Does Britain need nuclear weapons ?

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

No.
Despite the recent proliferation of the arms race in the form of increased production of potentially lethal Irish plastic cutlery,it's still a no from me.
Rumours that the Irish have been aiming their marketing of plastic spoons at heroin users are unfounded.

 

[Subbed Tskhadadze with Allsopp]

The subs are ours but the missiles themselves are American. The warheads are built in the UK but are largely copies of the US equivalents. Supposedly there is no US veto on the use of the weapons but most people would take that with a pinch of salt.

this is quite some way wide of the truth.

So what is the truth ?

The subs are ours. The Trident missiles are designed and built in the US, but the UK has access to a pool of missiles and leases those it requires to outfit our boats. So while we don't 'own' individual missiles, we have title to a total number required (58). The warheads are designed, built and maintained in the UK. Undoubtedly they share a common heritage with US weapons (we have cooperated with the US on nuclear weapons since the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement) but are different to the US Trident warheads - the UK Trident can carry up to 12 warheads, the US up to 8. The UK warheads are thus smaller, lighter and less powerful than the US equivalent. The UK has its own command and control system to transmit launch orders to the boat, totally independent of the US.

Bear in mind that our nuclear weapons are also committed to NATO, although any decision to use them in support of NATO is entirely at the discretion of the British Prime Minister - no Turkish general can fire our nuclear weapons!

As to whether we need them or not, that entirely depends on whether you buy in to the concept of nuclear deterrence. The Royal Navy has kept at least one ballistic missile submarine on patrol continuously since 1968, and any adversary has had to consider that were they to attack the UK with nuclear weapons the UK would have the capability to respond and render unacceptable damage to that adversary. That is the essence of deterrence.

Whether you think it's likely, or why we are more likely to face nuclear attack than other developed nations who don't have nuclear weapons (Germany, or Japan, for instance) - ah, well that's a different question entirely...

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

this is quite some way wide of the truth.

So what is the truth ?

The subs are ours. The Trident missiles are designed and built in the US, but the UK has access to a pool of missiles and leases those it requires to outfit our boats. So while we don't 'own' individual missiles, we have title to a total number required (58). The warheads are designed, built and maintained in the UK. Undoubtedly they share a common heritage with US weapons (we have cooperated with the US on nuclear weapons since the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement) but are different to the US Trident warheads - the UK Trident can carry up to 12 warheads, the US up to 8. The UK warheads are thus smaller, lighter and less powerful than the US equivalent. The UK has its own command and control system to transmit launch orders to the boat, totally independent of the US.

Bear in mind that our nuclear weapons are also committed to NATO, although any decision to use them in support of NATO is entirely at the discretion of the British Prime Minister - no Turkish general can fire our nuclear weapons!

As to whether we need them or not, that entirely depends on whether you buy in to the concept of nuclear deterrence. The Royal Navy has kept at least one ballistic missile submarine on patrol continuously since 1968, and any adversary has had to consider that were they to attack the UK with nuclear weapons the UK would have the capability to respond and render unacceptable damage to that adversary. That is the essence of deterrence.

Whether you think it's likely, or why we are more likely to face nuclear attack than other developed nations who don't have nuclear weapons (Germany, or Japan, for instance) - ah, well that's a different question entirely...

All well and good,but what about the ever-present threat posed by increased Irish cutlery output?
What if this dangerous tableware fell into the hands of the Real IRA?
We could well have the forking troubles back again.
Have hardline Fenian splintergroups renounced violence and handed over their place settings?
They may well have hidden caches of soup spoons buried out in the Wicklow Hills which were never decommisioned.

 

[didactic]

Does anyone?.

 

[Challenger1978]

this is quite some way wide of the truth.

So what is the truth ?

The subs are ours. The Trident missiles are designed and built in the US, but the UK has access to a pool of missiles and leases those it requires to outfit our boats. So while we don't 'own' individual missiles, we have title to a total number required (58). The warheads are designed, built and maintained in the UK. Undoubtedly they share a common heritage with US weapons (we have cooperated with the US on nuclear weapons since the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement) but are different to the US Trident warheads - the UK Trident can carry up to 12 warheads, the US up to 8. The UK warheads are thus smaller, lighter and less powerful than the US equivalent. The UK has its own command and control system to transmit launch orders to the boat, totally independent of the US.

Bear in mind that our nuclear weapons are also committed to NATO, although any decision to use them in support of NATO is entirely at the discretion of the British Prime Minister - no Turkish general can fire our nuclear weapons!

As to whether we need them or not, that entirely depends on whether you buy in to the concept of nuclear deterrence. The Royal Navy has kept at least one ballistic missile submarine on patrol continuously since 1968, and any adversary has had to consider that were they to attack the UK with nuclear weapons the UK would have the capability to respond and render unacceptable damage to that adversary. That is the essence of deterrence.

Whether you think it's likely, or why we are more likely to face nuclear attack than other developed nations who don't have nuclear weapons (Germany, or Japan, for instance) - ah, well that's a different question entirely...

Thank you for taking the time to type that out it's much appreciated.

 

[ElanJo]

Yes, we need nukes. Nukes and free trade (real free trade) are what stop wars.

"Do we need an army?" is the better question, in my view.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Does Russia need democracy again?

 

[Kazzydeyna]

But in order to target them we need access to US GPS satellites. If you can aim them they are useless.

in other words we are spending billions in the midst of a depression to buy weapons we can only use if it is in the interests of a foreign power (the USA)

So that's a huge no from me. Spend half on conventional forces and half on public services.

TRIDENT IS NOT INDEPENDANT IT IS SIMPLY A WAY OF REDUCING AMERICA'S MILITARY SPENDING AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR OWN COUNTRY.

 

[Timmmmahhhh]

£15bn of that (or more if reports are to be believed) will be used to replace the subs, that work will largely be carried out in the north west and create work for thousands for upwards of 15 years - I approve.

As for the need to nuclear weapons, the reality is you need them if you want to stop one of the following;

Astroid strike
Alien invasion
Aggression from Iran/North Korea/tesco's

Clearly never seen Independance Day - if you are going to put forward a theory at least try to back it up!!

 

[Gelsons Dad]

But in order to target them we need access to US GPS satellites. If you can aim them they are useless.

in other words we are spending billions in the midst of a depression to buy weapons we can only use if it is in the interests of a foreign power (the USA)

So that's a huge no from me. Spend half on conventional forces and half on public services.

TRIDENT IS NOT INDEPENDANT IT IS SIMPLY A WAY OF REDUCING AMERICA'S MILITARY SPENDING AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR OWN COUNTRY.

Nonsense. You clearly have no idea how a trident missile operates.