Tony Blair at it again

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unfortunately, modern thermonuclear weapons are significantly more powerful. The only hope is that conventional military bombs will somehow catch up and replace them in many military applications.

Being of the advanced age in years that I have to bear, may I go back as far as 1961 and bring the Russian nuclear weapon known as "Tsar Bomba" into the discussion.

 

[Johnuk123]

As regards the Trident system it's true in theory that we could actually use them without telling anybody.
They are made and serviced by the Americans and even tested in USA waters, so if we ever decided to fall out with the USA we'd soon have nuclear submarines of no use at all.

The chances of us ever launching one without American approval is so unlikely as to be virtually nil.

We are the only nuclear capable country that depends on another to be able to use them.

 

[Monty]

The rockets are maintained by Lockheed Martin in the US that is correct but the warheads remain firmly on British soil. If we did have a falling out with the Americans I am confident that BAE systems would be able to step in and do the work themselves.

 

[Johnuk123]

The rockets are maintained by Lockheed Martin in the US that is correct but the warheads remain firmly on British soil. If we did have a falling out with the Americans I am confident that BAE systems would be able to step in and do the work themselves.

That may be true but neither I or you know if that's possible.

 

[Monty]

Anything is possible, it all depends on £££. BAE have their fingers in so many pies there is virtually nothing they couldn't do. The rockets themselves aren't the tricky bit it's the pointy bit at the end.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That may be true but neither I or you know if that's possible.

I often wonder where Doctor Strangelove is currently residing...

 

[Johnuk123]

I often wonder where Doctor Strangelove is currently residing...

Played brilliantly by the superb Peter Sellers.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

If there is someone Id like to put in room 101 it's Tony Blair

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Anything is possible, it all depends on £££. BAE have their fingers in so many pies there is virtually nothing they couldn't do. The rockets themselves aren't the tricky bit it's the pointy bit at the end.

You mean the same BAE Systems that is partly owned by the Americans? I sometimes wonder what they did with the ~£250million BAE had to pay the US in fines...

As regards the Trident system it's true in theory that we could actually use them without telling anybody.
They are made and serviced by the Americans and even tested in USA waters, so if we ever decided to fall out with the USA we'd soon have nuclear submarines of no use at all.

The chances of us ever launching one without American approval is so unlikely as to be virtually nil.

We are the only nuclear capable country that depends on another to be able to use them.

Absolutely correct. Anyone who still thinks the UK is some kind of superpower or has any ability to act without US permission is living in a dream world.

 

[Monty]

You mean the same BAE Systems that is partly owned by the Americans? I sometimes wonder what they did with the ~£250million BAE had to pay the US in fines...

Absolutely correct. Anyone who still thinks the UK is some kind of superpower or has any ability to act without US permission is living in a dream world.

BAE, like many truly multinational companies aren't really British or American. They have multiple headquarters for a number of subsidiaries, BAE systems Ltd for example is an entirely separate entity from BAE systems Inc in the US. They also have countless numbers of shareholders from all four corners of the globe. Any work of a sensitive nature would be carried out by the British subsidiary with no American input.

I at not point claimed what we are a superpower and really wish people would read what I have posted properly. All I am trying to state is Britain's Nuclear deterrent is independent from the US, the warheads are designed and built here in the UK, the launch codes are held by the British Government and the weapons themselves are guarded by the Royal Marines and MOD police and not by US airmen as is the case with countries that still part of the nuclear sharing treaty.

As for gaining actual approval from the US to launch them I'd love to know what scenario people are thinking of where this would happen? We and everyone else for that matter have a number of facility's that monitor every inch of airspace for a possible nuclear launch, say for example we did detect such a launch from Russia do you really think the PM would be wasting precious time chatting with the President to ask that it's okay to retaliate? If anything the President would be too busy speaking on the hotline in a small chance to avoid the approaching catastrophe. These missiles take a matter of minutes to reach their targets from the silos or submarines they are launched from and time cannot be wasted to ask the world police if it's okay to launch our own weapons. But we all know that isn't the point of having these things in the first place, the theory is that these weapons will never actually see use and it's worked out pretty well for the last half century.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If we did have a falling out with the Americans I am confident that BAE systems would be able to step in and do the work themselves.

I'm confident that there would be a "backdoor" into the systems that would make them useless.

There was in the Falklands War, with the French giving us information that made the Argentines' Exocet missiles and Mirage fighter jets useless.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm confident that there would be a "backdoor" into the systems that would make them useless.

There was in the Falklands War, with the French giving us information that made the Argentines' Exocet missiles and Mirage fighter jets useless.

There were quite serious problems to the British task force caused by those items to which you allude. For example, how did the SS Atlantic Conveyor with its cargo of military requirements meet its demise, if not by being struck by no less than two of those Exocet missiles ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

There were quite serious problems to the British task force caused by those items to which you allude. For example, how did the SS Atlantic Conveyor with its cargo of military requirements meet its demise, if not by being struck by no less than two of those Exocet missiles ?

I suspect that was before they got the codes.

I'm only going on the words of Defence Secretary Sir John Nott.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I suspect that was before they got the codes.

I'm only going on the words of Defence Secretary Sir John Nott.

I think a considerable amount of damage had been done by then. Stable doors, bolts and all that..

Is that the same John Nott who stormed out of an interview when his sensibilities had been offended by a TV presenter ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Very probably. These Tories are very temperamental beasts.

 

[Bill Stanier]

Dear god it's like talking to a parrot, let me try to say this to you one last time. You made NO mention of politics in your initial post when it came to our capability to deploy our weapons independently.

Sometimes one has to repeat the point for the less quick to grasp it. You still haven't.

I didn't mention that night follows day, either. Some things are just 'bleedin obvious' to quote Monty Python (parrots again).

That deployment of nuclear weapons or not will be heavily influenced by politics comes under that banner. Why do I need to explain that to you?

 

[Monty]

Sometimes one has to repeat the point for the less quick to grasp it. You still haven't.

I didn't mention that night follows day, either. Some things are just 'bleedin obvious' to quote Monty Python (parrots again).

That deployment of nuclear weapons or not will be heavily influenced by politics comes under that banner. Why do I need to explain that to you?

I am acutely aware that the deployment of Britain's Nuclear Deterrent is shaped by politics you don't need to explain that to me. But being 'influenced by politics' (one can argue that it's influenced just as much by our relations with Russia and China than just the USA) is a world away from David Cameron phoning up Obama and asking if it's okay to either send a SSBN on patrol here and launching the rockets there. The sole point I have been trying to make is that the weapons are securely stored here under lock and key by our armed forces and ultimately launched by our governments say so.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

BAE, like many truly multinational companies aren't really British or American. They have multiple headquarters for a number of subsidiaries, BAE systems Ltd for example is an entirely separate entity from BAE systems Inc in the US.

BAE Systems plc is 9% owned by American investment companies.

Any work of a sensitive nature would be carried out by the British subsidiary with no American input.

Even though the US design our warheads and deal with the exchange of material essential for manufacture? Or that our delivery systems are US manufactured and US owned technology?

All I am trying to state is Britain's Nuclear deterrent is independent from the US

See above, our nuclear deterrent is not independent from the US.

We and everyone else for that matter have a number of facility's that monitor every inch of airspace for a possible nuclear launch

We do indeed. We had the US owned Ballistic Missile Early Warning System and now we've got a number of different, US owned, systems.

say for example we did detect such a launch from Russia do you really think the PM would be wasting precious time chatting with the President to ask that it's okay to retaliate?

Hopefully, because it's probably a mistake - as seen in 1979 and 1983.

If anything the President would be too busy speaking on the hotline in a small chance to avoid the approaching catastrophe. These missiles take a matter of minutes to reach their targets from the silos or submarines they are launched from and time cannot be wasted to ask the world police if it's okay to launch our own weapons.

Which is the exact reason not to immediately launch missiles - as negotiation and diplomacy can win.

But we all know that isn't the point of having these things in the first place, the theory is that these weapons will never actually see use and it's worked out pretty well for the last half century.

The absence of nuclear war does not mean that the nuclear deterrent works (aside from the two nuclear weapons already dropped in combat anyway). That was in the 20th century anyway. In the 21st century, the battle is not between two global superpowers but between terrorist organisations and countries. They will not be as "deterrable". To quote Ward Wilson:

Some people try to make the case for nuclear deterrence not by explaining its theoretical basis but by simply pointing to its track record. They assert that nuclear deterrence prevented nuclear attacks for the thirty years from 1950 to 1980 and claim that that is proof enough of its efficacy. There are problems with this, however. In order to answer the question, ‘‘did deterrence work?’’ you must first be able to know whether your opponent had a fully formed intention to attack and then refrained from doing so because of your threat.

 

[swj99]

A tit again ?

I've never been convinced that removing Saddam was a good idea, because it stirred up a hornets nest and created a vacuum. We're now seeing the terrible results of that. For Blairo to suggest that what's happening now is due to a failure to act on Syria is crazy.

 

[Monty]

BAE Systems plc is 9% owned by American investment companies.

9% is hardly a controlling interest, and besides who's not to say there are British investment companies doing the same thing with US defence contractors?

Even though the US design our warheads and deal with the exchange of material essential for manufacture? Or that our delivery systems are US manufactured and US owned technology?

The US did not design the current warhead we use, the link you have posts only mentioned a proposal to develop a new warhead jointly.

See above, our nuclear deterrent is not independent from the US.

On what basis? That we share the delivery systems with the USN from a joint pool and they are sent to Lockheed Martin for overhaul?

We do indeed. We had the US owned Ballistic Missile Early Warning System and now we've got a number of different, US owned, systems.

We also have RAF Flyingdales which forms a part of the BMEWS but it's a UK owned facility. It's interesting you mention NORAD, as that isn't entirely a US operation as it's a joint enterprise with the Canadians.

Hopefully, because it's probably a mistake - as seen in 1979 and 1983.

Which is the exact reason not to immediately launch missiles - as negotiation and diplomacy can win.

No system is ever completely fool proof, especially in those early years of computers. I imagine in this day and age false alarms of impending Armageddon are extremely unlikely.

The absence of nuclear war does not mean that the nuclear deterrent works (aside from the two nuclear weapons already dropped in combat anyway). That was in the 20th century anyway. In the 21st century, the battle is not between two global superpowers but between terrorist organisations and countries. They will not be as "deterrable". To quote Ward Wilson:

I'd be more inclined to be worried about states such as Egypt and Saudi getting the bomb that terrorist organisations. Yes that's is a threat and one you cannot counter with conventional deterrence but that does not mean the concept is obsolete and should be stopped. It's a grave mistake to assume that conventional warfare is dead and we will only fight isometric ones against insurgents. Events in Ukraine still show there is potential for yet another large scale conflict in Europe in the future.

 

[Bill Stanier]

..... is a world away from David Cameron phoning up Obama and asking if it's okay to either send a SSBN on patrol here and launching the rockets there.

Indeed, but that's a scenario only in your head. I never said that, or anything like it, except for the US-owned nuclear weapons on Nimrod.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed, but that's a scenario only in your head. I never said that, or anything like it, except for the US-owned nuclear weapons on Nimrod.

Were not the Nimrod planes retired in 2011 ?

 

[Bill Stanier]

Were not the Nimrod planes retired in 2011 ?

April 2010 for the MR2s. The R1s lasted a couple of months longer.

 

[Johnuk123]

April 2010 for the MR2s. The R1s lasted a couple of months longer.

Without doubt one of the most appalling acts of vandalism ever on the armed forces, along of course with scrapping the Harriers.

 

[Bill Stanier]

I know we're getting a bit off topic, but it's worth pointing out that when the MR2s were withdrawn the Nimrod MRA4 was expected to be in service within a short time.

However, that project was cancelled in the defence review. Probably correctly, actually, as it was way over budget and program and no sighn of being fit for service. It was a daft project, using the original MR2 fuselages with a new wing and engines. The olde fuselages were hand-built, each a bit different, and didn't fit the new wings. And having flown low over the ocean since the late 1960s were full of corrosion which had to be replaced with new metal. Would have been cheaper and quicker to start with a new aeroplane!

Agree about the Harriers, though. It was ridiculous to ground them. A very capable aeroplane with decades of use left in it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I know we're getting a bit off topic, but I agree about the Harriers, though. It was ridiculous to ground them. A very capable aeroplane with decades of use left in it.

Since this is a rail-related website, one could tentatively suggest that if the DfT ran the Defence ministry, noting how they view life expectations of rolling stock, the Harriers would indeed be "being counted in and counted back", in the immortal words of a TV personage during the Falkland War campaign, for many years to come.

 

[Bill Stanier]

Since this is a rail-related website, one could tentatively suggest that if the DfT ran the Defence ministry, noting how they view life expectations of rolling stock, the Harriers would indeed be "being counted in and counted back", in the immortal words of a TV personage during the Falkland War campaign, for many years to come.

Oh, I don't know. Look what happened to those very capable locos, the class 87 once they were displaced from the WCML. 86s are older technology and are still around, 90s are less reliable and are still around!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oh, I don't know. Look what happened to those very capable locos, the class 87 once they were displaced from the WCML. 86s are older technology and are still around, 90s are less reliable and are still around!

That is the point that I was hoping that my comparative "sideswipe at the DfT" posting was making....