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.
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.
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.
Yes!
Unless you would like to be the one taking a knife to a machinegun fight!
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
Whenever this subject comes up in the news (whether we should have them/replace them, whatever) all the people against our nuclear deterrent come out with some reason or other such as there is no threat (the Soviets were supposed to be no threat in the early Reagan/Thatcher years), there's no threat now etc. The antis are against them full stop. I am surprised the BBC showed an opposing viewpoint in favour of them on this occasion though.
Just because you give up the SSBNs doesn't mean giving up nukes. Instead of replacing them the money might be better spent on SSNs with nuclear tipped cruise missiles. That would give them more flexibility.
 |
Oh-oh. If Brits have Emma Peel and nukes Limeys might conquer the world! |