Trident: Should a PM scrap it (and some other defence issues)?

[najaB]

We could "share" deterrence with the French, if our subs are getting a little old always ensuring there is either a French or SsBN sub on patrol at all times ( sometimes both) - didn't they talk about this at some point in the past. To prevent gaps in coverage?

I can't envisage a situation in which the UK and France would be at odds as to if to deploy strategic nuclear weapons. A Russian attack on the Falkland Islands or French Polynesia maybe?

Edit: I presume that our SSBNs use a dual-key launch strategy, so perhaps could we have a French key holder on our boats and one of ours on the French boats?

 

[ainsworth74]

Its too late now, but what we should have done, IMHO, is to have not brought the f35 at all, our carriers were designed first as conventual catapult launch, we should have stuck with it, and licence built with Saab, a maritime version of the Gripen, with RR engines, upgraded software and able to operate in ground attack as well as maritime missions, We could have then, become export partners with Saab, to build export versions of the JAS39.

The carriers were designed to operate in the way they are currently operating. Conversion to conventional catapult launch with arrested recovery was considered an option but it was not a designed in option and would have required considerable expenditure to implement. That's quite apart from higher operational costs of conventional carrier operations in terms of training and maintenance of extremely perishable landing and recovery skills.

Is there even a maritime version of the JAS39?

No. It would no doubt it would be possible to design one but it would have been extremely costly to do so with few other potentially purchasers other than ourselves (the only people in that game are the French, Americans and Chinese everyone else operates some version of short take off and either vertical/rolling landing or arrested recovery) and that order would likely only ever run to under-100 airframes at the absolute best.

Basically the idea of the Royal Navy operating conventional cats and traps carriers, whilst extremely appealing, would have involved a hell of a lot of expenditure at a time when budgets were famously not exactly flush with cash. If people think the Navy is in a state now I can only imagine the pound of flesh that HM Treasury would have extracted to fund the procurement of cats and traps carriers and airwings.

There's a reason that the Government u-turned at high speed when they did initially play with the idea of completing Prince of Wales as a conventional carrier...

How you can look at Ukraine and make that statement is beyond me.

Quite, it's one of the reasons that support for Ukraine is so critical. If Ukraine is allowed to be dismembered by a nuclear power in a war of territorial expansion then any other middle power that has a nuclear neighbour is going to be rushing to get a hold of their own nuclear deterrent. Because it turns out that's the only way of ensuring your own security. Does anyone fancy living in a world where there are even more nuclear weapon states? Then Ukraine has to be given everything needed to allow it to win.

We could "share" deterrence with the French, if our subs are getting a little old always ensuring there is either a French or SsBN sub on patrol at all times ( sometimes both) - didn't they talk about this at some point in the past. To prevent gaps in coverage?

Impossible, that forgets who the nuclear deterrent is really supposed to protect us against:

(Links to YouTube video of Yes Minister bit where Hacker is told by Sir Humphrey that the deterrent isn't to protect the UK from the Russians after all...)

 

[Ediswan]

Edit: I presume that our SSBNs use a dual-key launch strategy, so perhaps could we have a French key holder on our boats and one of ours on the French boats?

From what I have seen, UK nuclear weapons have never had US-style complicated technological launch procedures. UK SSBNs use a hand-held pistol grip on a curly cord. The crew is treated as trustworthy.

 

[ainsworth74]

Edit: I presume that our SSBNs use a dual-key launch strategy, so perhaps could we have a French key holder on our boats and one of ours on the French boats?

Yes I believe that two keys are required to unlock the relevant systems. Not that I can ever foresee nuclear sharing at this level. It's been done (and is done) with tactical nuclear weapons that are shared with NATO by the United States (to ensure that only when both the US President and the host nation have signed off can they be used). But I don't think anyone has shared strategic nuclear weapons in this way.

From what I have seen, UK nuclear weapons have never had US-style complicated technological launch procedures. UK SSBNs use a hand-held pistol grip on a curly cord. The crew is treated as trustworthy.

US SSBNs have the same launch procedures as UK SSBNs including the pistol grip controller. There is a higher delegation of launch authority to UK SSBNs as they can fire without needing specific codes as we have not used Permissive Action Links on our warheads unlike the United States. But there remains dual-key (i.e. you need two people to agree to unlock them) requirements to unlock the relevant systems. That's the only significant difference in launch procedures between a UK Trident boat and a US Trident boat.

Seeing as this is ostensibly a thread about the Labour Party and Andy Burnhams leadership I wonder what he's written in his Letters of Last Resort?

 

[Ediswan]

US SSBNs have the same launch procedures as UK SSBNs including the pistol grip controller. There is a higher delegation of launch authority to UK SSBNs as they can fire without needing specific codes as we have not used Permissive Action Links on our warheads unlike the United States. But there remains dual-key (i.e. you need two people to agree to unlock them) requirements to unlock the relevant systems. That's the only significant difference in launch procedures between a UK Trident boat and a US Trident boat.

OK, I agree about two people needing to agree. It is the US ICBM silo type of system where two keys need to be turned at the same time I had in mind as not being used. Two different types of 'dual-key'.

 

[najaB]

From what I have seen, UK nuclear weapons have never had US-style complicated technological launch procedures. UK SSBNs use a hand-held pistol grip on a curly cord. The crew is treated as trustworthy.

As far as I'm aware they still require two-person operation of the triggers. Happy to be corrected.

 

[quantinghome]

It is very much a point of difference between the parts of the labour party. Decent, hard working, patriotic folk on one side and the prune juice drinkers on the other

You are George Orwell and I claim my £5.

 

[m0ffy]

Going in with France would be extremely tricky from a doctrinal point of view. On paper, all nuclear powers but one are committed to only retaliatory strikes (yeah, I know). France is the only one to officially pursue a nuclear first strike doctrine.

 

[DarloRich]

Edit: I presume that our SSBNs use a dual-key launch strategy, so perhaps could we have a French key holder on our boats and one of ours on the French boats?

That is treason and I will not stand for it!

As far as I'm aware they still require two-person operation of the triggers. Happy to be corrected.

I think the firing officer (?) is the only one who pulls the tigger so to speak. it is a two person check & agreement process to get to that point. There was a BBC radio documentary by Peter Hennessey on it several years ago which I now cant find.
( his book on the secret state is worth a read if you haven't already)

Seeing as this is ostensibly a thread about the Labour Party and Andy Burnhams leadership I wonder what he's written in his Letters of Last Resort?

Surely there can only be one instruction: Fire ( otherwise what is the point? - if you have got as far as opening the letter than there isn't much of the UK left! You have to shoot back, surely? You cant have millions dead in the UK and allow the Soviets to walk away)

PS - that briefing has got to be fairly sobering. I imagine it happens quite soon after you get to Downing Street.

Welcome to No.10 PM. Congratulations. The Chief of the Defence staff is waiting to brief you on how you can end the world and exactly what will happen to you and your family if the balloon goes up. This way PM. Bring your pen. You have some letters to write!

( My writing is so bad they would spend hours trying to break the code! )

 

[gabrielhj07]

Maybe we could have bought the Rafale instead which is definitely carrier capable... (if we had cats and traps on the 2 carriers). Buying fighter jets from the French..... would have resulted in some performative outrage from the Express, Mail, Telegraph etc

[Sae this aircraft display at Cosford last month! Brilliant aircraft]

There is probably still some bad blood between the our defence industries & France, on the basis that the Rafale only came to be via Dassault having a tantrum about not being in charge of the Eurofighter project.

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely there can only be one instruction: Fire ( otherwise what is the point? - if you have got as far as opening the letter than there isn't much of the UK left! You have to shoot back, surely? You cant have millions dead in the UK and allow the Soviets to walk away)

That's not what my letter would say! If the UK has been nuked then deterrence has failed and there's probably not much of any UK left to speak of. What's the point of incinerating a few million random Russian civilians? If there is anyone left to write some history I'd rather the UKs final chapter didn't end with: "And then as part of the orgy of violence and death that spasmodically gripped the northern hemisphere the UK's final act was to ensure that millions of people who did nothing wrong but live in Moscow and St Petersburg died alongside them". Of course I wouldn't tell anyone that in public, if asked them it's full throated burn 'em all. The only answer you can give!

PS - that briefing has got to be fairly sobering. I imagine it happens quite soon after you get to Downing Street.

Yes, I think it's basically item one once they've done the bit to camera outside, been welcomed to applause by the No. 10 staff they're taken to the Cabinet room sat down, given the security briefly and handed four pieces of paper and a pen. I reckon it's quite a good check in the way that joke candidates are (but in a very different fashion!). I always reckon having to stand on stage at a leisure centre at 3am having your political fate announced stood next to a man with a bin on his head and another guy wearing a fox suit is a good corrective to the ego running away with oneself. I think the new PM being almost immediately sat down on their return from the Palace and asked to contemplate their orders in the event the UK has ceased to exist is an excellent way of instantly hammering home the seriousness of the job they've just got.

 

[edwin_m]

PS - that briefing has got to be fairly sobering. I imagine it happens quite soon after you get to Downing Street.

Straight after they feed Larry.

 

[gabrielhj07]

That's not what my letter would say! If the UK has been nuked then deterrence has failed and there's probably not much of any UK left to speak of. What's the point of incinerating a few million random Russian civilians? If there is anyone left to write some history I'd rather the UKs final chapter didn't end with: "And then as part of the orgy of violence and death that spasmodically gripped the northern hemisphere the UK's final act was to ensure that millions of people who did nothing wrong but live in Moscow and St Petersburg died alongside them". Of course I wouldn't tell anyone that in public, if asked them it's full throated burn 'em all. The only answer you can give!

Important bit in bold. Deterrence only works if the enemy believes you’ll use it.

 

[najaB]

Important bit in bold. Deterrence only works if the enemy believes you’ll use it.

Hence why the Soviets were quite keen to play up the existence of Dead Hand / Perimiter - which, if it actually existed, was an automated system that would trigger a retaliatory launch command if Moscow was hit.

 

[DarloRich]

That's not what my letter would say! If the UK has been nuked then deterrence has failed and there's probably not much of any UK left to speak of. What's the point of incinerating a few million random Russian civilians?

You are a better man than me! I would like to say that but I just couldn't. What's the point? People in Birmingham and Manchester did nothing wrong either. You cant turn the other cheek sadly.

Anyway - for the letters to be looked at the entire political and military apparatus of the UK would have had to be taken out in a sneak attack. In a non sneak nuclear attack I would give the order to fire if I was certain the missiles were inbound. I might shoot myself afterwards mind.

(Again, I think at that stage there is no choice & I suspect that if you didn't give the order one of the nuclear deputies would be asked to do so on the grounds you were incapable)

EDIT - the interesting question would be what happens if the submarine captain doesn't follow the instruction in the letter. What if he decides: We have no communications, we have no idea what is going on, we have no idea who fired first, we have no idea what's or who is left: I will make the decision.

 

[Sorcerer]

I'll gladly decommission our nuclear weapons as long as everybody else agrees to do the same. Unfortunately the nations with the largest stockpiles have leaders who already demonstrated a willingness to disregard past agreements relating to foreign conflict and nuclear proliferation, so until then Trident stays.

 

[DarloRich]

I'll gladly decommission our nuclear weapons as long as everybody else agrees to do the same. Unfortunately the nations with the largest stockpiles have leaders who already demonstrated a willingness to disregard past agreements relating to foreign conflict and nuclear proliferation, so until then Trident stays.

agreed!

 

[Bald Rick]

Going in with France would be extremely tricky from a doctrinal point of view. On paper, all nuclear powers but one are committed to only retaliatory strikes (yeah, I know). France is the only one to officially pursue a nuclear first strike doctrine.

There’s a rumour that they are also the only nation with reversing lights on their subs….

 

[m0ffy]

There’s a rumour that they are also the only nation with reversing lights on their subs….

As they say, the French copy no none and no one copies the French.

 

[43096]

As they say, the French copy no none and no one copies the French.

An unusual place to say this, but Informed Sources' Sixth Law applies here as well: "Don’t engage in joint ventures with the French".

 

[quantinghome]

As they say, the French copy no none and no one copies the French.

Hmmm. Let's not mention Magnox...

 

[m0ffy]

Hmmm. Let's not mention Magnox...

There are exceptions…. Magnox is a useful reactor design for producing weapons grade material, hence why North Korea borrowed heavily from (stole) the design.

 

[JamieL]

I think it is amazing that in 2026 there is a thread suggesting we should give up our nuclear deterrence. It is totally tone-deaf to the current geopolitical situation. Thankfully both the SDR and the DIP have taken the correct view hence why we are increasing our nuclear forces, not reducing.

 

[HSTEd]

There are exceptions…. Magnox is a useful reactor design for producing weapons grade material, hence why North Korea borrowed heavily from (stole) the design.

The Magnox design was not stolen, as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty North Korea was entitled to technical assistance in operating (what was claimed at the time to be) a peaceful nuclear reactor programme.

In the 1990s there was actually a partially completed 200MW electric Magnox station under construction in the country that was abandoned in exchange for aid during the famine of the period.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the case. It's worth noting though that even at port, as long as the ship is capable of putting to sea in days rather than weeks, a SSBN can still provide a somewhat-credible second-strike capability since it's exceedingly unlikely that a Russian attack would come out of the blue.

Except by gapping the continuous-at-sea deterrent, you've created an enormous incentive for a Russian attack to come out of the blue.....

If any kind of crisis appears, no matter how trivial, there is now an overwhelming advantage on offer - strike now and win the war with negligible casualties.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Indeed, just as in railways, micro-fleets are a great way of spending a lot and getting a little.

My feeling is that this decision is probably driven ensuring we can maintain an active nuclear deterrent. Vanguard class submarines are having to take very long patrols, likely due to aging boats needing longer maintenence, and delays to the Dreadnought class may be risking compromising the continous at sea deterrent.

But I don't think the F-35A purchase does not actually provide the UK with a deterrent.

They are US bombs kept under guard by US troops at all times until the US Government consents to their use.

My view is that the F-35A purchase is primarily part of the ongoing turf war between the RAF and Royal Navy over fixed wing aviation.
The objective of the purchase is to provide the RAF more control over the Lightning Force, with the ultimate objective of subverting it as they did the Sea Harrier force under "Joint Force Harrier".

As to the F-35 generally, I would not expect any more purchases any time soon, given that it's been a year since the US actually turned out a fully operational airframe, and are now delivering USAF and USMC aircraft without radars.

The Technology Refresh 3 and Block 4 upgrade is a complete debacle.

 

[najaB]

Except by gapping the continuous-at-sea deterrent, you've created an enormous incentive for a Russian attack to come out of the blue.....

If any kind of crisis appears, no matter how trivial, there is now an overwhelming advantage on offer - strike now and win the war with negligible casualties.

In theory, yes. But I struggle to imagine a scenario where relations between Russia and the UK would go from zero to thermonuclear in just a few days. It's not like the Cold War where we were often hours away from things kicking off.

I also struggle to come up with a scenario where a Russian attack on the UK wouldn't invoke a response from NATO (and France in particular).

 

[Stathern Jc]

In the run up to the Scottish Parliament Election in May I had a scan through a flyer from a "peripheral candidate" (out of curiosity rather than any remote interest), as it made its way from the doormat to the recycling bin.

The narrative was along the lines that Scotland should scrap (not decommission) the nuclear deterrent, and negotiate a peace treaty with Russia.
Just what sort of terms they are likely to propose accepting from a future Putin to obtain a "peace treaty", and to what extent anyone could expect one to honoured, just doesn't bear thinking about.
Absolutely cuckoo!

 

[MicroLithium]

I imagine that conversation would go somewhat like this.

Extract from Yes Prime Minister with the PM suggesting cancelling Trident.

People always seem to forget that the message of that episode was that buying Trident wasn’t sensible - Jim’s plan to cancel it and invest in conventional forces was foiled by army politics and international relations

 

[speedy1]

In the run up to the Scottish Parliament Election in May I had a scan through a flyer from a "peripheral candidate" (out of curiosity rather than any remote interest), as it made its way from the doormat to the recycling bin.

The narrative was along the lines that Scotland should scrap (not decommission) the nuclear deterrent, and negotiate a peace treaty with Russia.
Just what sort of terms they are likely to propose accepting from a future Putin to obtain a "peace treaty", and to what extent anyone could expect one to honoured, just doesn't bear thinking about.
Absolutely cuckoo!

Material sponsored by Russia no doubt (albeit quite indirectly)

 

[Trackman]

I also struggle to come up with a scenario where a Russian attack on the UK wouldn't invoke a response from NATO (and France in particular).

An accidental nuclear attack, which some experts reckon is the biggest risk.

 

[najaB]

An accidental nuclear attack, which some experts reckon is the biggest risk.

I don't count that as an attack since, by definition, it was an accident. I don't think that lacking a second-strike capability really matters that much in that situation.