UKC

Considering we might only blow ourselves up, should we be pouring our money into Trident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708823

Should Mrs. May be more honest?


Capable of killing 100,000 people quite possibly our own!

In reply to krikoman:

Nothing like some overdramatic hyperbolic nonsense on a Sunday afternoon.

In reply to krikoman:

Definitely, it is far more of a deterrent and threat if nobody knows where the warhead is going when the button is pressed, even countries that think they are safe from our nuclear response won't want us being upset by any country in the world to press the button.

Russian roulette with Trident, has to be the way forward (we could take the precaution of always launching it out of range of UK).
Donald and Vladimir would be a little nervous of us then, "Don't mess with those crazy Brits, not with their effing subs out there somewhere, give them a trade deal to go somewhere else".

In reply to Moley:

That's more like it!!

In reply to krikoman:

Well it seems the old trident doesn't work as well as it could.... therefore a new one would be sensible no?

Do people stop buying cars because their last one was a little unreliable?

In reply to krikoman:



If you were taking a water pistol to a gunfight would you tell your opponents about it

In reply to timjones:

If I were fighting vampires and I was loaded up with holy water, then I think that would give me a psychological advantage, so yes.

In reply to Gone for good:


Of course I never thought of that , how silly of me. A weapon capable of killing thousands yet we're not sure in which direction it might end up! What could possibly be wrong with that?

If you'd like to point out where the nonsense bit is, unless of course it's a made up story, in which case poor old Theresa could have just cried "bullshit". Instead of fumbling and failing badly.

In reply to Moley:



I like it, now if we could just get all weapons to be a shit as ours,and maybe cheaper too. Then no one would dare fire one off and we wouldn't need them at all.

We seem to have done this unilateral though*.




* Korea excluded

In reply to krikoman:

The chances of us blowing up 100,000 of our own people with our own nuclear deterrent is practically nil.
The nonsense bit is what you wrote. "Quite possibly our own". Embarrassing yes. Possible no.

In reply to krikoman:

I agree with Moley - it's great news. It's the ultimate deterrent and I bet we're not the only country to have issues when you consider these things have been around for decades. They're still doomsday machines but everyone is going to be less likely to consider using them as they're so unpredictable. In fact you'd have to be a nut job to launch one. Thank goodness all the major players (the States for example) have adequate checks in place to stop the deranged from getting into power

In reply to Gone for good:

What makes you very sure?

Edit: Isn't it bad enough that the 'wrong' people might be hit by it (potentially)...

In reply to Gone for good:



Well that's OK then as long as it's not our own, carry on!!!

Or maybe a few less than 100,000 is acceptable, may just 10% of that figure might not be an issue.

In reply to Timmd:


Because, we spent a lot on money making sure it's a viable and accurate deterrent. Wait a minute!!!

In reply to Timmd:

Not really. If *anyone* is hit by these weapons, its basically the end. If they are fired, everyone has lost. This is the whole point of both sides having them - to deter the other from attacking. Depending on your standpoint this is bonkers or realpolitik. However, if they don't work reliably, the deterrent isn't really there....

The idea that a nuclear war is winnable is actually very dangerous because it increases the chances of one. Trump needs to learn this, unfortunately.

In reply to krikoman:

If you were in power who would you nuke first?
No need to justify it.

In reply to JEF:


Hopefully not ourselves FFS!

It could end up with the Russians firing at us and we fire a couple more at ourselves just to finish the job!

But if I was in power we'd be spending the money on hospitals beds, so doctors can go to work and actually preform what they are paid for rather than waiting to see if there are beds available for their patients before they are allowed to start.

In reply to Timmd:


I didn't say it wouldn't be bad did I. Better to find defects in testing than if deployed in the event of a nuclear strike.

Trident is not new technology. It has been in service since 1990 and has been tested on many occasions. This is the first reported malfunction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II

In reply to JEF:



Top ropers in beanies

In reply to krikoman:



There was no danger to anyone in that test because the missile wasn't armed.

That's exactly why the forces do such tests so as to ensure that glitches like this are identified, and dealt with before there is a risk to anyone.

In reply to krikoman:

I'm sure the US and Royal Navy are working flat out to ensure all Trident missiles are capable of hitting their targets. Armed or otherwise.

In reply to Trangia:



But that's bullshit though isn't it, because if Russia (I'm presuming they are the baddies in this) had launched a weapon at us the week before, then are suggesting, we wouldn't have retaliated because we've got testing planned for next week, or we'd have fired back and it wouldn't have gone wrong.

We've had Trident since 1996, so what exactly are you saying? That, now it's just f*cked up we're all safe because they mended what went wrong?

In reply to Gone for good:


They've had more than 20 years to do that, and yet your suggesting this is a one off and we shouldn't worry about it, really!?!?

In reply to krikoman:

I'm glad I don't have the time or inclination to worry about the bullsshite you seem to want to concern yourself with.

In reply to balmybaldwin:



Is it new trident missiles we are getting ? Is it not just new subs ?
The missiles that went wrong are leased from the Americans .

In reply to broken spectre:
>Thank goodness all the major players (the States for example) have adequate checks in place to stop the deranged from getting into power

And thank goodness nobody in a position of power in our country would be so dishonest as to hide a serious issue about their reliability from Parliament during a debate!

In reply to krikoman:



All the more reason why a responsible operator should test the delivery system from time to time.

In reply to JMarkW:


An interesting point, but if you do that how can you escalate when you find shirtless top-ropers in beanies?

In reply to Jim C:


New submarines and new 'missile compartments' - the launch tubes and launch control systems. I think there is an parallel sustainability programme for the missiles and warheads.


No, not leased: we bought a quantity of missiles and the Americans bought a quantity. When they go into the regular, planned maintenance (in the USA), they go into a common pool so nobody necessarily gets back the ones they put in - I assume that is what leads to it being mischaracterised as a lease.

It has been said that if the US decided to stop maintaining them for us, the UK deterrent would fail within a couple of years but I'm not so sure that solid fuel rocket motors fail that quickly. Then, in such an extreme situation, the UK has a big aerospace industry and a lot of experience with rocket motors and guidance - I'm fairly sure a work-around could be devised in time, at a cost and if the political will was there.

In reply to krikoman:

I appear to have stepped into a parallel universe version of "Doctor Strangelove", except not so funny.

In reply to NathanP:
Ok

Interesting, I stand corrected
Edit, I have looked for a source for the purchase of a qty of the missiles Nathan , lots of sources saying leased, which if wrong , is quite embedded in everything I have read.
A link to the source would be good, if you have it handy?
( will save arguments with the FIL who last time we were at a museum with a Polaris Missile , was telling the guide all the names of the parts, what they did, and how to assemble/ dismantle them etc. , just as well they were not in use

Not so sure either , why we could not do them here with some training , my FIL was in missile processing of the Polaris missiles for many years, it was done here using our skills ( and the US manuals. )

In reply to krikoman:


4 Trident subs, one is always hidden somewhere in the world, captain has (I believe) free reign to mosey about wherever he wants within the acceptable hiding places. One usually being serviced and 2 around for training etc. I presume the missile test was one of those 2.

Also I believe the testing was following some kind of upgrade which would need testing if the mods were big enough.

Lastly, I presume that the warheads (even if one had been on the missile) aren't fully armed until they're going towards the right place, in which case you end up with some radioactive material spread about but no nuclear blast. But of course it can all still go wrong anyway.

Don't know whether you're old enough to remember the cold war when nuclear war seemed like a real possibility. The MAD policy (mutually assured destruction) is what all the politicians believed in, and although it really does seem like a mad idea, nobody's worked out anything better unless (and until) all nuclear countries disarm at the same time (ain't going to happen).

In reply to JEF:



The middle east, it's nothing but trouble and nobody seems very happy anyway

In reply to balmybaldwin:


No, but they probably wouldn't buy the next one from the same people.

Some of the reports are saying the last test launch before this failed one was four years ago. If you only run one test every four years and it goes spectacularly wrong you have to assume that there isn't just one problem, most likely there are a bunch of problems that you don't know about because you haven't tested the system hard enough.

I also don't buy that they hid this for national security. You have to assume that the Russians keep a close eye on ballistic missile tests and know when one screws up. They've got satellites watching for the heat signature and probably spy ships getting as close as they can to the test site. The people they are trying to hide this from are us and our representatives in parliament because they thought it might make it harder to get a renewal vote.

In reply to krikoman:

If the missiles were 100% reliable we would never need to test fire them would we?

As for your jumping to conclusions - twit.

The worry is if it's a systemic fault in our aged missiles.

In reply to Jim C:
...


As you say, 'leased' does seem quite embedded. Obviously a UK independent deterrent is very controversial and amongst the arguments used against it is the allegation (false, I think - see "The Silent Deep", Peter Hennessey https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silent-Deep-Royal-Submarine-Service/dp/1846145805) that it is somehow controlled or owned by the USA . It serves that agenda to claim as a fact that the missiles aren't owned by the UK, rely on GPS, have some secret override code or whatever.

From a quick Google:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7353
"The UK has title to 58 missile bodies, which are held in a communal pool at the Strategic Weapons Facility at the Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia, USA. Maintenance and in-service support of the missiles is undertaken at Kings Bay at periodic intervals."

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/slbm/d-5.htm
"On March 11, 1982, agreement was reached between the U.K. and the U.S. to purchase the TRIDENT II missile system. The procurement of D5's replaced the U.K.'s original request of July 10, 1980, to procure C4's."

https://fullfact.org/economy/trident-nuclear-cost/
"In 1998 the Strategic Defence Review estimated that the costs of buying Trident originally had been £12.52 billion. In 2015/2016 prices this is around £18.35 billion."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/uk/d-5.htm
"On 11 March 1982, agreement was reached between the U.K. and the U.S. to purchase the TRIDENT II missile system."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/114we...
"The 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement allows the UK to acquire, support and operate the US Trident missile system. Originally signed to allow the UK to acquire the Polaris SLBM system in the 1960s, it was amended in 1980 to facilitate purchase of the Trident I (C4) missile and again in 1982 to authorise purchase of the more advanced Trident II (D5) in place of the C4."

In reply to krikoman:

The purpose of a test is to look for faults, identify the cause and correct them. In this respect the test was a success. Whether this has any bearing on the wisdom or otherwise of having a nuclear deterrent is another matter

In reply to krikoman:

It's been a funny old day. Mother in law (aged 93, all her marbles and in care home) is on the way out, due to a infections.
At 9am we had the call, "come now, she is fading fast". Inevitably she has rallied this evening and hanging on in there. Well cared for and no pain, but not long.
A friend in the village had exactly the same call (mother in law, but much younger) at 5am today, same situation different age and family.

Threads like this can seem strange when harsh reality is in front of you. Brexit threads, Trump threads are the same, a lot of "what if" around the world. All the posts sink into nothing when confronted with real death, and stuff.

So any black humour or my taking the p*** during the next few days are just me coping with life and death, nothing personal.

In reply to krikoman:

Given the recent revelation that the weapon platform is 'navigationally challenged' and prone to destroy any target other than the one intended, surely it ought to renamed Trydent?

In reply to Gone for good:


This would be a lot more impressive if we knew how many tests there were and they hadn't tried to hide the malfunction. Theresa May seemed determined to fudge on the number of tests. Obviously (hopefully) there will be lots of tests of elements of the system but some newspapers are saying the last launch test was 4 years ago.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

157 successful test flights since 1989. Which is roughly 5 or 6 tests per year. ( no distinction between US and RN)

(According to the Wiki link I posted earlier)

In reply to Gone for good:


Which doesn't rule out the last UK test being 4 years ago since presumably most of the 157 are US Navy tests and presumably the 157 are not evenly spaced since there would be many tests as part of the initial qualification back in 1989 and probably more regular testing during the cold war.

My guess is if there was a good answer like "we have tested this 6 times a year for the last 20 years and every test except this one was successful" then May would have given it rather than dodging and diving.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Trident is post cold war isn't it?

I have no idea why May dodged the questions.
I expect a statement will be forthcoming in Parliament at some point this week.

In reply to Gone for good:

According to Google the cold war ended in 1991. So if Trident II was operational in 1989 then nearly. But I bet there was more focus on nuclear readiness and therefore more testing of nukes in the 90s and that austerity and spending on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made launch testing a 20 million quid rocket a hard sell in recent years.

In reply to Gone for good:


I didn't say you did, to be fair. Interesting information in the wiki link.

In reply to Moley:


Shitty situation.

Don't let the bastards grind you down... As they say.

In reply to NathanP:

Jings! Thanks, I did not expect you to spend so much time on this.

I had read a few of these , I will read the others.

I have no axe to grind, it is just good to know the facts.
If it turns out we only invested in the development ( of the missiles) , and now lease them, then fair enough.

'Trident' or 'Trident system' when used in various items, has become assumed (at times) to mean also the missiles, when sometimes it was only the Submarine delivery system that was actually being discussed.

As far as I know the Trident missiles, have been tested and refined over the years, but he delivery system ( subs) have remained the same.
It may well be that the Submarines are being upgraded by the UK , and the Missiles happen also to be going through an upgrade by the Americans.

The other complication is that there are subs, missiles and warheads, who knows who owns what.
Similar perhaps to the old lease lend act , but only for weapons, and not weapons and food.

Either way, it looks like we are at least wholly reliant for maintenance ( if not in hawk) to the new President of the United States for our independent nuclear defence system.

In reply to krikoman:


No, its absurd to think she should have 'fessed up' like some naughty school girl.

I think you will struggle to find a single top tier military power that would casually release any 'failed' test results that would in anyway put a dent in the credibility of a deterrent based weapons system or any other front line piece of defence equipment for that matter.

Manufactured outrage that is making the Guardian look like tits.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I'm not sure that's true. We're being asked to fork out £40 billion for this - some estimates go as high as £100 billion.

Both the moral argument against and the strategic argument for are both profoundly affected by the reliability - is the thing flying off into the far blue yonder a regular occurrence? I assumed, naively, that these things were tested rarely, and worked 100% of the time; if they are tested regularly and fail, say, 50% of the time (and therefore risk making a very big bang somewhere unexpected) then that is relevant. After all, it's likely our 'enemies' probably know better than the great British public do.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Very true, reminds me of how Fylingdales golf balls (and now the pyramid) aren't shown on OS maps and yet you could see them clearly (and accurately triangulate their position) from the nearby A road.

In reply to krikoman:

If you spent the £31 billion that Trident will cost (with an extra £10 billion they have reserved for overspends) on hospital beds, you would end up with about 51 million hospital beds.

What are you going to do with all these beds? Is this your idea of nirvana? Hospital beds everywhere? Street corners, train stations, pubs, supermarkets, car parks etc....all packed with hospital beds?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I suppose some of the money saved could be diverted to other frivolities like, oh, I don't know, filling in potholes, building power generating tidal lagoons, patching up primary schools, creating better public transport...

In reply to Michael Hood:


I thought they had given up on that now? Least it is the case for Atomic Weapons establishment.
Apparently the rule is if it can be seen from the air then you cant pretend its an empty field since its a tad silly as most online maps have a hybrid image/mapping view.

In reply to krikoman:

Coming in a bit late to this little chat. As a snowflake guardianista, I don't really like the idea of spending tens of billions on nuclear weapons.

However... Has anyone come across an analysis of the likely risks of being hit by an unprovoked nuclear attack, versus the likelihood of being hit by an erroneous retaliation, as nearly happened with that Norwegian research rocket?

It seems logical to me that it's way more likely that the latter would happen, and that not having nuclear weapons would reduce the risk of being retaliated against. But can't find any info on what's more likely.

In reply to RyanOsborne: As I said above, MAD is a mad policy, but nobody's thought up a realistic way to get rid of it.

In reply to Jim C:


Very little time - just a quick Google, as I said, but I'd recently read Peter Henessey's book on British post-war submarines so it was fairly fresh in my mind.


Indeed - if you do want to know a bit more, I really recommend Hennessy's book - I should be charging him for advertising!


No - as I explained and as the links I provided show, we bought the ownership rights to a number of missiles. These go in and out of a shared (with the USN) pool for maintenance so maybe that's where the 'leased' misunderstanding comes from. This was all under the 1962 Polaris agreement, amended in the '80s for Trident.


I can save you a bit of time there. The submarines and warheads are entirely owned by the UK. The submarines are built in Barrow in Furness by BAE Systems, the reactors by Rolls Royce in Derby and the warheads in Aldermaston. There is a lot of design sharing with the US and the warheads are basically a US design.


No: purchased, not leased or leant and I'm pretty sure the WW2 Lease Lend scheme didn't apply to food because the basic principle was that everything had to be given back at the end of hostilities and applying that to food would have been rather yucky.


Reliant for maintenance of the missiles, not 'in hawk' (whatever being in a bird of prey means in this context). Together with design sharing, that has saved a lot of money compared to the French fully independent route. From memory, the UK spends about 50% of what France spends on the nuclear deterrent. With Trump in the White House, I have to say that doesn't seem like a very good trade-off.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


This isn't what was asked for though, is it?


So it's better that she denies any knowledge is it?

Why not just say I know about it, but I'm not prepared to talk about it, makes her look like a siily tw*t to just keep answering a different question.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

So how come the US military didn't have any problem disclosing the failed test to CNN and Admiral Lord West former head of the Navy said keeping it quiet was 'bizarre and stupid'.

There's no secret about an ICBM launch, the Russians will know all about it from their satellites and spy ships just like we know when North Korea fires one off. Florida is the US space coast, doing a launch off the coast of Florida is the opposite of trying to hide it, nobody wants the other side getting nervous when they see a test launch. Lying about a test the Russians can see from their own sensors failed isn't about making the deterrent more credible to Russia, it's about making the deterrent more credible to the people paying for it.

If parliament is to be the authority to sign off a tens of billion pound weapons program then parliament needs to be given the relevant data. A failed test is definitely relevant, not just for whether or not we should have a nuclear deterrent but for which system is best, how quickly we need a replacement and whether enough money is being spent keeping the current system operational.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

they publically announce to all ships and aircraft that might be the launch and landing zones weeks in advance. A no sail zone, rather than the usual no fly zone, the Russians(and others) will have had all their gear in place to watch it!

OP, as for the risk to anyone else, zero they can be remote detonated if something goes wrong mid flight.

In reply to summo:



Except what if the thing that goes wrong also interferes with the remote detonation system

In reply to krikoman:


there could be a million what ifs all at extreme odds, all the probable ones are likely to have been more than accounted for. In the past during the cold war there were literally ten of thousands of nuclear weapons, many operating with much older tech, they've been test fired, transported around the world, spied on or medelled with, fallen from planes accidently etc... not once has a bomb gone off when it shouldn't.

In reply to summo:

Like what if we fire a missile and it goes somewhere different then?

Even remote detonation doesn't make then safe does it?

If you happen to be out in you fishing boat and a big lump of a detonated missile falls on your head doesn't mean you won't die, whether it's been accounted for or not, you're still dead

In reply to summo:


It's been close though. Bit too close if you ask me.

In reply to krikoman:

If we abandoned every single industrial, scientific, mechanical and surgical development just because something didn't go as planned we would still be living in caves!

We learn from it, take whatever action is necessary to try and avoid it happening again and move forward. Its what humanity does, its called progress.

In reply to cragtaff:



That's all well and good but if you happen to think that nuclear weapons are useless bits of shit anyway, then why take a risk on them not doing what you want them to do, when you want to do it?

It's a little bit different than the toaster making you toast a little bit too overdone for your liking.

Nice word choice "humanity", maybe if we were all showed a bit more humanity towards each other, we might not need the bombs in the first place

We could then spend the money on more humanitarian things, like hospitals for instance.

Just a thought.

In reply to krikoman:
Why would we not have Trident when others have nuclear weapons? Are you naive in the extreme

In reply to Jim 1003:


Are all of the other 187 countries that don't have them naive in the extreme?

In reply to Jim 1003:


Why do other non-nuclear states remain non-nuclear when others have nuclear weapons?

While these weapons exist it is simply a matter of time before malice, misjudgment or accident triggers the extinction of our societies. What is the *absolute* worst that could happen if we disarmed and how does that compare?
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:


See Ryan's reply, I don't think I can add anything to that.

In reply to krikoman:


how safe are looking to make it?


given that they test how often, yearly or every four years just one missile...? I think more bits of satellite fall in the ocean every year and people have no idea at all where they will land... I presume you are dead against all forms of satellite tv, communication and refuse to use GPS? because of the associate risk of metal with decay reactors falling from the sky?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


but how close, it's never been close. A nuclear bomb either detonates or a doesn't. It can't half go off! So there have been no accidents, regardless of cause that have resulted in a number explosion of a weapon, correct?

In reply to jkarran:


Because they are part of NATO and come under the shared protection of countries like the UK, France and USA. Many countries not part of NATO are very keen to develop their own and publically acknowledge this fact.

In reply to jkarran:
of the states that might have the ability to develop a system and that are prominent enough to face a confrontation with a powerful opponent how many are protected because they have a nuclear ally or are in a nuclear armed alliance? Japan is facing an increasing and increasingly imminent threat from China and the possibility of Japan developing its own weapons should America cease to protect her interests has been mentioned in the press recently.

This might be one of the more worrying aspects of Trump's doctrine of America First, nuclear aspiration proliferation.

In reply to summo:


How close? Very close.

There have been several armed nuclear weapons lost to aircraft and submarine accidents, some releasing radioactive material, some of those weapons are still at large, condition unknown. There have been weapons tests that have gone seriously awry. There has been deliberate brinkmanship taking us to the very edge of disaster and there have been mistakes, miscommunications and misunderstandings that have done likewise. There has been at least automated threat detection and response system malfunction that would, but for the selfless sacrifice of the junior officer in control that day have ended our world as we know it. That's in just 70 years, we've been to the brink several times. What chance anyone will be having the same conversation in 700 years if we keep up anything like that mishap rate and this level of tension and capability, if proliferation carries on apace? The idea that because there has not been in an accidental thermonuclear detonation that there have been no serious nuclear weapons accidents or that the threat of them is small is risible.
jk

In reply to summo:


Some are, many aren't.
jk

In reply to summo:


Yes, it has been very close. Given the potential loss of life involved, that makes it worrying enough to me.

Just because its been narrowly avoided at the last minute, doesn't mean it's safe.

In reply to Gone for good:

'157 successful test flights since 1989.'

Is that true, i.e. did all 157 flights hit their intended targets, or is it '157 successful tests since 1989'?

There's quite a difference, as a test is deemed successful even if goes t*ts up, because test data is obtained.

The US military routinely used such terminological inexactitude (some would call it 'fibbing') when extolling the virtues of Cruise missiles, which were subsequently discovered to be not quite as accurate or reliable as everyone had been led to believe.

In reply to jkarran:

none of which have result in a nuclear explosion. I'd be more worried about the use of chemical and biological weapons on civilians in the past 10 years, even 12months, than one trident landing in Atlantic once in how often? I think it's about having a sense of scale and proportion over what to be outraged over.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


I bet alcohol or smoking in the UK has killed more people in the past 50 years than both nuclear bombs in Japan. I'm just guessing, but I bet it's not even a close race. How many does Malaria kill... people get outraged over million to one possibilities, when they are certainties kill people around the world right now.


I think because of all the precautions nukes have the highest safety rate of any weapon, how many people have died through a misfired nuke? ZERO! A perfect safety record.

In reply to summo:


And if our government decided to invest £30 billion in a brewery, cigarette factory or mosquito hatchery, I'd be equally unenthusiastic.

In reply to summo:


Perhaps you misunderstand me, I couldn't give two hoots about an occasional misfired test of an un-armed rocket. The only threat that poses so long as all interested parties were kept properly informed (or completely and certainly in the dark) is of embarrassment.


Quite. I'm outraged at the amount of doomsday weapons we keep stockpiled and at the idea we should be replacing them.

https://xkcd.com/1626/
jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I have no reason to disbelieve the figures. Do you?

In reply to jkarran:


4 nuclear subs, with one at sea at any time is hardly a crazy proportion. Anything less is zero.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


the unwillingness to ban smoking or introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol isn't far off amounting to the same thing.

In reply to Gone for good:

Yes I have, if you read my post then you will see why.

In reply to jkarran:


So you acknowledge that a misfired weapon that can be and was remotely detonated isn't actually a problem or risk? If it was armed or not doesn't really changing things that much.

In reply to summo:


Yeah it is, it's miles off.

In reply to summo:

That's a silly argument. How many people have died through conventional weapons being fired accidentally - a few hundred max per year? So *infinitely* more dangerous than nukes.

Until, of course, just one of those mothers goes off, whether by accident, terrorism or Trumpism, and suddenly 100,000s of people die, making up in one go for all the years that conventional weapons have appeared to be more dangerous.

In reply to summo:


Forgive my unfashionable lack of jingoism, by we I refer to homo sapiens.
jk

In reply to summo:
It's been very close to a full nuclear explosion when multiple safeguards failed.

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara put it back then, "By the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/us/north-carolina-nuclear-bomb-drop/

and the conventional bits of two bombs went off in Spain spreading plutonium so they do half go off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

I expect the safety technology has improved since then but humans haven't.

I think the close calls are likely to be very human.

"That time a drunk Richard Nixon tried to nuke North Korea"
http://www.businessinsider.com/drunk-richard-nixon-nuke-north-korea-2017-1?...

There's been alarms in warning systems that were correctly (but sometimes against procedure) disregarded as false alarms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

The Soviets even had a zombie system to if the leadership was destroyed. It was designed to remove the need for launch on warning, but if it went wrong...

https://www.wired.com/2009/09/mf-deadhand/

In reply to jkarran: One of the political drivers is that by replacing Trident, we remain a nuclear power and hence retain our permanent seat (with veto power?) on the UN Security Council.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

OK so its down to semantics, what constitutes a successful test? Quite honestly I don't know how many have gone off course upon test firing in the past 27 years and I suspect you don't know the answer to that either.

I am prepared to accept that sensitive military matters are kept out of the public domain. Theresa May should have been blunt and to the point and told Marr to mind his own business when he kept asking about whether she knew or not before the vote on renewing Trident.

Quite why there is so much exaggerated angst over a malfunctioning unarmed test is an unfortunate reflection of todays society where everybody thinks they deserve an immediate answer to every imagined sleight.

In reply to krikoman:

It is at least an improvement on the previous system

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=polaris+picture&client=ms-android-goo...

In reply to elsewhere:


If you haven't read it, I can highly recommend Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.

It details a whole host of nuclear near misses, including the Goldborough and Spain ones you mention, and the Titan Missile that exploded in a silo (the nuclear warhead landing 100m from the silo) in 1980. Apparently, there have been multiple incidents of nuclear warheads arming themselves because of unforeseen safety issues during accidents and crashes, and even cases of detonation sequences starting. Scary stuff.

In reply to Gone for good:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=royal+navy+trident+launch

It's not sensitive military matters when successful tests are on youtube. Hence the decision to keep quiet about a failure looks like a political decision.

When the PM knew of the failed test is a political question and not a military question.

Deterrence works as long as a potential enemy knows enough of the missiles work.

A test failure is not militarily sensitive unless your deterrent is a bluff because so few of the missiles work.
Trident as a bluff sounds far fetched so it's politically sensitive not militarily sensitive.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

to be fair you have to be sure that the weapons in existence have not prevented deliberate use over the last 70 years or so because that could have led to anything between such numbers and worldwide annihilation, given that they can't be uninvented

In reply to jkarran:



how many G8 nations aren't either nuclear armed, or part of an alliance/defence agreement that brings them under the protection of a nuclear armed power?

In reply to summo:


The famous DPRK fizzle suggests otherwise. I use to dabble in arms control research, so used to be quite clued up on this, long time ago though. I think it is fission happening but not enough to reach critical mass. Otherwise nuclear power stations wouldn't work.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Why? And why if we disarmed would we not still remain a capable member of NATO? We either keep these things and eventually die by them or we start disarming. I'm under no illusions which option we will continue to choose but I don't have to like or support it.
Jk

In reply to jkarran:

i typed a lengthy reply, and the page crashed as i tried to submit it, grrrr...


basically, i suggested that there were two consistent positions: in NATO, and nuclear armed, or disarmed but outside NATO. If we were to remain a member after disarming it seems morally no better to have the world vaporized because somebody pressed the button for us, rather than us pressing it ourselves. article 5, the collective defense clause means that we're all responsible if it goes wrong. also, it just looks like cheapskatery, wanting to have nuclear cover but not being willing to fork out for it.

as to the existence of nuclear weapons- we can't unlearn that E=mc2, so the potential for them to exist will never go away. and when you look back at the 150 years before their development, i dont really want them to- intermittent and progressively more violent confrontations between the major powers marked that era, and i don't see anything that persuades me we've evolved much in the 70 years since then to prevent those sort of conflicts reemerging- quite the opposite. i totally accept that their presence is an ongoing threat to civilisation; and that we've ridden our luck at times. but i think their absence would be too, and they strike me as the worst option, except for the alternatives, to paraphrase Churchill.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Yes, and some of them got invaded, see Ukraine....
Bit of a silly reply you give because most of the 187 countries you refer to cannot have nuclear weapons.

In reply to elsewhere:

So that was a full conventional explosion, zero nuclear?

So despite all your list, even through the low tech cold war error there still wasn't an actual explosion. I could hope that things have improved a little and there are certainly less weapons in circulation now.

Nothing is zero risk and I'm not suggesting so, if we have nukes or not, countries like Pakistan, N Korea, Russia will continue to have theirs, you can't uninvent something. The only solution is spending vastly more money creating the most advance detection system that would shoot down anyone else weapon(which would be immediately countered or obsolete within a decade), or we continue to hold a very modest stock of weapons, with only 1 vessel armed and sailing at any time.

In reply to TobyA:

fizzle isn't the same as the controlling of power stations though. Fizzle is more like when the normal procedure for a full explosion are initiated (not like just dropping it by accident), only something goes wrong and it doesn't achieve the required yield for a full explosion. Often blowing the material apart. So there is still some level of nuclear explosion, just not near the maximum capability. In power stations control rods soak up the neutrons.

In reply to summo:


Robert McNamara said otherwise.

>A nuclear bomb either detonates or a doesn't. It can't half go off!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

In reply to elsewhere:

see above, for fizzle to occur, you still need to carry out all the normal procedures in the first place, dropping it by accident etc.. won't cause it to occur. In the Spanish example even when the explosive charge goes off, because it wasn't a proper initiated explosion there was no fizzle etc...

If the world reaches such a dire state where any nation needs to use any of these weapons again, I'd be quite happy at a failure rate that runs in the thousands to one. I'd be more concerned about NK, Pakistan or older decaying weapons in Russia that aren't maintain or secured very well. Or even the trigger happy Israelis, who clearly have no limits in what they'll do.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's tricky. While I'm taking a strong position here in debate I am not without internal conflict on this nor in denial of the way the world has worked, the challenges and conflict likely to come but I do believe we can ultimately find a path to effective universal nuclear disarmament. If that day comes it is probably centuries in our future, we have a lot of issues to resolve first and a lot of clashes, mistakes and accidents to survive along the way. We will almost inevitably fail and die by our own creations on that path but if we don't choose to start walking it soon, however falteringly there is no hope for our civilisations. The worst conventional war, even a protracted series of them leaves a habitable environment for those that survive, the scars can be healed. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on which is the lesser evil while agreeing neither option is appealing. We haven't evolved much recently but we do have an astonishing capacity to learn and to solve problems. Nuclear weapons are ultimately a problem, not a solution.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
an apposite short story...

SILLY ASSES by Issac Asimov 1957 Columbia Publications, Inc.

Naron of the long-lived Rigellian race was the fourth of his line to keep the galactic records. He had a large book which contained the list of the numerous races throughout the galaxies that had developed intelligence, and the much smaller book that listed those races that had reached maturity and had qualified for the Galactic Federation. In the first book, a number of those listed were crossed out; those that, for one reason or another, had failed. Misfortune, biochemical or biophysical shortcomings, social maladjustment took their toll. In the smaller book, however, no member listed had yet blanked out.

And now Naron, large and incredibly ancient, looked up as a messenger approached.
Naron, said the messenger. Great One!
Well, well, what is it? Less ceremony.
Another group of organisms has attained maturity.
Excellent. Excellent. They are coming up quickly now. Scarcely a year passes without a new one. And who are these?

The messenger gave the code number of the galaxy and the coordinates of the world within it.
Ah, yes, said Naron. I know the world.

And in flowing script he noted it in the first book and transferred its name into the second, using, as was customary, the name by which the planet was known to the largest fraction of its populace. He wrote: Earth.

He said,
These new creatures have set a record. No other group has passed from intelligence to maturity so quickly. No mistake, I hope.
None, sir, said the messenger.
They have attained to thermonuclear power, have they?
Yes, sir.
Well, thats the criterion. Naron chuckled. And soon their ships will probe out and contact the Federation.
Actually, Great One, said the messenger, reluctantly, the Observers tell us they have not yet penetrated space.
Naron was astonished. Not at all? Not even a space station?
Not yet, sir.
But if they have thermonuclear power, where do they conduct the tests and detonations?
On their own planet, sir.

Naron rose to his full twenty feet of height and thundered,
On their own planet?
Yes, sir.

Slowly Naron drew out his stylus and passed a line through the latest addition in the small book. It was an unprecedented act, but, then, Naron was very wise and could see the inevitable as well as anyone in the galaxy.
Silly asses, he muttered.

In reply to TobyA:


With a thermonuclear weapon they typically have a fission bomb as a 'primary' which detonates first, and then you get a complicated process where by the 'secondary' fusion fuel assembly is heated and compressed by the fission explosion, and eventually reaches a stage whereby a fusion reaction starts.

I guess the complexity of it is such that the fission explosion is relativity easy to achieve, but it will completely destroy the secondary stage if the design is wrong.

The first British Thermonuclear tests failed like that (yield far lower than expected), probably the NK one too.

In reply to krikoman:

It's great that some people have total confidence in being told that nuclear weapons keep us safe and that accidents are very rare and if they do occur they are very low risk.

This is the same thing we're told about nuclear power, yet we have Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi, all very safe and low risk.

According to Wiki - there are 479 nuclear power plants in the world yet there are estimated 10,000 in Russia and the US alone.

I can see the need for nuclear power plants.

In reply to krikoman:

Hardly anyone has died as a result of nuclear power, lots have died because of conventional power generation. Likewise relatively few people have died due to nuclear weapons, far (far, far) more have died from conventional weapons. So we need more nuclear power and more nuclear weapons.

In reply to jkarran:


yes, it is. i absolutely wouldnt want to be characterised as being enthusiastic about them. i think people's beliefs on nuclear weapons probably come down to an extent on their basic view of humanity- you have got a more positive view than me i think! The two world wars in the 30 years before their invention saw the deaths of somewhere around 80 million people, with the great flu pandemic in 1918 thought to have been exacerbated by the degradation of infrastructure, healthcare systems, and malnutrition arising from the conflict- a further 50 - 100 million died in that.

Of course, a nuclear conflict between major powers would be an order of magnitude worse; but i think its a balance between the possibility of annihilition if such a conflict were to happen, and a very high likelihood that there would be another massive conventional conflict between major powers if armageddon wasn't the inevitable outcome. ukraine, the south china sea, syria- all these have the potential to escalate, and are much more likely to if the US, china and russia weren't aware of where it would lead. factor in competition for increasingly scarce resources in future and i think conflict is inevitable at some stage; i think we need the nuclear weapons to stop it sliding into war.

in the long term, i agree- how many bullets can we reasonably expect to dodge? though just to be even more gloomy, i think climate change is a bigger threat to civilisation as we understand it at present in the medium term, and that threat just got larger with Trump's election.

god that's a bit bleak....

i'm off to look at some videos of cats, or something...!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Some would say that the biggest threat comes from the development of AI and what happens when AI intelligence escalates to way past ours. Apparently the most likely threat is not a Terminator type situation, but more likely to come from innocuous poor control of AI from a seemingly benign area. See the "What but why" website/blog.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Well it's nice to end a thread in some sort of agreement
jk

In reply to Sir Chasm:


in comparison to what?

In comparison to not being dead, loads of people have died!!

In reply to krikoman:



You actually bothered to delete the second half of the sentence in order to appear stupid, well done.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


How many people have died from using mobile phones while driving? and yet we're making laws and are, rightly, outraged. It's about need versus risk, I happen to think we're at more risk from having nuclear weapons than not having them.
from JK above "While these weapons exist it is simply a matter of time before malice, misjudgment or accident triggers the extinction of our societies. What is the *absolute* worst that could happen if we disarmed and how does that compare?"

In reply to krikoman:


More than have been killed by misfired nuclear missiles?

In reply to krikoman:


I’m not outraged, but if you want to be outraged that’s ok. And if you want to have a law saying it’s illegal to fire nukes while driving, except in an emergency, that’s ok too.


I don’t accept that it’s inevitable that nukes will cause society’s extinction (although society will obviously become extinct at some point I bet you £10 it won’t be due to nukes) and while London remains one of the world’s financial centres I don’t think that getting rid of trident will make us any safer. I don’t live in fear of Armageddon, it barely merits a couple of lines on here, other views are available.

In reply to krikoman:
>What is the *absolute* worst that could happen if we disarmed and how does that compare?"

Something like Putin feeling a bit bold and say marching into Lithuania before coming up against now non-nuclear NATO troops and getting bogged down. What is then to stop him deciding to use a nuclear weapon (he's certainly not disarming) against say Berlin, or London, to sort things out. Possibly repeated.

In reply to MG:


Still leaves most of Russia, Europe and the Americas habitable.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

If you think it stops there. It's a judgement between something like that (cf WW1 and 2) or the belief that having strategic weapons does produce an uneasy stability, but huge potential consequences of non-rational people like Jong-Un or Trump screwing up

In reply to MG:

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this. Yes they obviously have strategic use that has and will likely prevent a lot of bloodshed but I don't believe that outweighs the long run risk. I could be wrong.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Not sure what we are disagreeing on, really.

In reply to MG:



What possible use would it be to him to nuke Berlin or London?

In reply to krikoman:


Especially given that the combined US/UK/Europe could take out most of Russia with conventional missiles. This whole 'without nukes you're a lamb to the slaughter' line is BS.

In reply to krikoman:
Do you not think it might stop NATO support for Lithuania? Use of tactical nuclear weapons is explicit in Russian military doctrine. Similarly do you think without US nuclear backing N Korea would be so reticent about attacking South Korea? I'm not arguing for or against Trident here but it does pay to be realistic about the effects these weapons have on behaviour. There are plenty of leaders who are not "nice" or particular concerned about killing lots of people, but are concerned about their own and their country's annihilation,

In reply to RyanOsborne:


And vice versa. This sort of situation is exactly what nuclear weapons are intended to avoid!

In reply to krikoman:

Just got the new private eye, it gives details of other failed tests and us information on their stock. It seems trident had reached its design life, so maintenance costs will increase. They claim it wasn't known in the debate on the replacement and if it was, there could have been a different result.

Interestingly one of the arguements against British nuclear deterrent is that the Americans would always support us and have more. I think with trump that has changed and the threat from Russia has increased with their games in Ukraine, China is being confrontational in the south China sea so I'm happy that we are looking after ourselves.