Trident

[FanchesterCity]

Can we rephrase the question and reduce it to it's most simple terms?

- What physical or electronic means of intervention can / does NATO (or the US) employ to ensure we cannot launch without approval?


I can only think of one possibility, and that's the Permissive Action Link (the unlock codes) needing part of the code to be entered by NATO or the US. I'm not sure if anybody here would really know if this is the case as the clearance for THAT sort of info would be sky high, but it's the only way I can imagine it possible.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

My security clearance and 35 years experience in the UK programme. What,s yours ?

That is a pretty good CV, to be honest.
The posts regarding British Tridents being under the control of America have been miraculously tempered from the Yanks stopping them
by technical means, to well, maybe not, it's political really, and that no PM 'Would last 5 minutes.'

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Can we rephrase the question and reduce it to it's most simple terms?

- What physical or electronic means of intervention can / does NATO employ to ensure we cannot launch without approval?

None.

This topic of independence come up whenever Trident is in the news. It's been discussed to death. Those who are in the know have always debunked the idea that we don't have control but because the command structure is not in the public domain there will always be claims to the contrary.

 

[Yaya_Tony]

And I glow in the dark !

Now that's impressive, the only thing i know that glows in the dark is a glow in the dark goblin!!

 

[FanchesterCity]

None.

This topic of independence come up whenever Trident is in the news. It's been discussed to death. Those who are in the know have always debunked the idea that we don't have control but because the command structure is not in the public domain there will always be claims to the contrary.

I agree, I was just trying to differentiate the political / legal approval from the actual physical means if we chose to deploy, regardless of anybody else's objections.
I don't think you could ever really get rid of the 'secret back door to remotely disarm' theories until one is truly launched!
Britain denies that our weapons are fitted with a PAL (Permissive Action Link).

 

[mosssideblue]

Can we rephrase the question and reduce it to it's most simple terms?

- What physical or electronic means of intervention can / does NATO (or the US) employ to ensure we cannot launch without approval?


I can only think of one possibility, and that's the Permissive Action Link (the unlock codes) needing part of the code to be entered by NATO or the US. I'm not sure if anybody here would really know if this is the case as the clearance for THAT sort of info would be sky high, but it's the only way I can imagine it possible.

Point 1> None, once its gone, its gone .
Point 2 > What you are refering to is somewhat correct, but has nothing to do with the US

Just pray we never have to press the trigger

 

[BobKowalski]

what a load of crap. You honestly think the US would bomb Faslane and take outthe on patrol boat? Stop talking bollocks. Trident IS NOT an extention of US arms, where are you getting this shit from?
I asked you lastnight andyou failed to answer, but why do youthink youare an authority on this?

If it was in the America's interest then yes. In July 1940 we attacked the French fleet sinking one battleship and damaging 5 others and killing over a 1,000 French sailors. This happened despite receiving assurances that the ships would be scuttled from the commander of the French navy. A hard decision was taken by the British in a time of crisis. Do you think the Americans would be less inclined to take a hard decision in a time of crisis if they judged, as we did, that it was in their best interests?

Whilst the US remains the dominant military and political partner in the US/UK relationship a scenario where we fire the Trident system without American consent is just not credible. To fire (or seek to fire) the system against American advice to desist would put us in at odds or even in conflict with the US. The last time we were at odds with the US was Suez. Eisenhower warned Britain not to invade and threatened us when we did. This led to a humiliating climb down and our foreign policy has been largely subordinate to the US ever since. We initiated the Suez action with sovereign forces under our command and ended up bowing to US pressure yet you think we can initiate the firing of a missile system leased from the US without US consent or approval? No chance.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Assuming someone managed to hide any activity of an imminent launch and we were caught by surprised, we're talking about maybe half an hour (possibly less) to react. It's very hard not to believe, at least half that time would be questioning if the detection systems were correct or not. It's all a bit surreal when you think about.

Guy monitoring some system: 'There's a red light flashing on my screen'
Other guy: 'Nah, can't be right - check it'
Guy: 'Definitely looks right - 6 missiles on their way' - better call the emergency number'

Emergency Hot Line: 'it's happening for real you say?'
Guy: yes!!! yes!!! it's happening
EHL: Are you REALLY sure?
Guy: I'm not pissing about, it's real
EHL: I'll call the PM right away

PM: Who is this?
EHL: It's the Emergency Hotline Ma'am, we're under attack?
PM: Oh - I went on a training course about this - think I can remember some of it
EHL: It's new for me too Ma'am!
PM: Who the hell has fired it?
EHL: I dunno, never asked, let me get back to you.

EHL to Guy: The PM wants to know who's fired it
Guy: North Korea
EHL: Cheers

EHL to PM: Russia Ma'am.
PM: In that case I think we should...

BOOM x 6.


Obviously very tongue in cheek, but I can't really imagine any chain of command that wouldn't be along those lines either. If there are humans involved, the incredulity / shock is always going to be a factor and hesitation must happen surely?

 

[FanchesterCity]

If it was in the America's interest then yes. In July 1940 we attacked the French fleet sinking one battleship and damaging 5 others and killing over a 1,000 French sailors. This happened despite receiving assurances that the ships would be scuttled from the commander of the French navy. A hard decision was taken by the British in a time of crisis. Do you think the Americans would be less inclined to take a hard decision in a time of crisis if they judged, as we did, that it was in their best interests?

Whilst the US remains the dominant military and political partner in the US/UK relationship a scenario where we fire the Trident system without American consent is just not credible. To fire (or seek to fire) the system against American advice to desist would put us in at odds or even in conflict with the US. The last time we were at odds with the US was Suez. Eisenhower warned Britain not to invade and threatened us when we did. This led to a humiliating climb down and our foreign policy has been largely subordinate to the US ever since. We initiated the Suez action with sovereign forces under our command and ended up bowing to US pressure yet you think we can initiate the firing of a missile system leased from the US without US consent or approval? No chance.

I think other people aren't talking about a pre-emptive strike, they're talking about a retaliatory one.
If you're talking about a pre-emptive strike, then yes, in practical terms it's nigh on impossible to see us acting unilaterally (even if physically possible), but whilst under attack, if we managed to retaliate at all, I don't think we'd be at all concerned with anything other than trying to defend ourselves (albeit in a likely futile gesture).

 

[mosssideblue]

If it was in the America's interest then yes. In July 1940 we attacked the French fleet sinking one battleship and damaging 5 others and killing over a 1,000 French sailors. This happened despite receiving assurances that the ships would be scuttled from the commander of the French navy. A hard decision was taken by the British in a time of crisis. Do you think the Americans would be less inclined to take a hard decision in a time of crisis if they judged, as we did, that it was in their best interests?

Whilst the US remains the dominant military and political partner in the US/UK relationship a scenario where we fire the Trident system without American consent is just not credible. To fire (or seek to fire) the system against American advice to desist would put us in at odds or even in conflict with the US. The last time we were at odds with the US was Suez. Eisenhower warned Britain not to invade and threatened us when we did. This led to a humiliating climb down and our foreign policy has been largely subordinate to the US ever since. We initiated the Suez action with sovereign forces under our command and ended up bowing to US pressure yet you think we can initiate the firing of a missile system leased from the US without US consent or approval? No chance.

Bob, amI right you are posting opinion and not fact?. If you are believing this to be fact, what credible source supports it?