• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

UK to Replace Independent Nuke Warheads

#2
The nukes and the warhead 'bus' that guides them are British, all be it built to a US design - if they weren't we wouldn't need Aldermasters. The vauge assersion that:

"Documents obtained from the libraries of successive US presidents show that the US has not only supplied Britain with nuclear weapons designs but also with some of the nuclear explosive materials at the heart of the warheads."

Could mean anything - and even if it did indicate that the shaped explosives used in the primary plutonium implosion was US-sourced it wouldn't matter: that stuff lasts forever.

The missiles themselves are good for up to 18 months without US support, but in reality the date is I suspect more generous than that, and if needs be anything but replacing the core components on the missile body or the fire control system (also American) could be 'improvised'. All jokes aside we retain one of the most advanced defence industries on Earth, and quiet plans will have been made for such an eventualty. Sub-contracting just means we don't have to maintain a fully-fledged support infrastructure.
 
#3
parapauk said:
The nukes and the warhead 'bus' that guides them are British, all be it built to a US design - if they weren't we wouldn't need Aldermasters. The vauge assersion that:

"Documents obtained from the libraries of successive US presidents show that the US has not only supplied Britain with nuclear weapons designs but also with some of the nuclear explosive materials at the heart of the warheads."

Could mean anything - and even if it did indicate that the shaped explosives used in the primary plutonium implosion was US-sourced it wouldn't matter: that stuff lasts forever.

The missiles themselves are good for up to 18 months without US support, but in reality the date is I suspect more generous than that, and if needs be anything but replacing the core components on the missile body or the fire control system (also American) could be 'improvised'. All jokes aside we retain one of the most advanced defence industries on Earth, and quiet plans will have been made for such an eventualty. Sub-contracting just means we don't have to maintain a fully-fledged support infrastructure.
Nicely put. However, I can't help but think of the justifications put forward in the 1930s.

I do hope you are right.
 
#4
The difference between then and now is that there are only three reasons I can see the UK needing nuke or the threat of their use:

1. If we were attacked by WMD's from another state. That would most likely be a bolt from the blue, and so the issue of the US withdrawing support for our missiles wouldn't be an issue. In any case, the US knows that anyone trying to exterminate us will also ultimately have the US is its sights.

2. A conventional invasion we had no chance of stopping - zero prospect to an extent not seen in over 2000 years

3. A threat from beyond Earth - laugh but if you want to think of EVERYTHING, this must be covered. That would either be a case of being shafted from day one, or, in the case of point one, not a problem we'd be left to deal with ourselves.
 
#5
parapauk said:
The difference between then and now is that there are only three reasons I can see the UK needing nuke or the threat of their use:

1. If we were attacked by WMD's from another state. That would most likely be a bolt from the blue, and so the issue of the US withdrawing support for our missiles wouldn't be an issue. In any case, the US knows that anyone trying to exterminate us will also ultimately have the US is its sights.

2. A conventional invasion we had no chance of stopping - zero prospect to an extent not seen in over 2000 years

3. A threat from beyond Earth - laugh but if you want to think of EVERYTHING, this must be covered. That would either be a case of being shafted from day one, or, in the case of point one, not a problem we'd be left to deal with ourselves.
You have greater confidence in the European Soviet Union than I do! It's late, I'll be pleased to come back to this.
 
#6
we do not even have the capability to produce the explosives used in the warheads since labour allowed BAe to close our last explosives plant.
 
#7
That's inaccurate, Ski. We still have several concerns that produce explosives in this country.


Problem is that the anti-terrorist boys keep closing them down....
 
#8
Brill .........................if it stays under UK Command
Tony Blair and NEW LABOUR have already signed up to the EU defence plan that states ''UK Nuke Subs, Armed Forces Etc will come under EU COMMAND'' in due course.

UK TAX PAYERS GET THE BILL.
 
#9
I wonder what will happen 2 years hence, Cons control England, SNP control SWcotland, not much room for Trident in sunny Faslane.

Fact is our 'independent' deterrent would last about 5 minutes without US support - how 'independent' is that? Is it worth the cost to maintain a fiction nobody in the rest of the world is convinced by? We're only fooling ourselves...
 
#10
So by your own argument then we either need to cancel the whole lot or invest much more money into it and make it a wholly national effort. At present I generally support the current option but if it came down to one of the two options I'd probably pick the latter simply because we have no idea what the world will look like in ten or twenty years.
 
#13
Fact is our 'independent' deterrent would last about 5 minutes without US support - how 'independent' is that? Is it worth the cost to maintain a fiction nobody in the rest of the world is convinced by? We're only fooling ourselves...
Read. Learn.
 
#14
anybody know what's stopping us doing the same as France - is it can't afford or won't afford? They don't seem to suffer for it and their aircraft are all "in house"

btw I see the bloke's got to get his dig in "working for a nuclear-free world as an already, essentially, non-nuclear state." - the unilateral option/CND view together with a word of support for Obama...
 
#15
Hello,

I believe we have had a team of young engineers designing our new warheads for sometime.
Their work was said to be more advanced than the American's new warhead.

Given the nature of the upgraded Trident missile we are likely to be getting,the submarines and warheads are likely to make up the bulk of the cost and they will be made here.


tangosix.


Edited to add that even developing nations which are recipients of British aid can afford to develop their own warheads and delivery systems.
We could certainly afford it if we wished to go it alone and were prepared to finance it.
However,we do save a great deal of money by using the Trident system.
I have never been a fan multinational defence procurement projects,they have a very poor record,but given the high cost spread over a small number of missiles it would make sense for the British,Americans and French to develop a new missile between them.
 
#16
cheers Tango Six

tangosix said:
even developing nations which are recipients of British aid can afford to develop their own warheads and delivery systems.
We could certainly afford it if we wished to go it alone and were prepared to finance it.
aha! Good point.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
The Indians, Pakistani's, Iranians and North Koreans can all develop and support their own nuclear weapons, and yet the UK can't even make proper helicopters . . . or am I just being picky?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
1.New warheads to take us to 2050 .. we'll need new boats too, long before then.

2. Most disturbing is the idea that we pay for all this and then limply hand control to Brussels. It must be absolutely clear to anyone who can read A B C that in the event of a nuclear strike solely on the UK and US Brussels would sue for peace and surrender asap. Ihave always thought that the apparent Soviet doctrine of a central armoured thrust through Northern Europe was the wrong thing to do; if I had been Ivan I would have planned to nuke out all the UK's port and airport facilities and then watch Europe roll over to have its tummy tickled.

3. The idea of an extra-terrestrial attack is just plain ridiculous moonshine.
 
#19
Well as much as I'd like to see an anti ufo missle system .Its would have to be really impressive :D .Is there any threat to the uk ?Buying it just in case seems a bit of a waste of money .
 
#20
1.The new boats are 100% British, as the current Vanguard class are.

2. We arn't handing over the keys to the EU. And how much would have been left of the USSR if they 'just' nuked the US and UK? There would be no Russia for the EU to surrender too.

3. True, but on the other hand if in 2000 you'd pitched a movie idea depicting 19 hijackers penetrating the entire US security system, hijacking 4 planes, taking down the two largest buildings in NYC, and leaving a gaping hole in the Pentagon, you'd have been laughed out of the 20th Century Fox studios for trying to sell something so implausable.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top