Our nuclear deterrent- does it work?

[Dog Star]

I’ve often wondered in the past about this, but I’m actually rather more concerned now given recent events.

We gave up our independently developed nuclear weapons and basically “share” some from the US pool that are serviced in the US and loaded onto our subs.

We are now in a situation where we are basically being provided with our weapons by what is arguably a hostile state (at leadership level anyway) and would appear to be aligned with Russian values - the very people these weapons were developed to protect us from.

How do we know these things will actually work and detonate? Can the US remotely deactivate them? Have we got a load of subs floating around and what’s really inside those missiles is, to quote Doc Brown, a load of used pinball machine parts that cost us billions?

[Scrump]

‘ Our nuclear deterrent- does it work?’
As a deterrent - yes

[IanH755]

Just to clarify - whilst the Trident missile itself is loaned from a US/UK pool, the Nuclear warheads that sit inside each missile are still UK built/owned - just to clear up any potential misunderstanding that the US may have "owned" our nukes.

[Dog Star]

IanH755 said:

Just to clarify - whilst the Trident missile itself is loaned from a US/UK pool, the Nuclear warheads that sit inside each missile are still UK built/owned - just to clear up any potential misunderstanding that the US may have "owned" our nukes.

Ah - forgive my misunderstanding- so the actual warheads are completely home grown of our own design? And The US provides the launch vehicle?

Thats a bit more reassuring.

[Scrump]

Dog Star said:

Ah - forgive my misunderstanding- so the actual warheads are completely home grown of our own design? And The US provides the launch vehicle?

Thats a bit more reassuring.

See here:
https://www.awe.co.uk/

[MC Bodge]

Dog Star said:

We are now in a situation where we are basically being provided with our weapons by what is arguably a hostile state (at leadership level anyway) and would appear to be aligned with Russian values - the very people these weapons were developed to protect us from.

Give it a week or so, and everything will have changed again, depending what it is that their leader will have seen on YouTube Shorts or TikTok.

[turbobloke]

Dog Star said:

IanH755 said:

Just to clarify - whilst the Trident missile itself is loaned from a US/UK pool, the Nuclear warheads that sit inside each missile are still UK built/owned - just to clear up any potential misunderstanding that the US may have "owned" our nukes.

Ah - forgive my misunderstanding- so the actual warheads are completely home grown of our own design? And The US provides the launch vehicle?

Thats a bit more reassuring.

So is the fact that the USA isn't a hostile state at any level. Trump calling out Starmer (on whatever) is nothing we at home haven't realised for 8 months. NIK is a waste of space.

[bloomen]

turbobloke said:

So is the fact that the USA isn't a hostile state at any level.

Not our enemy of course, but it's going to move in a direction that will increasingly diverge from our own.

de Gaulle saw this decades ago and refused to allow the US or NATO anywhere near France's nuclear forces.

If Europe tries for its own nuclear umbrella it's hard to see how the UK will be able to contribute to it without US approval with things as they are.

[LivLL]

If any country actually needs to use its Nukes we're all fked.

[Wills2]

LivLL said:

If any country actually needs to use its Nukes we're all fked.

Indeed, but they are very good deterrent towards a country that would think nothing of putting 10-20 million people into a meat grinder to wear you down with conventional forces, Russia has form for that historically and as we can see at the moment currently, the only way to deter people that don't value their own citizens lives is by threatening their existence directly.

[MC Bodge]

Wills2 said:

Indeed, but they are very good deterrent towards a country that would think nothing of putting 10-20 million people into a meat grinder to wear you down with conventional forces, Russia has form for that historically and as we can see at the moment currently, the only way to deter people that don't value their own citizens lives is by threatening their existence directly.

This week's tactic appears to be more along the lines of allowing the Iron Curtain to be reinstalled wherever Russia likes.

Trump loving good ol' boys may or may not care.

Who knows what next week's tactic will be?

[Skeptisk]

If Ukraine had still had its Nukes would Russia have attacked in 2014/2022?

[Digga]

OP, ISWYM.

Who should we test one on?

[2xChevrons]

Dog Star said:

Ah - forgive my misunderstanding- so the actual warheads are completely home grown of our own design? And The US provides the launch vehicle?

Thats a bit more reassuring.

Obviously the specific details and operations of the Trident missiles themselves, the subs and the protocols/procedures surrounding them are very classified, but information that is in the public realm states that:

1) The launch vehicle (the 'rocket' part) is supplied and maintained by the US in a common US/UK pool, and that the number of missiles, the time required for servicing and the rate at which they go in and out of service means that it is not feasible for shadowy influence in the US to say "these are the ones that will go on the Brit subs - fill them with pinball machine parts".

2) The warhead is British made. It used to be that our warhead was somewhat different to the American one but that is no longer the case - we make a full clone of the American warhead. It has been said that if, for whatever reason, the technical partnership between the US and the UK suddenly ended we would be able to maintain production of the warhead and building the launch vehicle is the (relatively) simple part.

3) Each Trident missile is entirely self contained when it comes to navigation. It has an an inertial guidance system which is primed with the position of the sub before launch and then tracks its own movements internally from launch to target. The missile also takes astro 'shots' to confirm its position and trajectory at the top of its arc. So it's not like the Americans can block a GPS signal or something.

[bloomen]

Digga said:

Who should we test one on?

Clear out Diego Garcia. Let rip.

Solve two ball aches at once.

[Digga]

bloomen said:

Digga said:

Who should we test one on?

Clear out Diego Garcia. Let rip.

Solve two ball aches at once.

I was thinking more Islington, or Westminster.

[MC Bodge]

Digga said:

I was thinking more Islington, or Westminster.

Some people have become so patriotic that they want to destroy the national government and the capital city.

Things are certainly moving fast.

[bloomen]

Digga said:

I was thinking more Islington, or Westminster.

That would be harder to pull off safely.

And a bit more expensive too.

[LordLoveLength]

We also have (US supplied) cruise missiles which can be air, sea or submarine launched and fitted with nuclear warheads.

And we don’t have Corbyn in charge declaring he won’t use a nuclear weapon which was the single biggest threat to our deterrent.

[Digga]

MC Bodge said:

Digga said:

I was thinking more Islington, or Westminster.

Some people have become so patriotic that they want to destroy the national government and the capital city.

Things are certainly moving fast.

To be fair, Slough would do.

Sorry for the loss of your sense of humour.

Edited by Digga on Saturday 22 February 14:18