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.
I'm sure you"re right about NK. Other major powers though? Nah. It's arguable of course but an independent nuclear deterant with NATO greatly complicated an aggressor's stategy, so it is said.
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.
I'm sure you"re right about NK. Other major powers though? Nah. It's arguable of course but an independent nuclear deterant with NATO greatly complicated an aggressor's stategy, so it is said.
As it happens, I don't much care either way about Britain's nuclear deterrent. I'm not sure it's necessarily particularly meaningful when we are allied with other nuclear powers. But, unlike some people, I don't have a complete bladder failure when the word "nuclear" is mentioned, and don't think it's particularly harmful.
I just wanted to point out that either way, using North Korea to make a case is a sh*t argument.
FA - thiz might interest you: did you ever study polar wandering curves? The magnetic fields in rock stata can be out of whack as they were either disturbed or they were fixed at a time when the Earth's poles were positioned differently.
It is possible to use these anomalies to hide submarines from MAD. Also, changes in water density can mask the presence of subs.
For a long time the Soviets used the mid-Atlantic ridge as a sort of submarine highway because of both of these factors and because their nav systems were a bit primitive and the ridge was easy to follow. Lots of nice trips to the Azores for the Maritime Patrol aircrew.
I didn't study that stuff, no. But you're right, it is interesting. I'd think that places along the thermohaline circulation, which has different characteristics to the surrounding water, would also be good for concealing subs. Obviously, toddling around under the icecap has to be good concealment.
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.
Honestly, underwater drones. Why would they be any more effective than existing ASW techniques? It's like ASW as presented by Judith Hann and Raymond Baxter.
Honestly, underwater drones. Why would they be any more effective than existing ASW techniques? It's like ASW as presented by Judith Hann and Raymond Baxter.
As has been pointed out, the Parliamentary debate is about building new submarines. The deal on the Trident missiles and the warheads has already been done. The Trident missiles are property of the United States Navy and are rented out to the UK from the stockpile at US naval base Kings Bay, Georgia. The warheads are assembled by American defence contractors, Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering at their British plant at Aldermaston. Despite the UK, and practically all of the countries of the world, being signed up to nuclear disarmament through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is no prospect of it actually happening. It is, therefore, inevitable that conflict involving the use of nuclear missiles will take place. Taiwan is quite a likely trigger point from which conflict could escalate to world war. Another zone of potentially escalating conflict is the border between NATO countries and Russia.
Do you have a link to the Trident missile agreement under which the US Navy supplies the Royal Navy with Trident missiles from the US Navy stockpile at Kings Bay?
Do you have a link to the Trident missile agreement under which the US Navy supplies the Royal Navy with Trident missiles from the US Navy stockpile at Kings Bay?
I think if I did, we'd both be off to Gitmo. Suffice it to say that they're leased, not rented. I don't think that's controversial or disputed.
The Polaris Sales Agreement was signed in Washington in 1963 between the UK and the USA. You can find the text of that online. The Trident missile agreement is supposed to be similar but amended to fit the new circumstances. The problem is finding the amendments and the terms and conditions and the true cost. It's not top secret but it's all very well hidden.
