Trident

[auldhippy]

So before voting, I’d urge MPs to think about this: would you vote for Trident if we didn’t have it already? Imagine you were presented with plans for a brand new weapon that could kill millions but would never be used, that contravenes international treaties and that presents a genuine risk to our population, and takes precious money away from our vital public services. Would you even consider voting for such a proposal if those weapons weren’t already in place?

Britain’s history as a nuclear weapons state does not have to dictate our future. These missiles shouldn’t be our bargaining chip on the world stage. I am voting against Trident because I believe that we are safer without weapons of mass destruction in our country. I hope a majority of MPs join me in doing the same.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-recent-report-showed-13-times-nuclear-weapons-were-almost-launched-accidentally-its-time-to-scrap-a7141296.html

&

Monday's report focuses on cases in which nuclear weapons came close to being launched deliberately on the basis of bad or incomplete information. However, there is an additional risk of accidents inherent in the maintenance of stockpiles of more than 17,000 warheads held by Russia, the US and the other seven nuclear-armed states.

Some of those accidents were described in a book published last year, entitled Command and Control.

Author Eric Schlosser gives an account of an incident in September 1980 in Damascus, Arkansas, in which a maintenance engineer dropped a socket wrench into a silo holding a Titan II nuclear missile, igniting its fuel and triggering an explosion which sent the warhead flying. It landed near a road but did not detonate.

In an earlier accident in January 1961, a B-52 bomber broke up over North Carolina, dropping its two nuclear bombs over the town of Goldsboro. One of the bombs activated, engaging its trigger mechanism. A single low-voltage switch was all that stood between the eastern US and catastrophe.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/nuclear-accident-near-misses-report

&

However, a revolution in underwater drones, as well as advances in sonar, satellite and other anti-submarine warfare systems, mean that even totally silent submarines are likely to become detectable. Some sensor technologies can detect large submerged objects by monitoring small movements of surface water.

Experts warn that as the capabilities of detecting systems improve and their cost falls, large-scale remote and potentially autonomous sensor deployments become possible. The result is that the world’s oceans will become increasingly transparent, seriously calling into question the UK’s heavy reliance upon the Trident submarine programme for its nuclear deterrence

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/trident-nuclear-deterrent-under-threat-from-underwater-drones-expert-warns-a6786946.html

&

The submarines HMS Vanguard and Triomphant collided in the Atlantic Ocean in the night between 3–4 February 2009. Both are nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. The Royal Navy's HMS Vanguard and the French Navy's Triomphant both sustained damage, but no injuries or radioactivity releases were reported.[1] At the time of the collision, both vessels were submerged and, according to the UK Ministry of Defence, moving "at very low speed"; both are equipped with active and passive sonar, although only the latter is used on an operational patrol.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision

[auldhippy]

SIR – With David Cameron’s announcement of a parliamentary vote on the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system, we the undersigned British scientists and engineers call upon MPs to vote against retaining these weapons of mass destruction but to support other actions to reduce the nuclear threat.

We are deeply concerned about the continuing global threat from nuclear weapons – which currently number over 15,000 in nine nations. All nine nuclear-armed nations are currently engaged in modernisation programmes, with international tensions, terrorist activity and cyber-security threats all exacerbating the risks posed by these weapons. Yet at the same time renewed multilateral nuclear disarmament efforts – supported by most of the world’s countries through the United Nations – are making important progress. The UK government’s current position is to modernise Trident, but not to take part in these multilateral negotiations.

Hence we call upon MPs to press the UK government to:

Take a full role in multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The UK should support new multilateral negotiations and join more than 130 other nations endorsing the UN Open Ended Working Group, which is working towards a treaty banning nuclear weapons.
End continuous patrols by Britain’s nuclear-armed Trident submarines, and put the weapons into storage. The UK’s current policy is to keep at least one Trident submarine on patrol 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Such a submarine carries nuclear weapons with more fire-power than all the bombs dropped in World War II, equivalent to around 300 Hiroshima bombs, and enough to cause at least 10 million casualties and a ‘nuclear winter’ – global climate disruption so severe it could lead to a famine for two billion people. Such a system is not immune to technical or human error – of which there have been many during the nuclear age. Nuclear deterrence postures cannot defend against such errors, creating a huge risk, especially given the growing cyber-security threats. Removing these weapons from deployment would provide a major impetus to the international multilateral negotiations described above.
Use its political influence to strongly encourage US and Russian governments to take their nuclear weapons off “high-alert” status. Senior military figures from across the world have recently spoken out about the considerable dangers of the current practice of the two leading nuclear powers that keep 1,800 nuclear weapons – enough to end civilisation many times over – able to be launched at a few minutes’ notice. Such a practice is also increasingly vulnerable to cyber security threats.
Cancel the Trident “successor” programme. This programme would not only help to continue the dangers outlined above until at least the 2060s, but would also be hugely expensive. The renewal of the UK’s nuclear weapons system is now estimated (based on government figures) to be around £200 billion over its lifetime. There are many other urgent demands on such a large sum – especially given increasing international instability due to problems ranging from climate change to aggressive religious fundamentalism. Furthermore, new technological developments in underwater drone technology and other anti-submarine warfare mean that nuclear-armed submarines will become increasingly vulnerable to conventional attack.

As scientists and engineers – professions which are central to the development and deployment of nuclear weapons – we feel a particular responsibility to speak out. These weapons are uniquely dangerous and yet there is little urgency from the nuclear-armed nations to reduce the threat from the weapons they themselves deploy. This must change, and the UK could, and we think should, take a leading role.

Professor Sir Michael Atiyah

Professor Keith Barnham

Professor Roy Butterfield

Professor Jon Crowcroft

Professor Anne Christine Davis

Professor John Finney

Professor Denis Hall

Professor Stephen Hawking

Professor Peter Higgs

Professor Jenny Nelson

Professor John Nye

Professor Lawrence Paulson

Professor William Powrie

Professor Steven Rose

Dr Stuart Parkinson
Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility

Dr Philip Webber
Chairman, Scientists for Global Responsibility

www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/07/14/letters-anxieties-about-theresa-mays-convictions-have-been-dispe/

[jimboky]

The world has been a safer place since Nukes then it was without them, WW1 and WW2 happened before nukes,

These agreements will not stop a North Korea from getting and using them, in a perfect world there would not be any need for any military, you could ban nukes, war ships, war planes, tanks, and guns,

[auldhippy]

Jul 17, 2016 12:59:57 GMT jimboky said:

The world has been a safer place since Nukes then it was without them, WW1 and WW2 happened before nukes,

These agreements will not stop a North Korea from getting and using them, in a perfect world there would not be any need for any military, you could ban nukes, war ships, war planes, tanks, and guns,

Say what?

Our having nukes won't stop NK having or using them either but our having them makes them want them.

However the upcoming vote isn't on disarmament but on replacing the missile delivery system that exclusively relies on stealth that likely it won't have.

[jimboky]

you scraping them isn't going to cause NK to scrap theirs either, what is more stealth then a Boomer Sub? they can hide out for weeks off any shore

[reverend]

Bullshit, NK is not looking at the UK and saying "we must have nukes because the uk has" NK sees them for what they are, a power broker in their own region!

[reverend]

Jul 17, 2016 13:22:24 GMT jimboky said:

you scraping them isn't going to cause NK to scrap theirs either, what is more stealth then a Boomer Sub? they can hide out for weeks off any shore

Hippy does not have the foggiest idea how difficult it is to detect submarines, he obviously fails to grasp just why they sometimes bump into each other!

But no doubt he will be googling his ass off now and then proclaiming his absolute knowledge, like he always does!

[auldhippy]

Jul 17, 2016 13:22:24 GMT jimboky said:

you scraping them isn't going to cause NK to scrap theirs either, what is more stealth then a Boomer Sub? they can hide out for weeks off any shore

Highly unlikely that stealth will remain an advantage beyond a couple of years let alone the 30 years we are investing for. Seismic detectors, satellites, underwater drones and more recently water displacement detection will render stealth an impossibility which renders the entire programme useless

It is not a given that possession deters but it's an absolute certainty possession make you a target. Why give NK a reason to nuke us?

[auldhippy]

Jul 17, 2016 13:26:34 GMT reverend said:

Jul 17, 2016 13:22:24 GMT jimboky said:

you scraping them isn't going to cause NK to scrap theirs either, what is more stealth then a Boomer Sub? they can hide out for weeks off any shore

Hippy does not have the foggiest idea how difficult it is to detect submarines, he obviously fails to grasp just why they sometimes bump into each other!

But no doubt he will be googling his ass off now and then proclaiming his absolute knowledge, like he always does!

I likely have considerable more knowledge than you and googled all this long ago when I started many other threads on this subject. I have been a member of CND since 73

The whole object of Trident is stealth, we already have seismic detectors all around the planet, underwater drones are evolving at a rate of knots, nuclear vessels have a unique signature that satellites can detect and cannot operate safely more than an an hour distant from a surface vessel (that is the time they have to deal with reactor problems before they sink to the bottom and in the case of a meltdown to the core of the planet).

It's complete lunacy to take 49 nuclear weapons, surround them with the most flammable combustible known to man, then place them around a nuclear reactor and then site its base in one of the most busy waterways in our country. Our Gov has never denied that at least one of the missiles carries only one warhead allowing for first strategic use

Only one Scottish MP supports Trident, Scottish Labour oppose Trident.

It doesn't deter, it isn't safe, it won't have stealth and doesn't meet any threat we currently or are likely to face.

[perrykneeham]

"most flammable combustible known to man,"

Haha! Oh dear.

[auldhippy]

Jul 17, 2016 17:06:46 GMT perrykneeham said:

"most flammable combustible known to man,"

Haha! Oh dear.

Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

The propellant is the most combustible known and it's wrapped around multiple nuclear warheads.

[perrykneeham]

Yeah, you're right. I should be ignoring you.

[auldhippy]

That can only save you further embaressment

[reverend]

Jul 17, 2016 13:53:03 GMT auldhippy said:

Jul 17, 2016 13:26:34 GMT reverend said:

Hippy does not have the foggiest idea how difficult it is to detect submarines, he obviously fails to grasp just why they sometimes bump into each other!

But no doubt he will be googling his ass off now and then proclaiming his absolute knowledge, like he always does!

I likely have considerable more knowledge than you and googled all this long ago when I started many other threads on this subject. I have been a member of CND since 73

The whole object of Trident is stealth, we already have seismic detectors all around the planet, underwater drones are evolving at a rate of knots, nuclear vessels have a unique signature that satellites can detect and cannot operate safely more than an an hour distant from a surface vessel (that is the time they have to deal with reactor problems before they sink to the bottom and in the case of a meltdown to the core of the planet).

It's complete lunacy to take 49 nuclear weapons, surround them with the most flammable combustible known to man, then place them around a nuclear reactor and then site its base in one of the most busy waterways in our country. Our Gov has never denied that at least one of the missiles carries only one warhead allowing for first strategic use

Only one Scottish MP supports Trident, Scottish Labour oppose Trident.

It doesn't deter, it isn't safe, it won't have stealth and doesn't meet any threat we currently or are likely to face.

LMAO, utter bollocks!

[reverend]

Jul 17, 2016 17:26:41 GMT auldhippy said:

Jul 17, 2016 17:06:46 GMT perrykneeham said:

"most flammable combustible known to man,"

Haha! Oh dear.

Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

The propellant is the most combustible known and it's wrapped around multiple nuclear warheads.

oh dear, as usual hippy is an expert in his own mind, like hippy thinks he's an expert of everything and yet obviously knows very little!

[reverend]

Jul 17, 2016 18:44:32 GMT auldhippy said:

That can only save you further embaressment

Yep, reading the rubbish you write leaves us embarrassed for you!

[flatandy]

I'm pretty sure that when the North Koreans decide to use their nuclear devices, they aren't going to use them on Britain, and Britain's deterrent is not foremost in their minds.

[perrykneeham]

Pretty confident Trident could reach NK. Not sure NK's offer would get out of the garage.

[flatandy]

I'm pretty sure the NK's don't care if Trident can get to Pyongyang. If they use a nuke it'll be on Seoul, Tokyo or the US west coast. And by the time Britain "reacts", NK will be made of glass from the US deterrent. Trident is utterly redundant in any discussion of NK. NK aren't bombing Britain, and if they're getting deterred it's by huge numbers of missile silos in Wyoming and South Dakota.

[perrykneeham]

Gotta chuckle at the "experts" telling us how the stealth characterics of subs are a thing of the past in order to add "weight" to their argument that further investment is a waste of money.

Good luck tracking subs under the icecap. Honestly, you'd think that professional submariners and ASW specialists would realise that they've just been wasting their careers.