and Russian command and control structure. 20 The centralisation of the old Soviet regime was such that this command and control system was and is heavily concentrated around Moscow. Field Marshall Nigel Bagnall, Chief of General Staff 1985-88, has said of the targeting of Trident "It is more than just the destruction of Moscow, it is the destruction of their command and control system".

If we look at past US nuclear planning, Soviet "leadership" targets were a special category. The ability to launch an attack on this command structure was regarded as crucial and as the last option in a nuclear exchange.22 In its independent plans Britain probably has this command structure as the main focus for its targeting. Quinlan would no doubt argue that launching a nuclear attack on this command structure is not the same as aiming to destroy Moscow, but it would, nonetheless, turn the city into a radioactive desert.

It is clear that the ability to launch an attack on the Moscow area has been the key factor determining the nature of British strategic nuclear forces since the mid 1970s. At this time the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) system around the city was enhanced. Military planners in Britain calculated that this ABM system would prevent Britain from launching a nuclear attack. So a new British system, Chevaline, was designed specifically to overcome these ABMs. Chevaline was in service from 1982 to 1996 . The missiles were armed with decoys as well as warheads. The plan was to launched all 16 missiles from the submarine on patrol at Moscow as quickly as possible. The missile trajectories were adjusted so that all the warheads and decoys would land at around the same time and swamp the ABM defences.

Admiral Lord Lewin played a key role in the decision to build Trident. He has stressed the importance of the Moscow Criterion. He said: "Moscow was at the core of the Russian pysche, if you wiped out Moscow you destroyed the Soviet Unions will to succeed."

[garbageseeker]

Besides what bombers does the UK have which have the range to reach Russia or any nation from homesoil????Both the EF-Typhoon & Tornado would need lots of aerial refuelling for that.

The SEPECAT Jaguar

[FreedomCalls]

By the end of the Century Britain will be a majority-Muslim nation. Do we want the Ayatollah Londoni, the head of the Islamic Republic of Britain to have an independent nuclear force come then?

[sukhoi-30mki]

Well,the V-series hit the muesum long time ago.About Jaguars,the RAF is already cutting it's fleet of such jets & If im not mistaken,all of them would be axed by 2010.They are good low level attack jets,with decent range,but will be shredded in aerial combat.The Israelis never operated Jags-the article you are referring to is about Israel upgrading India's fleet.If one were to go only by what is written on paper,India's Jags are probably the most sophisticated of the type in the world,but even those won't have role beyond hitting Pakistani armour formations or Chinese bases in Tibet.

The UK does have a few options though.It can develop a N-variant of it's Storm Shadow cruise missile,which will give enhanced teeth to any carrier like the F-35 or EF-2000.The RAF is looking at an enhanced Storm Shadow,in the category of the US 'JASSM-ER',with a range of around 500 miles.

[garbageseeker]

The UK does have a few options though.It can develop a N-variant of it's Storm Shadow cruise missile,which will give enhanced teeth to any carrier like the F-35 or EF-2000.The RAF is looking at an enhanced Storm Shadow,in the category of the US 'JASSM-ER',with a range of around 500 miles.

I do agree with the assesment. But overwhemling Moscow's air defenses are the key priority by the Tridents to pave the way for our missiles.

[garbageseeker]

Ping

[propertius]

And where do you get that bizarre statistic, old bean?

[goldstategop]

The UK, like France, will retain its nuclear arsenal, if only for prestige reasons. The nuclear club is very small: USA, Russia, China, France, UK. The World War II Big Five. Then there's Pakistan, India and Israel all of which are nuclear club powers.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[FreedomCalls]

And where do you get that bizarre statistic, old bean?