Trident Tested - We All Live In A Nuclear Submarine

[Rob McCow]

A member of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government resigned on Monday in protest at plans to renew the country's nuclear arsenal as Blair fought to quell a swelling rebellion in his party over the issue.

"I am confirming that I have resigned from the government with a heavy heart but a clear conscience," Nigel Griffiths, deputy Commons leader, told BBC News 24 television.

Several ministerial aides could join Griffiths in quitting over plans to replace the country's Trident nuclear-armed submarines with a new system costing up to 20 billion pounds, according to newspapers.
Parliament is set to vote on the plan on Wednesday and Blair faces a big rebellion in the ranks of the Labour Party that will leave him depending on support from the Conservatives to push through the proposal.

Blair defends the need for the country's to retain a nuclear deterrent, arguing that new threats from Iran, North Korea or nuclear terrorists make it dangerous to disarm.

But a deep anti-nuclear weapons current runs through Labour, which espoused unilateral nuclear disarmament until the late 1980s.
Many Labour MPs think they are being rushed into a decision before Blair goes later this year, that there is no longer any justification for nuclear defences in a post-Cold War world and that the huge amount of money could be better spent elsewhere.

Almost two-thirds of Labour MPs who took part in a poll released on Sunday opposed the plan.
The 51-year-old Griffiths, a member of parliament for Edinburgh for 20 years, said he would make a statement to parliament later setting out the reasons for his resignation.

Blair's office said only that it had received his resignation letter and would "acknowledge it in due course".
Defence Secretary Des Browne said on Sunday he was confident the government would win over rebellious legislators.

The new submarines would enable Britain to keep a nuclear deterrent into the 2050s, replacing existing nuclear submarines due to go out of service in around 2024.

Do we need to spend 20 billion on nuclear submarines to provide an effective deterrent? North Korea and Iran may have nuclear weapons, but surely we have enough nukes to reduce their countries to rubble already? And what good are nuclear submarines against nuclear terrorists? If someone sets off a dirty bomb in London, having a few extra nukes on standby isn't going to be terribly useful I'd have thought.

On the other hand, with the threat of more and more nuclear powers emerging, is 20 billion enough? What if India and Pakistan decide (for whatever bizarre reason) that England needs to pay for it's colonial behaviour last century? Is the Trident Project (sounds exactly like a Tom Clancy novel) the bare minimum that we can expect to spend on nuclear weapons?

Nukes - it's over to you!

[Jason Thompson]

North Korea and Iran may have nuclear weapons, but surely we have enough nukes to reduce their countries to rubble already?

Frankly we probably have and/or can manufacture enough conventional weapons to reduce their cities to rubble.

[Dirk Gently]

I thought this thread was about chewing gum.

[Raston]

Nuclear submarines are the most effective detterant against an attack from anyone-because you cannot find them, and you cannot target them. They put Brittish Nuclear weapons well away from somewhere that could be attacked by terrorists of foreign powers.

No matter what we need new submarines, and we need to replace the current weapons-otherwise they will become old. Just like we replace old cars, or old hospital equiptment.

20 Billion is not much as much as the scaremongers try and make out-remember it is money to be spent over 15 years, not all in one go.

It will also help protect Brittish ship manufacture, and makes sure that we keep key technical experts in the UK working.

We cannont be one of the worlds great powers without them, it would be impossible for Britain to exercise its status as a major world power without the appropriate millitary capability.

And lets be clear, in the first and second gulf wars, Britain (jack straw in the case of the 2nd war) made it very clear that if weapons of mass destruction were used on Britiush forces that we would respond with the nuclear option-if we hadn't been able to say that they would could not have gaurenteed that chemical or biological weapons would not have been used against British forces. Remember that they have found chemical weapons in Iraq since the war.

[Captain Tancredi]

We probably have enough nuclear warheads to pretty much level every major city on the planet if we wanted to. Realistically we probably need no more than six- the world has changed, and we're more likely to face a threat from a rogue state than an all-out nuclear attack, so we need to be able to warn off anybody who thinks of pointing chemical or biological weapons at us that we can defend ourselves. The trouble is that the arithmetic of nuclear weapons means that in order to have six active warheads deployed, you need a lot of redundancy to account for submarines in action elsewhere or under repair.

[Andrew Curnow]

made it very clear that if weapons of mass destruction were used on Britiush forces that we would respond with the nuclear option

That may be true, but I have to admit I don't recall that being mentioned on the news at all, neither first nor second time around.

I do think it seems an absurd thing to be spending money on, frankly - there's maintaining a nuclear deterrant, and there's effectively buying a new one. Are they really saying it'll take from now to 2024 to get new submarines made to replace the current old ones? In which case, tell the terrorist to hang on till 2022 and we'll be sitting ducks.

More seriously, I'm not naively suggesting we should ditch all our nuclear arsenal tomorrow and go without (although frankly if we did, I don't really think we'd be any more or less in danger than we are today) but equally, if it's currently an effective deterrant, then I think a 20 billion spend on replacing it is bordering on the obscene. And if it's really in such a poor state that it needs overhauling, then... is it wise to be advertising that fact to the world?!

[Raston]

Andrew-its not in a poor state or in need of being replaced, at the moment. However it will be in 2024. It takes a long time to design and build a nuclear submarine which is why the decision to develop it has to be made now.

As for cost- we are talking spending 20 billion over the course of 15 years-sounds like a lot? well put it in context, the UK government will spend well over 7500 billion in that 15 years, so trident amonts to just 0.26% of that spending. Not exactly much, when you think about it in those terms. And of course it is spend in the UK, employing people to design it and build it, and employing people to manufacture the parts and people to get the materials to the yards and people to manufacture the steels and other metals, and people to mine them, and people to feed all those people-so it has great knock on effects for lots of peoples lives.

[WhiteCrow]

Do we need to spend 20 billion on nuclear submarines to provide an effective deterrent?

Lord what a bunch of thickies.

Having done a bit of research into this - "The Government spends over 100 billion on social security every year".

A new set of nuclear missiles will cost 20 billion.

The solution?

Send all the unemployed and long term ill to Jersey, and then let rip with our leftover Trident stock.

Net balance: + 80 billion in the Treasury chest, almost enough to bail out the London Olympics.

This has been a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Machiavelli Party, supported by the Sun newspaper and it's readers since 1979.

Coming soon: An editorial into why murderers are spending too long in prison, and must be given shorter jail terms to make way in our high security prisons for the increasing number of people refusing to pay new Council Tax rates ...

[Andrew Curnow]

Andrew-its not in a poor state or in need of being replaced, at the moment. However it will be in 2024. It takes a long time to design and build a nuclear submarine which is why the decision to develop it has to be made now.

As for cost- we are talking spending 20 billion over the course of 15 years-sounds like a lot? well put it in context, the UK government will spend well over 7500 billion in that 15 years, so trident amonts to just 0.26% of that spending. Not exactly much, when you think about it in those terms. And of course it is spend in the UK, employing people to design it and build it, and employing people to manufacture the parts and people to get the materials to the yards and people to manufacture the steels and other metals, and people to mine them, and people to feed all those people-so it has great knock on effects for lots of peoples lives.

Thanks for that Andrew. I must say, although you're clearly correct (one estimate in fact claims it could take as long as 17 years) 14 years seems a long time to design and build submarines - purely objectively, I would have thought they must have a fairly good design starting-point in the submarines they already have?

I do take the point about it being good for UK business/economy (although there is some suggestion that some parts might come from the US instead) but that can't in itself be a defence for something - you could make the same claim for, I don't know, making machines that disintegrated people under six foot four (I know it's an absurd example, but you take my point). The issue here surely is whether or not it's a wise decision to spend 20 billion pounds on replacing/renewing Trident; not whether it's a wise decision to spend 20 billion pounds at all.

When you read up some of these facts (I've just been browsing on the BBC website) it's staggeringly scary - one missile is equivalent to 8 Hiroshima bombs, and costs around 16.8 million pounds. Frankly, with the modern-day pinpoint targetting, how could we ever really need more than about half a dozen missiles in total? I would be far more impressed in the money being spent on defensive precautions - ie, something which in the worst-case scenario would stop missiles aimed at us from reaching their target. That surely, if the defence for this decision is that the nuclear option is needed in case terrorists attack us with nuclear weapons, is a more sensible option? Frankly I'm more interested in not being blown up myself, than us being able to get our own back.

[Raston]

Well i think the cold war proved why nuclear weapons can and do stop wars-lets face it without the mutually assured destruction there probably would have been a war between Russia and the UK/US. And the fact alone is good enough reason IMO for britain having them, because it stops anyone ever threatening us with a weapon of that sort. It also allows us to exert that kind of threat over a nation that is a non-nuclear power-for example if country X attacks one of our allies then we can used the nuclear option of the UK as a barganing tool (remember the UK has allies that are not shared by other nuclear powers)

The missiles are expensive-they are after all unmanned space ships (indeed old ICBM's have in the past been used to launch satelites). However they are exepnsive because they are the very best, the most accurate, longest ranged weapons that allows the UK at any point to target and fire on anywhere in the world. It is that global reach that gives the weapon such threat (remember only US, UK, and Russia really have such capability-with other nations depending on using bombs or shorter ranged weapons).

I like your point on some sort of shield-thats exactly what the missile defence thing that the US is working on is about- but it still is not effective enough to be depended upon-we have to make sure that the mutually assured destruction card is one we can always play to prevent anyone attacking us. After all, it works.

[Andrew Curnow]

It also allows us to exert that kind of threat over a nation that is a non-nuclear power-for example if country X attacks one of our allies then we can used the nuclear option of the UK as a barganing tool (remember the UK has allies that are not shared by other nuclear powers)

In theory maybe. I don't think we ever have, though, have we, not in the last 50 years - it wasn't used as a threat in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it wasn't waved in Argentina's face when they invaded the Falklands in 1982. It's a dangerous 'threat' to use, because in reality nobody would want to take the initiative and use it (ie, use it offensively rather than defensively). And I would suggest that this is backed up by the fact that we've always made sure to avoid threatening it, for fear of having our bluff called.

You're right, the defence idea that the US in particular seems to be looking into, doesn't yet seem to be a viable reality - but I think that just reinforces the case that 17 years and 20 billion pounds would be a lot better spent in that direction, than where it seems to be headed at the moment.

[Captain Tancredi]

The twisted logic of nuclear weaponry is also such that if you improve your defence, that by default justifies your potential opponents building up their arsenal to maintain its effectiveness (which is the point Putin keeps making whenever the Americans start up about missile defence again). But given the end of the Cold War and the apparent victory of capitalism, there's no incentive for Russia and China to destroy their main markets and sources of investment.

Having grown up in Birkenhead while the shipyards were being run down, the point about replacement submarines is a reminder that naval shipbuilding is one of the few areas where we don't have to contract work out under EU regulations- in fact shipbuilding on the Mersey stopped because Cammell Lairds were designated a defence rather than commercial shipbuilder and were therefore ineligible for EU help.

[Raston]

You are indeed correct it was not used as a threat with Argentina or Iraq in those instances- but then the argument is that we didn't need to use it, we had the capability to deal with those nations using conventional methods, so threatening and then potentially having to use a nuclear option was not really an option.

If it were a situation where a conventional option would not be an option, or example an inland country surrounded by other unfriendly nations that we could only conduct air attacks on without the ability to mount a navals or land based assault on, then it would be a differant situation. Or indeed in the very rare situation where a conventional option would be an unwinnable fight (unlilely though-even the falklands britain was fighting a well equipt modern army that was ranked as the 8th most 'powerful' in the world)

[Andrew Curnow]

Sorry, but I still don't think anybody would even make the threat. One might point to Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) as apparently unwinnable wars that we're embroiled in, but there's no hint of threatening nuclear strikes unless the Taleban, or whoever it is we're fighting there, gives up.

HST, there is arguably always an implicit threat simply by virtue of having such weapons available to use if required - but if that's the argument, then a batch of working missiles is more than enough, rather than rebuilding the entire fleet from scratch.

I have a vague memory now of a scene from Yes Prime Minister which revolves around much the same debate (but with better lines) and although it was a comedy show, I think it makes its point well - in a nutshell, the scene revolves around Jim Hacker being given countless scenarios, and asked whether he would press the button, but the answer is always no.

[Jason Thompson]

I have a vague memory now of a scene from Yes Prime Minister which revolves around much the same debate (but with better lines) and although it was a comedy show, I think it makes its point well - in a nutshell, the scene revolves around Jim Hacker being given countless scenarios, and asked whether he would press the button, but the answer is always no.

HACKER: It's a bluff anyway, I probably wouldn't use it.

SIR HUMPHREY: Yes, but they don't know that.

HACKER: They probably know it.

SIR HUMPHREY: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't, but they can't certainly know it.

HACKER: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.

SIR HUMPHREY: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they can't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there's no probability that you certainly would!

HACKER (after a pause): Pardon?

Interestingly it was exactly the same debate, the expenditure on Trident.

[Jason Thompson]

indeed old ICBM's have in the past been used to launch satelites

More ICBMs have launched satellites and men into space than have ever been used for their intended purpose. Most space launch vehicles are derived from ICBM designs. Even the early Saturn rockets used in Apollo were based on an army design for a heavy-lift booster that eventually turned out to be bigger than any military application would require at the time.

[Jason Thompson]

14 years seems a long time to design and build submarines - purely objectively, I would have thought they must have a fairly good design starting-point in the submarines they already have?

Unless the submarines have been in regular production they won't have the facilities to just build more. Construction of ships, submarines, aeroplanes, rockets, cars etc. requires very specialised tooling. If it is not in use it makes no sense to keep it because it is large, takes up space and needs maintaining. It is this part of the construction process that is usually the limiting factor (as I have to keep reminding people on other boards who insist that NASA could just build more Saturn V rockets for the planned lunar missions).

[Andrew Curnow]

That's an interesting post, Jason, thanks. I still think 14 years seems an awfully long time, unless you're actually inventing the submarine from scratch - mind you, it took longer than that to get Doctor Who back on Saturday nights, so perhaps it isn't as long as it sounds!!

Going back to Yes Prime Minister, I was actually thinking of another scene with a guest character (bald chap with tiny eyes) but the gist was the same I think.

[Jason Thompson]

I still think 14 years seems an awfully long time, unless you're actually inventing the submarine from scratch

Well, when you're making things years or decades later, especially things with a very important function, the technology has usually advanced to the extent that you almost do have to do it from scratch. Your original subcontractors might not exist any more and you have to source components from elsewhere. Your understanding of technology has changed so you might not even use the same materials or construction techniques. All that requires different tooling from the previous construction effort. Your staff are probably not the same ones who built the first lot, and hence an awful lot of expertise has been lost. As much as companies try to document everything, a lot of construction work includes simple hints and tips learnt by the people doing the work.

Each new component and system has to be qualified, each finished submarine has to be tested. Compatibility of systems has to be assured. It's a highly complex task. Part of the time it is intended to take is probably the result of the budget restrictions. The government could throw that 20billion to them in one year, but they're skating on thin ice as it is so are spreading the cost. They probably could get the nuclear fleet up in considerably less time, but that would require more money. It's all complex and everything affects everything else.

[Si Hunt]

Regardless of whether it's an effective use of our money, isn't it hypocritical beyond belief to be demanding Iran cease production of nuclear weapons when we are happily contemplating building a new nuclear arsenal? What right do we have to say that we can have nuclear weapons and they can't?

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

Originally Posted by Andrew Curnow
I still think 14 years seems an awfully long time, unless you're actually inventing the submarine from scratch

Also I'd suggest that this is more likely to be a production line of 6 (or how many it is) so they wouldn't be manufacturing them all at the same time but singularly or in pairs. So the 14 years would be for say 6 years to design & build the first pair & then 4 years each to build the following two pairs...for example. I'm just guessing of course.

[Rob McCow]

What right do we have to say that we can have nuclear weapons and they can't?

The difference is that they're not British. We can build as many nukes as we like, safe in the knowledge that they won't be used against the UK. Probably.

I'm glad the subs are taking so long to build. I'd rather they get it right than have our nukes held in some shoddy, second rate sub built by the lowest bidder and cutting corners at every opportunity.

[Jason Thompson]

Regardless of whether it's an effective use of our money, isn't it hypocritical beyond belief to be demanding Iran cease production of nuclear weapons when we are happily contemplating building a new nuclear arsenal? What right do we have to say that we can have nuclear weapons and they can't?

Si.

But we're not adding to our current nuclear capability. The plan is to maintain it so it remains effective. The plan also includes a reduction in the number of warheads.

It is also not terribly hypocritical to be reminding Iran that, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they are not supposed to be developing nuclear weapons at all. I'd say we have the right to complain if they break the terms of a teaty they signed, wouldn't you?

[Si Hunt]

Okay, so the hypocrisy lies with making them sign it in the first place? I don't know, it doesn't really change my point though.

You here about the breach and think "shit, Iran are going to have nuclear weapons!" then you hear of all our nukes and you just think "well we've got them, why are we allowed them and not them?".

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

No one made them sign it. It's a treaty. They sign or they don't sign. India and Pakistan didn't sign it, which is why we've looked with some alarm at their nuclear programs but not really done much about it. They're not in breach of any agreement because they never made it in the first place. Iran did, so they should either stick to it or face the consequences.

As to why we're allowed them, we had them when the treaty was signed. We've reduced our nuclear capability quite a bit since the height of the cold war, but no-one with them is likely to give them up entirely, especially when it looks like someone else might be developing them. Nuclear non-proliferation is primarily about not making the problem of nuclear weapons any worse.

As Ian said in The Daleks: pacifism only works when everybody feels the same. Similarly with nukes, disarming yourself only works if everyone else does it too. Sadly, as much as we might want to disbelieve it, the human race as a whole has not progressed to the point where we can all lay down our arms and get along. Hostilities continue, and in that environment who will give up their weapons in the face of a hostile power developing their own versions?

Unfortunately everything to do with nuclear weapons these days that is not a straightforward removal of them is blown out of all proportion and seen as making things worse.